Deer, Elk & Cattle in the East Kootenay: Conflicts and Resolution. An historical and scientific overview by range agrologists Tim Ross & Brian Wikeem. Oct 2002

FACT SHEET
October 2002 

Deer, Elk and Cattle in the East Kootenay: Conflicts and Resolution

Introduction

Ponderosa Pine and Interior Douglas-fir forests cover nearly 250,000 ha in the Rocky Mountain Trench and side-valleys between the U.S. border and Golden.  Cattle, mule deer, whitetail deer, and elk have shared these open forests and adjacent grasslands for more than a century.  Although cattle and wildlife are usually separated when most elk and deer migrate from the valley bottom in spring, some deer and “homesteader” elk live in the Trench year-round using private hayfields and pastures for forage.

Spatial overlap of ungulate populations, and presumed competition, have been long-standing issues in the East Kootenay. This Factsheet describes the historical context of grazing and other disturbances that resulted in resource management conflicts in the region.  It also provides recommendations for resolution of these conflicts based on research and monitoring sponsored by the East Kootenay Trench Agriculture/Wildlife Committee (EKTAW). 

Historical Causes of Disturbance

Numerous factors have influenced the present composition of plant communities and the availability of forage for livestock and wildlife in the East Kootenay. Historically, lightening-caused fires were common in Ponderosa Pine and Interior Douglas-fir forests. Low-intensity ground fires in the Trench, returning at 5-50 year intervals, maintained these forest types as a mosaic of grassland, open forest, and dense forest.

Aboriginal burning complemented these fires as the Kootenay Indians managed the landscape to provide pasture for their horses, which they had acquired by at least the early 1790s.  It is difficult to determine the ecological changes attributable to these fires and early horse grazing in the Trench but they undoubtedly affected the range resource.

Although Europeans brought livestock into the Trench between 1807 and the late 1850s, it wasn’t until the gold rush from 1863 to 1865 that cattle, horses, mules and sheep were brought into the Trench in significant numbers.  Permanent herds of cattle and horses were established in the 1880s when numerous ranches were pre-empted.  

More livestock were moved into the East Kootenay between 1897 and 1915 for construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. Both the direct effects of logging, and the enormous fires that followed, contributed to opening up large areas of range for wildlife, cattle, and horses throughout the southern part of the Trench.  At the same time, ranchers were increasing their cattle herds, taking advantage of the abundant range created by the fires.  From the late 1800s to the mid-1940s, livestock numbers gradually increased and between 1945 and 1954 up to 9,000 beef cattle alone were using Crown range.

Elk and deer populations were found in the Trench by the earliest explorers but populations probably varied, even before Europeans entered the Trench.  From about 1900 to the 1950s, elk and deer populations increased, likely in response to the abundance of forage and new habitat created by the fires from 1914 to 1931. Undoubtedly, these increases contributed to further pressures on the range resource.

Powered farm and logging equipment replaced most of the horses used by these industries during the 1940s and 1950s and many horses were turned loose on the range.    By then it was apparent that range condition was deteriorating and the Forest Service decided to remove about 5,000 feral horses from the range.  Most of the feral horses were gone by the late 1950s and their place taken by cattle and elk. 

Fire-suppression, which began in the Trench during the 1920s, has contributed to forest ingrowth and encroachment. Many of the forests that regenerated from the early fires have become overstocked and stagnant instead of regulating themselves by “self-thinning”. Consequently, this has resulted in a significant reduction of open range for wildlife and livestock grazing. 

The Conflict

A series of wildlife, soil, and range surveys were conducted in the 1950s throughout the East Kootenay.  Collectively, they concluded:

·              Livestock were being turned-out before range readiness;

·              Ranges were overstocked with livestock;

·              Rough fescue was being overused by elk on some range units;

·              Increasing numbers of deer and elk were exerting excessive demands on range forage plants resulting in significant animal mortality;

·              Bunchgrasses were being overused;

·              Bluebunch wheatgrass and rough fescue were becoming scarce on the open range compared to areas protected from grazing;

·              Livestock were reluctant to graze forest range and areas remote from water;

·              Overuse was particularly high near water; and

·              Weeds were invading grassland range.

