Issue Date: December 4, 2002
By Robyn Rutger
Managing Editor
Herds of tule elk that were reintroduced by the California Department of Fish and Game to certain areas of California have been causing damage to farms and ranches and agricultural producers say that they have little recourse to control the free-roaming mammals on their private property.
Ranchers say that possible solutions to the conflict include allowing more hunting and getting reimbursed by the state for property damage. State officials contend that they are trying to work out a solution and need the cooperation of property owners.
Pierre Camsuzou, a third-generation barley grower and cattle rancher in San Miguel, said that a herd of 75 elk has migrated to his land from a neighbor's property where Fish and Game had relocated it. The elk grazed on Cam-suzuo's immature barley early in the growing season and then stomped down barley that was ready to be harvested. To gain access to his fields, the animals knocked down barbed-wire fences, allowing his cattle and horses to escape. Camsuzou noted that the elk knocked down one fence and it took him a week to sort out the neighbor's cattle from some of his 150 cow/calf pairs.
The state program (ranging from $1,250 to $2,000 per year, depending on his or her acreage) as well as for the permits ($350 for a bull-elk tag and $250 for a cow-elk tag), develops an approved management plan and implements the agreed-upon wildlife habitat improvements.
In the case of elk, the economic incentive is clear when one considers the value of the hunting permits: Camsuzou said a bull-elk tag is worth $10,000-$15,000, and a cow-elk tag is worth $1,500-$2,500. So in exchange for establishing elk habitat on private property, Fish and Game will sell a bull-elk hunting permit to the property owner for $350 and then the property owner can in turn sell it to a hunter for $10,000 or more.
The group of PLM participants includes Camsuzou's neighbor, George Work, who has participated in the PLM program to manage deer for about 20 years. Work noted that the money he receives from selling deer-hunting permits compensates for deer damage to his fences, so he was willing to extend his PLM program to elk.
"Somebody has to pay the bills and the hunters have been willing to pay for them," Work said.
After Work, Camsuzou and four other neighbors designed their habitat management plan, Fish and Game issued them three bull-elk tags and five cow-elk tags, with the profits to be split among them. Camsuzou dropped out of the PLM program, however, when he learned that the elk cannot be hunted until after the barley is harvested.
Camsuzou is frustrated that his only option for controlling the elk is by applying for a depredation permit every 60 days. He also noted that the 60-day stipulation does not apply to any other game animal; he questions the legality of it.
"I should have the right to protect my crop," he said.
Camsuzou's neighbor, Pete Cagliero, said elk have consumed and damaged his alfalfa and knocked down fences. When the herd gets excited and reaches a fence, "one will jump through it and pretty soon they all go through it, and you've got a hole that you can drive a train through," he said.
The PLM program works for Cagliero because his crop is still in the ground when the hunting season is in effect, so he can shoot at the elk when they are in his crop. While Cagliero believes the program is worthwhile for him, he noted that it does not help Camsuzou.
"I sure understand Pierre's point of view and I agree with him 100 percent," Cagliero said. "And if we don't get enough control out of the PLM program, then I will be right back with Pierre next year asking for depredation."
Cagliero said possible solutions include making it legal to hunt elk earlier than the existing August-October hunting season, expanding a nearby public hunting zone, selling more hunting permits to PLM program participants and/or issuing more depredation permits.
Public elk hunting is allowed for the LaPanza herd, which inhabits the Carrizo Plain in eastern San Luis Obispo County and western Kern County. Camsuzou would like to see the public hunting zone expanded to include his area.
"All they have to do is draw that circle a lot bigger," he said.
"We've proposed that," said Terry Palmisano, senior wildlife biologist for Fish and Game in Monterey. "There is a possibility that we can extend that up into Monterey County to try and help some of these guys." She noted that private property owners must be willing to allow the general public onto their property if the public hunting zone was expanded.
As for establishing an earlier hunting season for PLM program participants, Palmisano noted that early summer is the wrong time of year to hunt elk. She said the way to reduce a herd is to take the females, but when barley is growing, the cow elk have calves. "You don't want to take pregnant cows and you don't want to take a cow with a calf by her side," she said. "If ranchers were allowed to hunt females with babies, the political ramifications of that would ruin the program."
She said hunting bull elk earlier in the season is not the way to control herd size. "You don't want to take a lot of the best bulls because then next year you won't have anything to sell for any good price," she said. "You want to keep a good supply of large bulls in order to keep the price up."
