Historical Review of Elk–Agriculture Conflicts in and Around Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba, Canada

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center Human–Wildlife Interactions for

Spring 2009

Historical review of elk–agriculture conflicts in and around Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba, Canada

Ryan K. Brook University of Manitoba, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/hwi

Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons

Brook, Ryan K., "Historical review of elk–agriculture conflicts in and around Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba, Canada" (2009). Human–Wildlife Interactions. 21. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/hwi/21

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Human–Wildlife Interactions by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Human–Wildlife Conﬂ icts 3(1):72–87, Spring 2009

Historical review of elk–agriculture con- ﬂ icts in and around Riding Mountain Na- tional Park, Manitoba, Canada

RYAN K. BROOK1, Environmental Conservation Lab, Department of Environment and Geography, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada [email protected]

Abstract: Confl icts between elk (Cervus elaphus) and farmers have been occurring since the 1880s when agriculture began around what is now Riding Mountain National Park (RMNP). Initially, the confl icts were related to low elk numbers caused primarily by unregulated harvest of elk. The creation of RMNP in 1930 and the associated ban on hunting allowed elk numbers to reach critically high levels. Since farming began, elk have been associated with considerable damage to fences and crops around RMNP, with annual damage often >$240,000. Hunting on agricultural lands has been the most common approach to mitigating elk impacts, despite its limited success. Additionally, a damage compensation program was created in 1997. Beginning in 1991, elk–agriculture confl icts accelerated to a new level with the detection of bovine tuberculosis (TB) in local elk. Despite the concerns and economic hardship caused by TB, attitudes toward elk remain largely positive, and farmers obtain important economic and noneconomic benefi ts from the elk population. Confl icts between farmers and government about elk management often have been characterized by heated debates, poor or nonexistent communication, and, until recently, limited attempts to mitigate the impacts of elk. Future programs to address these confl icts should focus on collaboration and communication to develop mutually acceptable long-term solutions that are regularly evaluated using both local knowledge and scientifi c study.

Key words: agriculture, bovine tuberculosis, Cervus elaphus, disease, elk, farming, human– wildlife conﬂ ict, protected areas

“You hear locals say that if the Park was used again it would be the place it used to be. You also hear the naturalists say to leave it in the natural state. I disagree with both, for no one will reuse it the way it was before.” (Farmer, Rural Municipality of Park South, personal communication)

Conflicts between wildlife and agriculture initiatives ultimately will be infl uenced not are commonplace globally and have important only by the economic costs and benefi ts to implications for conservation in and around farmers living near protected areas, but also protected areas, infl uencing the sustainability by the nature of the emotional connection that of agriculture (Schonewald-Cox et al. 1992, they have formed with wildlife and protected Western et al. 1994, McShea et al. 2007, Devault areas (Badola 1998, Jacobson et al. 2003). While et al. 2007, Retamosa et al. 2008). Protected considerable research has focused both on areas are largely focused on conservation of documenting the direct costs of wildlife impacts wildlife and native habitats, while agricultural on agriculture and developing economic lands are working landscapes that have been incentives for wildlife conservation (e.g., transformed into crop monocultures and graz- Western et al. 1994, Nyhus et al. 2003, Bissonett e ing lands interspersed with fragments of native et al. 2008, DeVault et al. 2008, Messmer and vegetation (Herkert 1994). Farmers living along Messmer 2008, Retamosa et al. 2008), less work the borders of protected areas must balance the has examined the broader social impacts. Such economic decisions of agricultural production impacts are complex because of the eff ects with conservation priorities, and, thus, they of diverse att itudes, socioeconomic status of have a primary infl uence on conservation near individual farmers, and the characteristically protected areas. high levels of spatial and temporal variability Support from farmers for conservation of those impacts (Storm et al. 2007).

