http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25558285

Was wondering what you folks thought of the above article?

Jim

We need to use science not emotion to manage game! The problems we are haveing in general, which includes game management, are a result of the extreme enviornmentalst haveing their way ALL THE TIME. It needs to stop before it gets worse. This problem is just one of many problems caused by this attitude.:mad:

Guess the wolves aren't doing their job.:rolleyes:

I hope it's not lost on anyone, the fact that this brucellosis problem originated in Yellowstone where hunting is not legal, and where man is not considered an integral part of nature.

Can't quite follow the logic of the rancher that said there were 'too many elk' when the Yellowstone herd that moves north out of the park into Montana has been reduced by some 8000 or so animals (believed to be reduced by wolves). Emotion I'd guess, rather than logic, when his livelihood is in question. Game managers should be able to respond to this effectively, but apparently won't be allowed to respond.

Jim and Shawn have it right. The emotion needs to be discarded and the scientists allowed to figure out what's really happening? There will be probably turn out to be some nominal range of population density, independent of food supplies, that is best for the health of the herds. Too dense, and infection spreads too easily; too thin, and the wolves, in conjunction with one harsh winter, could decimate them. It could even turn out they need to get out their tranquilizer guns and load them with vaccine and inoculate enough cows with that to keep the population healthy? Who knows? But let them do their jobs. You have to wonder, with 8,000 missing now, if they haven't already let the pendulum swing too far to the thin side for best effect?

Why not just pull all the grazing leases from all that public land surrounding Yellowstone in order to reduce the chance of cattle/elk contact? Me thinks the Cattlemen's Association is the puppet master on this one...

Jim

Well, I donno as there is not near enough information in the article to make any decent judgment, but if elk or Buffalo need to be culled they should be shot by sportsmen and not by paid government hunters. That seems far more of a win win situation, hunters perhaps get a chance at an animal and the states make a buck in the process. If you hire Government hunters to do it, it will just cost tax money, plenty of it, and the loss of maybe a once in a lifetime hunting opportunities.

Why not just pull all the grazing leases from all that public land surrounding Yellowstone in order to reduce the chance of cattle/elk contact? Me thinks the Cattlemen's Association is the puppet master on this one...

Jim

And possibly help put another rancher out of business, that maybe allowed hunting on his deeded non-leased property? I have no idea if that's the case, but it could be, and if so, the rancher may sell out to some entity that locks up the property to any hunting. Doesn't sound very good to me Dakota.

On the other hand, if it's a rancher that never allowed hunting on his property and is now complaining about 'too many elk', then too bad! But as MarlinF indicated, we just don't know what the case is here.

When done properly the Brucellosis vacine goes a long ways to protect the cattle in contact with the infected Elk and Bison. As a young guy I was raised on a few ranches, a Bangs tag was in all the heifers' ears you intended to keep. It could be that way again. It's alot better than killing the Elk and Bison IMHO

Marlin, You nailed it. The 'shooters' should be us!!!

Marlin, You nailed it. The 'shooters' should be us!!!

This is really the point. Haven't been to Yellowstone in a few years. But, WOW, last time I was there ... WAY too many elk.

In saner times, hunters would be allowed to take care of the problem. Now we have to use government shooters. Why ? Because even if it the culling is allowed, there's no way the animal rights people would let anybody have any fun.