Camsuzou noted that PLM program participants could actually make more money by hunting more elk, even if the elk-tag price was reduced due to smaller bulls. "Taking more bulls would net us more money," he said. "Half the young bulls wander off and don't survive."
If the PLM hunting season and/or public hunting zone is not expanded, then at the very least, Fish and Game should be held accountable for damage to private property, Camsuzou said. "If this is a managed herd that they want to be in control of, then they should pay for the damages," he said.
Palmisano noted that people are not reimbursed by the state for damage caused by other wildlife such as deer and wild pigs. "Our contention is that these are wildlife and that there may be some damage that is going to occur."
She added that participation in the PLM program helps landowners recoup financial losses due to elk damage.
Palmisano said the dilemma that Fish and Game often faces is how to please everyone, no matter what wildlife species it is. In the case of elk, "While there are some people who are frustrated with the elk, we also have people who want to see their numbers grow because they can make money with them," she said. "We want to try to work out a solution that will work for everybody. I have no idea what that is yet."
Varian said more control of the elk is needed. While he acknowledged that Fish and Game is pressured by animal rights activists to restrict hunting, he believes that the elk are not being managed well enough.
There is a wide disparity between the number of elk hunted and the rate they multiply, Varian said. "Fish and Game is giving out too few permits."
He added, "The way to control it is to let hunters hunt. You can't just let the population go up exponentially without any control."
Tule elk are a wildlife-recovery success story. Once teetering on the brink of extinction-by some accounts there were only 20 tule elk left in the 1870s-they have been restored to healthy numbers through decades of capture and relocation operations. Today, there are more than 3,600 tule elk statewide, according to Fish and Game.
Pam Giacomini, California Farm Bureau Federation director of natural resources, said, "Our members raise huge numbers of wildlife on their properties-some of it at an extreme cost to their operations, such as in this case with the elk herd. We support increasing numbers of species; however, that must be balanced with appropriate management of the species by the appropriate wildlife agencies, as well as esOablishing a fair method of compensation for damage incurred by the landowner."
Permission for use is granted, however, credit must be made to the California Farm Bureau Federation when reprinting this item.
By Robyn Rutger
Managing Editor
Herds of tule elk that were reintroduced by the California Department of Fish and Game to certain areas of California have been causing damage to farms and ranches and agricultural producers say that they have little recourse to control the free-roaming mammals on their private property.
Ranchers say that possible solutions to the conflict include allowing more hunting and getting reimbursed by the state for property damage. State officials contend that they are trying to work out a solution and need the cooperation of property owners.
Pierre Camsuzou, a third-generation barley grower and cattle rancher in San Miguel, said that a herd of 75 elk has migrated to his land from a neighbor's property where Fish and Game had relocated it. The elk grazed on Cam-suzuo's immature barley early in the growing season and then stomped down barley that was ready to be harvested. To gain access to his fields, the animals knocked down barbed-wire fences, allowing his cattle and horses to escape. Camsuzou noted that the elk knocked down one fence and it took him a week to sort out the neighbor's cattle from some of his 150 cow/calf pairs.
The state program (ranging from $1,250 to $2,000 per year, depending on his or her acreage) as well as for the permits ($350 for a bull-elk tag and $250 for a cow-elk tag), develops an approved management plan and implements the agreed-upon wildlife habitat improvements.
In the case of elk, the economic incentive is clear when one considers the value of the hunting permits: Camsuzou said a bull-elk tag is worth $10,000-$15,000, and a cow-elk tag is worth $1,500-$2,500. So in exchange for establishing elk habitat on private property, Fish and Game will sell a bull-elk hunting permit to the property owner for $350 and then the property owner can in turn sell it to a hunter for $10,000 or more.
The group of PLM participants includes Camsuzou's neighbor, George Work, who has participated in the PLM program to manage deer for about 20 years. Work noted that the money he receives from selling deer-hunting permits compensates for deer damage to his fences, so he was willing to extend his PLM program to elk.
"Somebody has to pay the bills and the hunters have been willing to pay for them," Work said.
After Work, Camsuzou and four other neighbors designed their habitat management plan, Fish and Game issued them three bull-elk tags and five cow-elk tags, with the profits to be split among them. Camsuzou dropped out of the PLM program, however, when he learned that the elk cannot be hunted until after the barley is harvested.