1Present address: Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4N1, Canada Elk–agriculture conﬂ icts • Brook 73

Elk (Cervus elaphus) confl icts with agriculture by Canada Post (the federal mail delivery around Riding Mountain National Park (RMNP) service) as farms, based on their existing in southern Manitoba, Canada, provide a list of farm operators. The overall adjusted valuable case study for human–wildlife confl icts response rate was 25%. I telephoned 75 that have been occurring there since before nonrespondents and asked 5 questions selected the park was created in the 1930s. RMNP is a from the original questionnaire to check for core area of deciduous and coniferous native nonresponse bias. The results were compared forest and grassland within an agricultural with data from the 2001 Agriculture Census of matrix. The park oft en is referred to as an Canada and were considered representative island in a sea of agriculture. Indeed, the park of the regional population of farmers, and no boundary, which is clearly visible in satellite signifi cant diff erences were identifi ed (Brook imagery, contrasts sharply with surrounding and McLachlan 2006, Brook 2007). agricultural lands (Noss 1995). The wilderness I conducted semidirected interviews with and the surrounding agricultural lands support 102 residents living within 50 km of RMNP, a large population of elk that frequently move including 88 farmers, 14 aboriginal people, across the boundary. The objective of this study and 9 government agency staff members. A was to characterize confl icts between farmers purpose of these interviews was to document and elk around RMNP over the last 127 years as important context and drivers of confl ict, to bett er understand the social and biophysical both long-term changes in regional and farm- context of current confl icts. This study also scale management strategies, and changes in provides important insights into the complex protected areas of the park. Direct quotes from relationship between farmers and the national all data sources were included to illustrate park. the context and tone of the confl icts (Kreswell 1998). All aspects of community participation Methods occurred under the authorization of the Joint The study area is situated in southern Faculty–Human Subject Research Ethics Manitoba, Canada, and includes the agriculture- Board Protocol #J2002:043 at the University of dominated area within 50 km of RMNP. The Manitoba. park is a large block of relatively undisturbed forest and grassland. The land around the Results park has been largely converted to oilseed, I identifi ed diverse types of confl icts within cereal crops, pasture, and hay production, the study area (Figure 1) over the entire 127-year- interspersed with small, isolated patches of period of agriculture in the Riding Mountain deciduous and mixed forest. Over 50,000 beef region (Figure 2). These confl icts were present catt le are currently being raised in the region in distinct periods of the area’s development (Brook and McLachlan 2006). (pre-agricultural, early agricultural, protected I conducted a longitudinal analysis of elk– area with resource use and extraction, and agriculture confl icts using information from protected area with conservation status). published and unpublished sources, provincial hunter questionnaires, provincial and federal Pre-agriculture lett er fi les, and fi eld reports collected in federal Prior to the arrival of European sett lers in the and provincial libraries. From 2002 to 2004, 1880s, elk were common on the mixed aspen I participated in 11 town hall meetings in the grasslands in and around what is now RMNP farming towns of Rossburn, Inglis, Grandview, (Green 1933, Jamieson 1974, Peckett 1999). Elk McCreary, and Erickson that are located near were culturally important to Cree, Nakota, RMNP where I recorded comments from a total and Anishinabe aboriginal groups living in of 500 att endees. I also att ended 7 smaller town the region, providing them with an important hall meetings in the First Nation (aboriginal) source of meat and hides (Green 1933). Local communities of Valley River, Waywayseecappo, aboriginal people made regular trips into Keeseekoowenin, and Rolling River. the Riding Mountain region to hunt (Peckett In the spring of 2002, I sent a mail 1999). Throughout this pre-agricultural period, questionnaire to all 4,220 households identifi ed no confl icts with humans were documented 74 Human–Wildlife Confl icts 3(1)

Human-Human Conflicts

Hunter-farmer access to private land Farmer-government property damage Elk-Farmer fdairsmeaesr-eg coovmerpnemnesnatt i on safety concerns RMNP habitat baiting and feeding RMNP access hunting ethics Conflicts hunter licensing bovine TB testing fence damage stored hay communication Farmer-farmer damage marginalization hunting access standing hunter interference baiting and feeding crop damage predator concerns bovine tuberculosis baiting and feeding transmission d First Nations-farmer unequal rights access to private land Federal-provincial property damage conflicting jurisdiction/mandate hunting ethics power struggles communication program funding

