Predator problems for sage-grouse

“And we have never agreed to fund any predator- related programs,” Welles said.

The state’s eight local working groups were established in the early 2000s to identify and prioritize issues affecting sage-grouse in their respective areas, according to the groups’ charter. That includes funding projects related to sage-grouse conservation on public or private land.

The local working group, which spans Johnson, Campbell, Sheridan, Crook, Weston and portions of Converse, Niobrara and Natrona counties, in its conservation plan published in 2014 identifies predation as “the major cause of sage-grouse mortality,” though eliminating predators has not been a widely used management tactic.

Instead, the presence of predators is largely attributed to the impact of human-caused habitat changes, and working group efforts and projects and management efforts are primarily tied to land improvements.

The conservation document counts energy development that brings in power lines and other infrastructure where raptors can perch, as well as the expansion of rural subdivisions into grouse habitat as the primary factor in increased predation. Raccoons and red fox were counted as newcomer predators in 2014, and their presence is attributed to more food sources — such as

roadkill, livestock carcasses, crops or trash brought by human presence in grouse habitat.

Nyssa Whitford, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s sage-grouse and sagebrush biologist, confirmed during the meeting that none of the state’s eight working groups have funded predator removal since she joined the agency in May 2022.

However, the Big Horn Basin local working group on the other side of the Bighorn Mountains is currently funding a research project on sage- grouse, livestock and predator interactions, she told the Bulletin.

The primary management issue in northeastern Wyoming, Whitford said, is habitat lacking adequate cover for sage-grouse due to a loss of sagebrush plants, meaning it is easier for predators to find the birds.

“While predator control has been shown to improve sage-grouse survival in the short term, the effect has not been shown to be long lasting since the human subsides and fragmented habitat still exist,” Whitford wrote in an email. “Predators tend to reoccupy the areas they are removed from.”

Still, Welles’ remark about predator removal and the role it could play in sage-grouse conservation was well received by local landowners in attendance at the group’s most recent meeting, who asked that the working group consider adding a representative from one of the counties’ predator control districts to its ranks.

Predator control districts employ trappers to kill predators that threaten local ranchers’ herds. Those are funded by ranchers’ brand inspection fees and the statewide Animal Damage Management Board. Most agricultural predators also prey on sage-grouse.

Ultimately, working group Chairperson Laurel Vicklund told attendees that while the group is unable to exceed 12 members based on its charter, it would welcome a presentation on predators and sage-grouse at its next meeting.

In an interview, she said that project proposals need to prove the action would enhance sage-grouse survival and propagation to be awarded funding.

“If a grant proposal comes through on predator control, we’re going to look at where that proposal is in proximity to leks with birds and where it is in proximity to the new stewardship area or a core area,” Vicklund said.

The attending landowners reside and ranch within what the state’s Sage-Grouse Implementation Team recently designated in its new habitat maps as a “stewardship area,” instead of a core area as it was originally listed in the first draft. Wyoming’s sage-grouse management strategy is tied to the protection of swaths of habitat considered essential to sage-grouse survival, called core area habitat, which is limited in development and other land use capabilities.

Kyle and Gib Bell own land on the border between Johnson and Campbell counties within the new stewardship area. They and other landowners are in the process of drafting a conservation agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that would protect certain activities in the event of an Endangered Species Act listing for the sage-grouse.

The Bells agreed with the working group that habitat loss is a factor in sage-grouse population declines, but they argue that managers shouldn’t ignore a factor that they said they see every day on their land, nor a possible solution.

“We’re not against the sage grouse. Don’t ever think that we are,” Gib said. “But everybody’s looking at how we enhance the birds instead of figuring out why the birds are actually going down in numbers.”

Overall, the working group’s decade-old conservation plan says that large-scale predator removal is not a statewide management objective, but that in areas where predation is a significant concern, small-scale, localized control has been shown to be an effective management tactic.

“Research on the cause-and-effect relationship of predator control is needed,” the document says.

The Bells’ neighbor, James Mankin, agrees.

He said that he doesn’t see dead sage-grouse on his property in Johnson and Campbell counties lost to predation, because predators will eat them, leaving sometimes only a feather as evidence.

“Don’t write the predator off,” he said.

This story was published on February 1, 2024.