\u201cUntil we have support from our constituents (i.e., Stockgrowers and Outfitters) to make a change like that and support from the commission, we are not going to be moving forward with those broad-scale changes,\u201d Jackson G&F wildlife supervisor Brad Hovinga told the N&G.<\/p>\n
So, no to closing feedgrounds. How did we get here?<\/p>\n
A little history. In 1998, the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, on whose board I served, held the first conference on elk feedgrounds, \u201cAre Feedgrounds Forever?\u201d at the Headwaters Center in Dubois, Wyoming.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Feedlot.jpg\")
Photo: Wyoming G&F Department<\/p>\n
The conference explored the decades long history of feedgrounds and the disease problems they cause\u2014at the time, primarily necrotic stomatitis, which can be fatal, and brucellosis, which causes spontaneous abortions in elk and cattle. We assessed the arguments for and against feedgrounds. Finally, we challenged those present to consider that it was time to stop feeding elk and secure more winter range to succor them through Wyoming\u2019s harsh winters as well as to manage them through hunting to keep population numbers within the carrying capacity of that range. Our proposal followed well-known wildlife biologist and conservationist Olaus Murie\u2019s recommendations in his book The Elk of North America (1951) that we should manage elk in such a \u201cnatural\u201d way.<\/p>\n
In 1998, we understood that this strategy faced two main political obstacles:<\/p>\n
One, ranchers for whom feedgrounds were created to keep elk off private property as well as off public range ranchers considered to be reserved for domestic cattle (brucellosis only became an issue in the late 1980s after an outbreak of the disease in cattle of the Parker Ranch near Dubois);<\/p>\n
Two, big game hunting outfitters, whose flawed business model required large numbers of elk for paying hunters, numbers far above the capacity of native range to support (outfitters claimed \u201ca bale of hay is worth an acre of habitat\u201d), thus requiring artificial feeding.<\/p>\n
Rationally, closing feedgrounds made sense. We assumed\u2013as the risk of brucellosis transmission by elk to cattle got worse\u2013that because the high densities of elk on the feedgrounds exacerbated intra-herd transmission and infection rates, thus increasing the risk to cattle, ranchers would weigh the impacts of free ranging elk against the risk of infection and cattle herd depopulation, and would therefore agree to close feedgrounds in exchange for financial support to build infrastructure to protect cattle feedlines and haystacks. (However, they would still have to share public forage with elk).<\/p>\n
Further, we thought that the disease risks posed by feeding elk would convince outfitters to change their business model to opt for fewer, healthier elk rather than more unhealthy, diseased elk. After all, who wants to hunt diseased elk?<\/p>\n
Apparently, a lot of people. We were wrong about both assumptions. Little did we realize in 1998 that 28 years later, in 2026, we\u2019d still be feeding elk, despite the appearance in western Wyoming of a fatal deformity of the brain in elk, deer, and moose\u2013chronic wasting disease, which thrives in crowded feedlot conditions. The two above-mentioned political obstacles of political and economic self-interest proved too strong for mere reason to overcome.<\/p>\n
So now we\u00a0have another doomed-to-failure elk plan, despite its scientific invalidity. Predictions from both scientists and conservationists about the spread of CWD on the feedgrounds and the likely fatal outcome to elk have come true. (See Mike Koshmrl\u2019s recent articles on instances of CWD on the feedgrounds at WyoFile or the chapter on CWD in Todd Wilkinson\u2019s book Ripple Effects: How To Save Yellowstone and America\u2019s Most Iconic Wildlife Ecosystem). Yet, all that matters to G&F is what the Stockgrowers and their vassals, the Outfitters, want. And they want feedgrounds, which fundamentally give them power over elk and wildlife management, imposing the costs on the State and its citizens.<\/p>\n
What is the cost of elk feedgrounds to Wyoming\u2019s hunters and citizens? According to the Wyoming G&F Fiscal Year 2024<\/a> Budget, Line Item 6D10, the cost is $3,593,029, an increase of 29% from the FY 2023 Budget of $2,766,140. An additional one time expense of $240,000 went to build a metal haybarn at Black Butte Feedground. That\u2019s $3.6 million\u2014an obscene amount\u2014to foster and spread dangerous diseases among elk. A private individual who did that would go to prison.<\/p>\n