Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Proposes to Sell Out Wildlife During Drought
Fleecer Mountain Wildlife Management Area is one of the places MDFWP proposes “emergency livestock grazing.”
The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP) announced that due to the extreme drought conditions across Montana, it would open up some wildlife management areas (WMA) to livestock grazing and haying. And it will keep any WMA currently being grazed or hayed open for that use, despite the drought’s effects on wildlife.
Some of the most critical wildlife management areas are included in this proposal, including Blacktail, Fleecer Mountain, Nine Pipes, Smith River, among others.
Heavy grazing reduces cover to “golf course” height that provides no benefit for wildlife. Photo George Wuerthner
If there is any time when wildlife needs the limited production of vegetation that occurs during a drought, it is now. During a severe drought, grass production is reduced up to 1/3 of what might otherwise occur on a site. And now MDFWP is proposing to put even that limited vegetation into the bellies of exotic animals as grazed forage or hay.
Wildlife is more than elk and deer. Many species are harmed by haying and grazing, including amphibians when hiding cover is eliminated or wetlands are trampled. . Photo George Wuerthner
If there is an emergency it is that wildlife is suffering from drought conditions. And I must remind MDFWP that wildlife is more than elk and deer. Amphibians like frogs are harmed when riparian areas are damaged. Ground squirrels and hares are harmed when cows consume limited forage. Ground nesting birds like grasshopper sparrows are harmed when ground cover is removed exposing them to predators.
Governor Gianforte is pushing MDFWP to make the forage available, although wildlife management areas should put wildlife needs first. To add insult to injury, MDFWP proposes to allow all grazing for free. In other words, ranchers will not be charged a cent for the forage, and you can bet they will not have to pay anything for any damages done to these areas by haying or grazing.
In their draft environmental assessment, Emergency Grazing and Haying Leases on Select FWP Wildlife Management Areas, the Department lists a few presumed benefits of haying and grazing while downplaying the negatives, mostly claiming they will be short-lived. Though it does admit in a final paragraph: “There may be debate by some as to the nature of the impacts of the Proposed Action, as there are varying perspectives as to the effectiveness of workings lands approaches to habitat improvement and conservation.
In short, the Department recognizes that most of the “benefits” are spurious at best, while the impacts are significant. But never fear; the agency is looking out for wildlife and will “monitor” leases, and if any “significant” impacts occur, it will close the leases.
For example, when trying to justify haying, the agency suggests removing vegetation “may” invigorate plant cover. However, the MDFWP fails to note that plant vigor is less critical than hiding cover for most ground-nesting birds like pheasant and grouse. Not to mention native herbivores like elk and deer, not to mention prairie dogs, ground squirrels, grasshoppers and so forth are capable of reinvigorating vegetation as well.
In essence, haying takes the food right out of the mouth of native herbivores and puts it into privately owned livestock. Photo George Wuerthner
Furthermore, while the agency does note that because of haying ‐ “Wildlife cover and winter forage would be reduced in areas leased in the fall for haying and grazing,” it minimizes this by suggesting it will be “short term.”
It drags out the old song that “livestock hoof action” will improve soils but in other places admits that hoof action can compact soils but fails to acknowledge that compaction intensifies drought conditions by increasing run-off from any rain.
Grazing of riparian areas tramples banks, removes streamside vegetation, and pollutes waterways with manure. Photo George Wuerthner
Likewise, the agency admits that “when livestock access water resources, water turbidity can increase at the site.” But it doesn’t explain why this occurs. Typically, this is due to the trampling of banks and vegetation loss along with riparian areas. Riparian areas are especially critical to a host of wildlife, from songbirds to insects. And nowhere does the agency mention the potential for water pollution from livestock manure.
Elk in Yellowstone National Park and other livestock-free areas appear to do just fine without the presumed benefits of livestock grazing. Photo George Wuerthner
The agency suggests that grazing grasses will improve the habitat for ungulates like elk. This is surprising since elk in lands where livestock are excluded appear to do just well without the benefit of livestock grazing.
Furthermore, the agency suggests that “it is likely wildlife species would avoid the presence of livestock and increased human activity” on leased lands. It doesn’t give a reason. It is well documented that the mere presence of livestock causes the social displacement of native ungulates like elk.
Of course, livestock can spread weeds, but never fear; the Dept. intends to put livestock in areas with minor weed infestation. Isn’t that reassuring? Allow livestock to infect new areas with weeds.
Similarly, the agency admits that haying operations could kill some birds, machinery can cause fires, spread weeds, and the loss of vegetation could harm recreation (i.e., hunting).
