Collaborative Damage Control
Program Reduces Elk Conflicts

By David Bowser

TUCUMCARI, N.M. — Elk pose a continued — and growing —problem for stockmen across much of the western U.S. In Colorado, at least, an innovative program appears to be changing that.

Joe Gerrans of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, speaking to the New Mexico Cattle Growers here recently, told them that Colorado ranchers are working in partnership with government agencies and sportsmen to address the problem.

"Colorado started a game damage program in 1931," Gerrans said.

In 1979, the Colorado legislature rewrote the game damage laws. Since then they've tinkered with it every couple of years. In 1989, the parts of the law that dealt with rangeland forage and fencing were found lacking.

"Those two were just not working," Gerrans explained. "By the time you put in the cost of trying to figure out what happened and the cost of the investigation on a lot of them, the cost was more than the claim itself. So in 1989 and 1990, the state legislature, the sportsmen's organizations and the livestock industry got together and formed the Habitat Partnership Program."

Gerrans describes it as a collaborative decision-making process with committees consisting of a sportsman, three people representing livestock growers, members of federal agencies with land management responsibilities, and a member from the Colorado Division of Wildlife.

It started on an experimental basis and evolved. From two prototype committees, the program now has 16 committees and may add another.

"What we said in our program was that we wanted to get the money on the ground quickly," Gerrans said. "If somebody decides we need fertilization or reseeding and we have a window that will work, we can put a project on the ground in about three days as opposed to three months."

One thing the program is not, he insisted, is government-directed.

"It is a consensus project," Gerrans said. "If somebody doesn't like it, they go back and revisit it until everybody is in agreement. You can talk to people in Colorado in the livestock industry, in our agency and in the sportsmen's community who do not like this program. But you can turn around and talk to people who think it's the best thing that ever happened."

A statewide council has oversight responsibility. The council consists of two livestock producers, a crop producer, a member of the Colorado State University range Extension staff, a member of the Division of Wildlife, a member of the Forest Service, and a member of the Bureau of Land Management.

Once formed, the committees survey all landowners and land managers in their area to see what the issues are. Then they meet with them and ultimately come up with a five year plan.

The Division of Wildlife designates five percent of hunting license revenues generated in that area to resolve the conflicts.

"One of the real issues is spring forage," Gerrans said. "It's mainly with elk. Although we have a lot of antelope and some deer, elk remain the big issue."

Although they would like to reduce elk numbers, in certain areas that is not possible, but they have been able to manage the distribution of the elk so as not to impact the livestock industry so dramatically.

With fencing, fertilization, weed control and water development, they have been able to direct elk to alternative sites and at the same time improve the range for both livestock and wildlife.

Citing one example, Gerrans said a rancher was able to improve sagebrush rangeland and expand his hay meadows. He increased his livestock capacity about 10 percent, but he increased his elk capacity by about 500 percent.

"What was happening in the spring of the year was that the elk would come into the pastures he was trying to save for his livestock," Gerrans explained. "That was the issue."

The committee sat down and decided they needed to provide an alternate place for the elk to go and direct them to another area.

They flew on fertilizer and did some contour work on grazing allotments and got good response.

"We put on 300 pounds of fertilizer or 100 pounds of nitrogen per acre," he said.

It cost about $40 an acre.

The fertilization was done in conjunction with a distribution management program and increased hunting. With hunters in one spot and green grass in another, the elk moved to the new areas.

"They prefer nitrogen over lead," Gerrans quipped.

That was in 1990. Since then, hunters have killed about 10 head of elk there and there have been few range depredation problems.

"We still have the same number of elk, but we've been able to move their location and change their distribution," Gerrans said.

But not all their programs have been as successful. A bulldozer with giant rototillers brought in to clear pinion-juniper congestion didn't work. Although successful in mine reclamation projects, it only produced a larger stand of weeds.

Nor was the use of a helicopter as successful as using small planes to fly on fertilizer.

Fencing has also proven to be an effective tool in controlling elk.

Gerrans said gates in fencing allow elk to pass through without tearing up fencelines, although there have been problems with narrow gates and antlered elk.

"Wyoming has come up with a little different design," Gerrans said. "They build these ramps where the elk can come down and jump off, but they can't jump back. It works really well. You don't have the gate system."

Gerrans, a Wyoming native, said that he grew up believing that three things in life were inevitable: death, taxes and fixing fences.

One of the areas Gerrans has studied was how to cut down on maintenance of fences yet try to build them in such a way that the cost wouldn't bankrupt the whole operation. One of the worst problems they had was in location of fences. Many were on steep banks where deer and elk could not jump them. They would get caught in them and tear them up. Height was another issue.

"If you can get that fence down to 40 inches, you can improve your maintenance," Gerrans said. "If you can't get it down, make the top wire visible."

They've had success putting solid bars along the top. In snow country, that has had the added effect of breaking up the consistency of the snow and preventing it from pulling the wires down. White ribbon along the top wire also stopped elk from jumping.

Consequently, ranchers have run broad white ribbon along the top wires to a point where they want the elk to jump and stopped the ribbon.

"They file down and go across it," Gerrans said.

They've also had success with electrified high-tensile smooth wire.

Gerrans said some ranchers who have used the new, bigger wire used to replace fence every year. Now, they've gone six years without a major problem, particularly with some of the new electric fencing systems that are commercially available.

The key to solving these problems, Gerrans said, is local involvement.

They do have a compensation program within the Habitat Partnership on certain types of damage claims, but it is less than one percent of the dollars they have spent.

"But we still have our regular game damage law in place that operates a compensation program," Gerrans added. "A majority of our game damage claims right now, about $300,000 out of $600,000, are for bear and mountain lion depredation on sheep. That's our big one now."

They have even spent damage compensation funds to pay for such things as hot tubs torn up by bears.

"Bears love hot tubs," Gerrans said.

But since they've started the Habitat Partnership Program, compensation payments for elk damage have dropped.

Some 56 percent of the partnership's money is spent on public lands projects. The other 44 percent is spent on private land projects.

"We're doing a lot on weed control, too," Gerrans said.

About $150,000 is spent annually on weed control to improve livestock and wildlife habitat.

The Colorado Division of Wildlife, with a $70 million budget, is funded strictly by the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and some federal money.

"We have no general tax money in our system," Gerrans noted.

The habitat partnership, with its share of hunting license sales, has a budget of about $1.6 a year.

"A typical committee has about $80,000 a year to work with," Gerrans said. "The money that is not spent is rolled forward."

So far, committees have spent less than 50 percent of the money allocated. They supplement the license-derived funds with money from various groups such as the elk foundation.

"There are a lot of dollars out there that can be used in cooperative ventures, on private land especially, that are of value to the private landowner," Gerrans said.

And the ranchers on the committee have proven to be more tight-fisted than the government agencies. Some of the proposed projects that probably would have been funded by the government have been turned down by ranchers on the committees, he noted.

That’s true conservatism, inasmuch as most of the benefits would have accrued to fellow ranchers.