Although these concerns were widely acknowledged, conflicts emerged among resource managers and stakeholders in the Trench during the 1960s and 1970s concerning dietary overlap and forage allocation between cattle and wildlife.  Most resource people and stakeholders agreed that combined cattle/wildlife grazing, forest ingrowth, and land alienation were factors but they couldn’t agree on who was responsible for downward trends in range condition. From the 1960s to 1990s the following conditions prevailed on East Kootenay ranges:

·        Cattle populations declined and then remained constant at about 40,000 Animal Unit Months (AUMs);

·        Elk numbers peaked at approximately 28,000 in the mid-1980s and are currently at about 20,000, but a recent report concludes that Crown winter ranges could support 24,400 animals;

·        Range condition continued to deteriorate or remained at a low stage of succession on many range units; and

·        Forest encroachment continued without intervention and the areal extent of the range resource declined for both livestock and wildlife.  A repeat air photo study in 1998 found that grassland and open forest had decreased by nearly 50% between 1958 and 1994 in parts of the Trench. 

Resolution

Coordinated Resource Management Planning (CRMP) began in the East Kootenay in 1975 primarily to resolve conflicts concerning competition and forage allocation between cattle and wildlife. Conflicts continued into the 1980s, however, despite improvements in the range resource obtained from the CRMP process. It was finally recognized that an equitable forage allocation process was necessary to mitigate conflicts. The East Kootenay Trench Agriculture/Wildlife Committee (EKTAW) was formed in 1990 with the following objectives:

·        Promote stewardship of the range resource;

·        Maintain and enhance compatible use of forest and rangeland for grazing;

·        Encourage management practices that optimize distribution of livestock and wildlife on common range; and

·        Sustain biodiversity of rangeland and wildlife habitat. 

What Did Monitoring Tell Us?

EKTAW initiated a vegetation monitoring program in 1991 to provide local scientific information on 1) total and seasonal forage production, 2) dietary overlap among cattle, deer and elk, 3) seasonal and annual forage use, and 4) range condition and trend.  Monitoring was conducted at five important deer and elk winter ranges that were rotationally grazed by cattle.  Three sites occurred on native range with a mix of open grassland and groves of ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir and trembling aspen, and two pastures were seeded to domestic forages.   

Forage Production

Forage production varied at all sites in response to annual precipitation, which equaled 98, 133 and 90% of normal over the three years (Table 1).  Average forage production was 125% higher in the wettest year (1993) compared to the driest (1994).  Forage production also differed among sites with the seeded sites producing nearly four times more forage than the native range pastures in 1993.

Ungulate Diets

Deer and elk diets were more diverse than cattle diets, generally containing between 35-55 species throughout the year, but only 12-15 key species were important for all three ungulates (Table 2).   Deer mostly ate shrubs and trees but grasses comprised nearly 20% of their spring diet.  Elk mainly ate grasses throughout the year and especially in winter. Elk switched to trees and shrubs, however, if grasses became unavailable in winter.  Cattle ate mostly grasses while shrubs and forbs were eaten sparingly. 

Competition for forage could be a factor on some East Kootenay ranges given the diet similarities found between cattle and elk.  Cattle can compete with elk in fall and winter through their summer grazing.  Similarly, elk could compete with cattle through spring grazing on pastures that cattle later use for summer forage.   Although cattle and elk diets were similar, no competition is expected unless food or space becomes less available.  This could be a significant problem in the near future if forest encroachment continues unabated. No competition was expected by elk with deer, or by cattle with deer, except possibly for specific species such as bitterbrush in particular years. 

Total Forage Use

Fifty percent utilization is commonly recommended for proper-use on many range types in North America, but combined wildlife and cattle use often exceeded 70% in this project.  On native range, forage use was equally split between wildlife (17-30%) and cattle (18-35%), while cattle used between 35 and 60% of the available forage on the seeded sites. 