I suspect MDFWP would prefer not to open up these lands to “emergency haying and grazing” so they could use your support if you believe Wildlife Management Areas should be managed for wildlife, not private livestock. You can contact MDFWP at
Written comments will be
accepted until 5:00 p.m., August 13, 2021, and can be submitted via the electronic and physical
George Wuerthner is an ecologist and former hunting guide with a degree in wildlife biology
9 Responses to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Proposes to Sell Out Wildlife During Drought
Subscribe to Blog via EmailJoin 972 other subscribers
- The Logging Juggernaut June 6, 2023
- New Bison Video From Yellowstone Voices June 5, 2023
- We Lost Jim Bailey–Wild Bison Advocate. May 31, 2023
- Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges May 27, 2023
- Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green May 26, 2023
- Charles Fox on The Logging Juggernaut
- Maximilian Werner on New Bison Video From Yellowstone Voices
- Steve Kohlmann on We Lost Jim Bailey–Wild Bison Advocate.
- Ida Lupine on We Lost Jim Bailey–Wild Bison Advocate.
- Kevin Bixby on We Lost Jim Bailey–Wild Bison Advocate.
- Lyn McCormick on We Lost Jim Bailey–Wild Bison Advocate.
- Jannett Heckert on We Lost Jim Bailey–Wild Bison Advocate.
- Rick Meis on We Lost Jim Bailey–Wild Bison Advocate.
- Ida Lupine on Save Our Sequoias Act–A Stealth Attack On NEPA, ESA and Our Sequoia Groves
- Mary on Save Our Sequoias Act–A Stealth Attack On NEPA, ESA and Our Sequoia Groves
- Rambling Dave on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Ida Lupine on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Mary on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Jeff Hoffman on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Jeff Hoffman on Senator Daines Ill-advised Forest Management Advocacy
If drought makes it necessary for “emergency” livestock to be turned out in a wildlife refuge & at the same time the drought makes it “necessary” to roundup wild horses in their OWN HERD MANAGEMENT AREAS & then turn out cattle in these SAME areas – not exactly common sense anywhere!
Good point, Maggie. The hypocrisy here is astonishing. I also recognize the MDFWP’s tendency to omit key information when acknowledging the potential (read “likely”) negative effects of grazing/haying. George writes:
Likewise, the agency admits that “when
livestock access water resources, water
turbidity can increase at the site.” But
it doesn’t explain why this occurs.
Typically, this is due to the trampling
of banks and vegetation loss along with
Notice how damning this admission becomes when you actually provide specific details in terms of impact. MDFWP isn’t exactly lying by failing to mention these key details, but they are being duplicitous at best.
FYI, I tried to access the link to share my disapproval by it says “Page not found.”
Wow. Difficult to believe.
Dare I ask…doesn’t this needlessly expose livestock to possible brucellosis? Or is that reasoning only used when convenient?
Max & anyone else interested: here is the link to the actual place where you can comment!
This is the comment I left:
“Considering how long it took me to find the actual comment site (since it did not come up on the provided link) I have to assume MFWP would prefer that there were very few comments in regard to this EIS. Considering that these are FREE leases, there should be more publicity in regard to this EIS!
I did find it and post it elsewhere. I was under the impression that Fish, Wildlife & Parks were responsible for WILDLIFE – not private livestock operations. Turning cattle out in Wildlife Management Areas doesnt really strike me as a wildlife emergency – more like a private enterprise emergency – and those private enterprises should be responsible for their own products (livestock). In putting private livestock into Wildlife Management Areas in a drought situation sort of gives the impression that domestic livestock is more important to the MFWP than the wildlife they are charged to protect. Pasturing cattle in these areas not only pushes the wildlife out, but contaminates any riparian areas with e-coli from their manure, because as anyone with common sense knows, cattle will hang in or close by these riparian areas. Then there are the “haying leases” – exactly how long does MFWP expect this emergency to last? Long enough to grow, rake, & collect or bale this hay? Where will the actual native wildlife be grazing at this point when there are fields of hay being grown AND the water necessary to grow this hay? I would think these are all questions that should be asked & answered BEFORE this “assessment” is done.”
And after I sent it – they thanked me for the “survey”!!
“Similarly, the agency admits that haying operations could kill some birds, machinery can cause fires, spread weeds, and the loss of vegetation could harm recreation (i.e., hunting).”
It’s just a nightmare. I suppose it means more wolves, bears and mountain lions be killed for threats to livestock too? Hunting will be considered second in importance to livestock.
More? You mean there are some left to still be killed?
The continued existence of ranching equals the extinction of all else.
Thank you for your ongoing effort, George. Unfortunately, we live in a society where people choose self-inflicted obesity and the worship of food pleasure over the beauty of biodiversity and the very existence of the planet.