Camsuzou is frustrated that his only option for controlling the elk is by applying for a depredation permit every 60 days. He also noted that the 60-day stipulation does not apply to any other game animal; he questions the legality of it.
"I should have the right to protect my crop," he said.
Camsuzou's neighbor, Pete Cagliero, said elk have consumed and damaged his alfalfa and knocked down fences. When the herd gets excited and reaches a fence, "one will jump through it and pretty soon they all go through it, and you've got a hole that you can drive a train through," he said.
The PLM program works for Cagliero because his crop is still in the ground when the hunting season is in effect, so he can shoot at the elk when they are in his crop. While Cagliero believes the program is worthwhile for him, he noted that it does not help Camsuzou.
"I sure understand Pierre's point of view and I agree with him 100 percent," Cagliero said. "And if we don't get enough control out of the PLM program, then I will be right back with Pierre next year asking for depredation."
Cagliero said possible solutions include making it legal to hunt elk earlier than the existing August-October hunting season, expanding a nearby public hunting zone, selling more hunting permits to PLM program participants and/or issuing more depredation permits.
Public elk hunting is allowed for the LaPanza herd, which inhabits the Carrizo Plain in eastern San Luis Obispo County and western Kern County. Camsuzou would like to see the public hunting zone expanded to include his area.
"All they have to do is draw that circle a lot bigger," he said.
"We've proposed that," said Terry Palmisano, senior wildlife biologist for Fish and Game in Monterey. "There is a possibility that we can extend that up into Monterey County to try and help some of these guys." She noted that private property owners must be willing to allow the general public onto their property if the public hunting zone was expanded.
As for establishing an earlier hunting season for PLM program participants, Palmisano noted that early summer is the wrong time of year to hunt elk. She said the way to reduce a herd is to take the females, but when barley is growing, the cow elk have calves. "You don't want to take pregnant cows and you don't want to take a cow with a calf by her side," she said. "If ranchers were allowed to hunt females with babies, the political ramifications of that would ruin the program."
She said hunting bull elk earlier in the season is not the way to control herd size. "You don't want to take a lot of the best bulls because then next year you won't have anything to sell for any good price," she said. "You want to keep a good supply of large bulls in order to keep the price up."
Camsuzou noted that PLM program participants could actually make more money by hunting more elk, even if the elk-tag price was reduced due to smaller bulls. "Taking more bulls would net us more money," he said. "Half the young bulls wander off and don't survive."
If the PLM hunting season and/or public hunting zone is not expanded, then at the very least, Fish and Game should be held accountable for damage to private property, Camsuzou said. "If this is a managed herd that they want to be in control of, then they should pay for the damages," he said.
Palmisano noted that people are not reimbursed by the state for damage caused by other wildlife such as deer and wild pigs. "Our contention is that these are wildlife and that there may be some damage that is going to occur."
She added that participation in the PLM program helps landowners recoup financial losses due to elk damage.
Palmisano said the dilemma that Fish and Game often faces is how to please everyone, no matter what wildlife species it is. In the case of elk, "While there are some people who are frustrated with the elk, we also have people who want to see their numbers grow because they can make money with them," she said. "We want to try to work out a solution that will work for everybody. I have no idea what that is yet."
Varian said more control of the elk is needed. While he acknowledged that Fish and Game is pressured by animal rights activists to restrict hunting, he believes that the elk are not being managed well enough.
There is a wide disparity between the number of elk hunted and the rate they multiply, Varian said. "Fish and Game is giving out too few permits."
He added, "The way to control it is to let hunters hunt. You can't just let the population go up exponentially without any control."
Tule elk are a wildlife-recovery success story. Once teetering on the brink of extinction-by some accounts there were only 20 tule elk left in the 1870s-they have been restored to healthy numbers through decades of capture and relocation operations. Today, there are more than 3,600 tule elk statewide, according to Fish and Game.
Pam Giacomini, California Farm Bureau Federation director of natural resources, said, "Our members raise huge numbers of wildlife on their properties-some of it at an extreme cost to their operations, such as in this case with the elk herd. We support increasing numbers of species; however, that must be balanced with appropriate management of the species by the appropriate wildlife agencies, as well as esOablishing a fair method of compensation for damage incurred by the landowner."
Permission for use is granted, however, credit must be made to the California Farm Bureau Federation when reprinting this item.