Figure 1. Elk–agriculture confl icts in the Riding Mountain National Park (RMNP) region over the last 127 years have been characterized by diverse impacts that drive additional, complex human–human confl icts. The most severe of these have been farmer–government confl icts related to managing elk–farmer confl icts. between elk and people (Tabulenas 1983). The farmers widely believed that when snow entire system changed dramatically with the accumulated to high levels large numbers of advent of agriculture. elk moved out of the area that became RMNP (Green 1933, Trott ier and Hutchinson 1982). Agricultural development and the Early farmers around Riding Mountain report- decline of the elk population ed that elk were “plentiful” (Green 1933), but The fl at plains surrounding what is now the elk population soon declined in response to RMNP were sett led extensively beginning in unregulated harvest (deVos 1965). the late nineteenth century, and large areas of The Riding Mountain Timber Reserve was native grasslands were converted to farmland established in 1895, and in 1906 it was designated (Carlyle 1996). By 1904, much of the available as a Dominion Forest Reserve to conserve the grasslands had been purchased by private remaining forests and wildlife in the region entities, though the forest cover was largely from human sett lement (Dickson 1909). Forest intact until 1925 (Goldrup 1992). management and fi re protection services, As agriculture began to develop in the along with protection from development, were latt er part of the nineteenth century, the provided (Evans 1923). Forestry service staff elevated escarpment that is now RMNP was could not interfere with hunting except to used extensively by elk, particularly during report abuses (Tabulenas 1983). Although elk the summer months (Green 1933). Local harvest was banned in 1895 with the creation Elk–agriculture confl icts • Brook 75

"$$! !&$ "$$! )& ! !& % !&$

!& % '$%%! *# #$

# ##'$% %-

# ##'$% !& %

!# $&$$% #'$% !& %

*#'$% !& %

%%#+ !& %

%-!#$%$#' !& % %! #

3::2 3;22 3;32 3;42 3;52 3;62 3;72 3;82 3;92 3;:2 3;;24222 4229

!' %!%% 4(!'$ %! !' !& # 57,9#, .!' 34%% "!$%' #/ #$ #

#%* #%* !( "!"&%! "!"&%!