Wildlife and cattle sequentially graze most range units in the Trench. Typically, cattle are grazed in spring or fall, while wildlife occupy the same ranges in early spring, fall and winter. Therefore, not all of the total standing crop is available to one ungulate species over the entire grazing season, or during a specific foraging period. While cattle or wildlife may moderately use the forage available in a single grazing period, some range units are virtually continuously grazed even though range use plans prescribe rotational grazing for cattle. Ultimately, range condition will decline if preferred species are repeatedly and heavily defoliated, and they are unable to store carbohydrates and set seed.

Cattle rotations must provide adequate forage carryover for fall and winter wildlife demand. Although fall cattle grazing can reduce available forage for wildlife in fall and winter, these pastures may receive more wildlife use in spring because forage plants contain less standing litter. Improvements in range condition obtained by altering cattle grazing rotations, however, can be lost if combined wildlife populations are not balanced with available forage.

Plant Communities and Range Condition

A reference area exclosure was constructed in 1951 at Skookumchuck Prairie and has been re-sampled at about 10 year intervals since 1960.  Sandberg’s bluegrass, prairie Junegrass, needle-and-thread and low pussytoes were the most common plants on both the grazed and ungrazed plots in 1951.  Composition of the grazed plant community has remained relatively static over 50 years other than needle-and-thread replacing Sandberg’s bluegrass and minor fluctuations in forb cover. 

In contrast, bluebunch wheatgrass and rough fescue had become the dominant grasses inside the exclosure and Sandberg’s bluegrass, needle-and-thread, and low pussytoes all decreased significantly by 1970 with total exclusion from livestock and wildlife grazing and fire.  Since 1970, rough fescue and Idaho fescue have largely replaced bluebunch wheatgrass, and more recently, Idaho fescue appears to be displacing rough fescue as the dominant grass.  Furthermore, ponderosa pine established in the exclosure in 1982 and by 1994 it was nearly 13% cover. 

Native plant communities will remain in a low successional stage if the present levels of heavy wildlife and livestock forage use continue on some range units in the Trench.  Many winter ranges are presently dominated by bitterbrush, which can be valuable for mule deer in some winters. A shift in the plant community to more perennial bunchgrasses, however, will improve carrying capacity for combined use by cattle, elk and deer. Other management inputs such as selective harvesting, juvenile spacing, and prescribed fire are also required as forest encroachment continues at an escalating rate.

Biological Considerations in Forage Allocation

Forage allocation is a process of dividing available forage among herbivores.  Forage allocation needs to account for annual variations in forage production, and carrying capacity must be based on the combined stocking rates of all ungulates.  Both cattle stocking rates, and wildlife population levels must be set, and maintained, to ensure proper use and sustainability of the range resource under common use.  

Forage left after ungulate grazing is not wasted and is required to protect soils from erosion, build soil organic matter, maintain soil structure, and promote water infiltration.  Adequate herbage must remain to provide habitat structure and forage for non-ungulates and to impede weed encroachment.

When forage is limiting only two options are available:  increase the forage resource or reduce the amount of grazing. The size of the forage resource can be increased by controlling forest ingrowth, and by establishing seeded pastures for livestock turnout and as “intercept ranges” for wildlife returning to the winter range.

Planning

Although forage allocation relies on biological information, it is essentially a planning and decision-making process that begins with a shared vision of the overall land use ethic that will be pursued.  Personal interests, social values, economic considerations, ecological values, inter-agency priorities, and government policy and legislation, must be balanced as these all relate to equitability.  In other words - conservation with use. 

This model acknowledges the importance of land-based products such as beef, wildlife, timber, water, and recreation while protecting soils and vegetation for long-term sustainability.  In order for it to succeed, however, goals and objectives must be consistent with the ecological potential of the land, and livestock and wildlife should be managed as components of the system.