%!$% #!"$

%!$%!#*

%!# $

! " $%! "#!# !#

Figure 2. Timeline for the evolution of protected area status and use that form the context and primary drivers of elk–agriculture confl icts in and around what is now Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba, Canada. 76 Human–Wildlife Confl icts 3(1) of the timber reserve, this did not result in a personnel occurred frequently over elk-hunting substantive reduction in hunting until 1900, issues. Nevertheless, by 1925 the elk population when it became evident that elk numbers were had risen to approximately 2,000 animals declining (Tabulenas 1983). In 1906, J. P. Turner, (Rounds 1977). Farmers who were interviewed a prominent historian for the Royal Canadian as part of this study oft en observed that many Mounted Police made an urgent call to save men left the region to fi ght in World War I and what was left of the elk population: World War II, resulting in an associated sharp decline in elk hunting. This decline in elk [The elk population] was plentiful hunting was partially responsible for the elk in southern Manitoba, but with the recovery. exception of an occasional straggler, Further protection for the elk was provided it is seldom seen there now. Each year by the establishment of RMNP in 1930, though its range shrinks before the advance of the park was 26% smaller than the original sett lement, and the constantly increasing forest reserve (Figure 3). The elk population number of hunters who pursue it.... In continued to increase to around 3,500 animals its wilder and more inaccessible range by 1933 (Rounds 1977) and then rose sharply of the Riding and Duck Mountains it to approximately 6,000 animals in early 1941, is reported to be still fairly plentiful, 12,000 in 1946, and reached an estimated but I have recently been informed that record high of 16,800 animals in the fall of 1946 it is steadily decreasing in numbers.... (Banfi eld 1949). In the Riding Mountains district lies Conditions around the park also were an extensive tract of wild country changing. The human population more than splendidly adapted for the wapiti [elk]. tripled from approximately 15,000 at the turn It is practically useless for sett lement, of the century to 47,000 by the late 1940s (Stadel and barring some lumbering, it will 1996). Farming gradually became increasingly never be of value to the province except mechanized; the introduction of the bulldozer as a large and magnifi cent game and drastically increased the rate of forest clearing timber preserve. (Turner 1906) (Bird 1961). The elk population appears to have peaked in the 1940s and by 1949 decreased to Creation of a protected area 4,700 animals in response to declining habitat Establishment of a game reserve in the Riding quality within the park (Colls 1950). More Mountain escarpment aft er 1907 provided some than half of all farmers interviewed in this protection for the elk from over-harvest. The study indicated that it was common practice reserve covered approximately 840 km2 in the to illegally harvest an elk within RMNP during south-central portion of the forest reserve, and the late 1940s. Many park wardens condoned hunting was prohibited. The remaining portion this practice, provided that hunters took only of the forest reserve, however, was open to a single animal and used the meat for personal provincially regulated elk harvest (Tabulenas consumption. Aft er 1963, the elk population 1983). As a result of sport hunting, subsistence fl uctuated between 2,000 and 6,000 animals hunting, illegal harvest, and natural winter (Parks Canada, unpublished data). mortalities, by 1914 the Riding Mountain elk population was reduced from thousands to an Agricultural activities within RMNP estimated 500 animals. From 1895 until 1970, catt le grazing was The provincial government prohibited elk allowed within what is now RMNP. During the hunting throughout Manitoba between 1917 1950s and 1960s, 15% of the park was grazed and 1933, when only 1 very limited season by up to 4,600 permitt ed catt le (Figure 3; Blood was allowed (Green 1933). During this time, 1966, Dushinsky 1981). Interviews for this study it was an off ense to be in possession of elk indicated, however, that many hundreds of meat anywhere in Manitoba. Despite these catt le were grazed annually in the park without regulations, however, poaching remained permit. Catt le grazing was strongly encouraged a common practice (Hewitt 1921). Confl icts to reduce the fi re hazard (Dushinsky 1981) but between farmers and government enforcement led to the deterioration of many of the native Elk–agriculture confl icts • Brook 77

Figure 3. Cattle-grazing distribution within Riding Mountain Dominion Forest Reserve (RMDFR) in 1916. (Parks Canada, unpublished data). prairies within the park (Trott ier 1986). Blood employment to help put out the fi res. Logging (1966) felt that overlap in diet or range-use within RMNP also was allowed until 1964, and by catt le and elk was limited and that neither farmers relied heavily on Riding Mountain species had an impact on the other. Still, some during this entire period as a source of wood concerns were raised within RMNP regarding for building materials; most fence posts in the the level of hay harvest. A RMNP warden region also were derived from the park. reported in 1951: Elimination of catt le grazing, haying, and logging within RMNP by 1970 generated I am still surprised to learn that there considerable farmer frustration that is still is a considerable amount of hay cut in very much present. A participant at a town hall areas which are the fi nest elk range in meeting in Erickson during 2003 stated that the Park…. This amount would support “the government sold us out by kicking us out a fair number of elk throughout the of the park.” Indeed, discussions with farmers critical period, and it would relieve about any resource issue typically implicated, a great deal of pressure on browse either directly or indirectly, the loss of access species. (Reeve 1951) to RMNP as a cause of other diverse problems, as the following remarks by a catt le producer Reeve (1951) estimated that 1,361 metric tons show: of hay was cut in RMNP each summer, but he cautioned that “the park wardens state that they Before RMNP was established, my are afraid of intentionally set fi res if grazing father logged, cut fi rewood, hunted and haying permits were to be cancelled” every winter, as well as all those (Reeve 1951). One farmer interviewed in this surrounding the park were doing the study indicated that he set fi res intentionally same. Now we see millions of dollars to rejuvenate meadows for hay production and worth of timber and fi rewood rott ing. catt le grazing. Another interviewee noted that No fi res or cutt ing. So no grass will occasionally he started fi res to generate paid grow to feed the animals. The tree 78 Human–Wildlife Confl icts 3(1)