Forage allocation should be a principal part of range use planning on common use ranges in the East Kootenay.  Plans must be based on definable land units so that specific knowledge of diets, animal distribution, forage production and use, and other information can be incorporated into the planning process.  A successful plan depends on sincere negotiation, flexible decision-making, and regular evaluation to determine if objectives are being met.

Summary and Conclusions

Sound range management decisions must be based on factual information to produce sustainable grazing practices that conform to the Forest Practices Code of BC Act. Data collected from the Vegetation Monitoring Program provides comprehensive local information that will assist in developing local plans on combined use ranges in the East Kootenay.  The main conclusions from this program are:

·        Forage production varied at all sites in response to annual precipitation. Management planning must consider this variability in setting animal stocking rates to ensure proper use over the long-term.

·        Competition for forage could be a factor on some East Kootenay ranges. Cattle can compete with elk in fall and winter through their summer grazing, whereas elk could compete with cattle through spring grazing on pastures that cattle later use for summer forage.   Little or no competition is expected unless food, or space, become limiting. 

·        Combined wildlife and cattle use often exceeded 70% in this project.  A continuation of combined grazing by elk and cattle that exceeds proper use will result in competition between ungulates and deterioration of range condition.

·        Wildlife and cattle sequentially graze most range units in the Trench and some range units are virtually continuously grazed even though range use plans prescribe rotational grazing for cattle. Ultimately, range condition will decline if preferred species are repeatedly and heavily defoliated.

·        Improvements in range condition obtained by altering cattle grazing rotations can be lost if combined wildlife populations are not balanced with available forage.

·        Grazing prescriptions for cattle must provide adequate forage carryover for fall and winter wildlife demand.  Combined use by cattle and wildlife must leave adequate ground cover to provide habitat structure and food for non-ungulates, protect soils from erosion, and to impede weed infestation.

·        Cattle stocking rates, and wildlife populations, must be set, and maintained to ensure proper levels of use and the sustainability of the range resource.

·        Native plant communities, that are currently producing less than their capability, will remain in a low successional stage if the present levels of wildlife and livestock forage use continue on some range units in the Trench. 

·        Forest encroachment continues to be a significant problem on most East Kootenay ranges.  Unless this problem is reversed, more range will be lost for wildlife and cattle.  Subsequently, managers will have no alternative but to reduce wildlife and cattle numbers.

·        Forage allocation should be a central focus of range use planning on common use ranges in the East Kootenay.  Plans must be based on practical management units and consider local knowledge of diets, animal distribution, forage production and use.  A successful plan depends on sincere negotiation, flexible decision-making, and regular evaluation to determine if objectives are being met.

Results from the Vegetation Monitoring Program are pertinent to the ecosystem restoration planning initiatives now underway in the NDT4. The information is of educational value for managers by providing knowledge on wildlife and cattle grazing impacts on rangelands, and enhancing existing or potential bunchgrass sites within this planning area. 

Prepared for the Rocky Mountain Trench Natural Resources Society by:
Tim Ross, Ross Range and Reclamation Services, Cranbrook, B.C.; and
Brian Wikeem, Solterra Resources Inc., Kamloops, B.C.

Acknowledgements:
Joint funding for this fact sheet was provided by:
Beef Cattle Industry Development Fund
Kootenay/Boundary Grazing Enhancement Program
Rocky Mountain Trench Natural Resources Society               

Table 1.  Total standing crop (kg/ha) among five sites
in the East Kootenay between 1992 and 1994.

__________________________________________________

Site                               1992        1993       1994

__________________________________________________

          __________________________________________________

                                 ¹  Data rounded to nearest 5 kg/

Table 2. Relative importance of forage classes and individual
species in the East Kootenay from 1992 to 1994.

_________________________________________________

Species/Forage Class            Deer           Elk          Cattle

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

¹ Species Categories -  0=None, L=0-5%, M=6-10%, H=>10%

² Forage Class Categories  -  L=0-10%, M=11-50%, H=>50%