huggers call this natural, but it’s a From the establishment of RMNP in 1930 un- long way from that. (Catt le producer, til catt le grazing in the park was discontinued in personal communication) 1970, very few elk were tested for disease, so it is not clear if any disease transmission occurred Once farmers stopped using RMNP to extract between catt le and elk in RMNP. During the resources, most of them never returned at all to winter of 1946–1947, Banfi eld (1949) noted large the park. Only 6% of the farmers interviewed numbers of sick elk infected with “verminous for this study made use of the park for any pneumonia,” but that infection was att ributed purpose over the last decade. to the extreme population size of the elk at the time. Potential disease transmission Bovine tuberculosis (TB) was endemic to catt le Elk–catt le contact has occurred within and in Manitoba until at least the 1960s, but these around RMNP since European sett lement, rais- outbreaks were never formally associated with ing concerns about disease transmission. Green a wildlife host, and bovine TB was generally (1933) did not identify any epizootic diseases considered a disease primarily of catt le that in the elk, but he warned that monitoring for could also infect humans. However, some local anthrax, hemorrhagic septicaemia, brucellosis, residents viewed wildlife as a potential source and necrobacillosis would be necessary. At of disease for many decades, as one catt le the time of Green’s study (1933), an outbreak producer I interviewed in 2002 indicated: of hemorrhagic septicaemia that occurred in sheep herds along the edge of RMNP may have TB was always a factor and concern infected the nearby elk. Green observed that since day one. In the early 1920s and actions needed to prevent livestock diseases through to the mid-1950s, TB played a from infecting wild elk were obvious and worth role in the lives of almost every family. the eff ort required to prevent domestic stock Prett y well everyone including our from invading the range. past generations here ate elk, moose, An outbreak of blackleg disease in catt le and deer on a regular basis. The catt le herds in RMNP in 1956 supported Green’s were exposed to these animals in a far concerns about disease and the risks of greater extent in the past years than transmission to free-ranging elk. Others they are today. Wild game carried TB expressed similar concerns. Most notably, D. R. at that time as did domestic animals. Flook, the Canadian Wildlife Service biologist The percentage of people with TB was working in RMNP, repeatedly raised concerns also high in consideration of the sparse regarding disease transmission from catt le to population. From the mid-1920s to wild ungulates: 1955, several families had members sent to sanatoriums to be treated. The I reported last December on the TB at that time was contracted in 3 livestock grazing situation as it major ways: eating contaminated meat aff ected wildlife from a standpoint of (wild and domestic), drinking milk competition for forage and wildlife (and cream butt er) and water, or from with contagious diseases. The sit- person to person. The spread from uation still exists. I believe that foot person to person was solved by x-ray rot and lump jaw are more prevalent, and early diagnosis. Any positive test indicating that the range is becoming was sent to a sanatorium. The spread more contaminated with the organisms from domestic animals to humans was causing these diseases. Wild ungulates solved by having herds tested every 3 are susceptible to these diseases which years regularly. No one has ever fi gured can be disastrous in their eff ects on out why the TB dropped in the wildlife, wild populations... I recommend again other than a lot of animals died off of that all livestock grazing in the park be their own accord when populations discontinued. (Flook 1956) became too high and we had a rough winter. Roughly this has occurred Elk–agriculture confl icts • Brook 79

and around farms. In all town meetings, at least 1 participant, and oft en several, suggested that the elk herd should be destroyed. One town hall meeting participant remarked: “You need to kill off the wild elk herd. TB is a real problem and something drastic needs Elk gathered at Riding Mountain National Park. to be done” (2003). When government offi cials suggested that eradication of 4 times since my grandparents and the elk was not feasible, participants typically parents and myself have resided in became frustrated. One meeting participant, the area from 1912 to present. (Catt le for example, remarked bluntly: “We have given producer, personal communication) you the solution, but you don’t have the guts to In 1986, Manitoba was declared TB-free, but use it. Kill the elk.” (2003). 7 beef catt le herds tested positive in 1991. The suspected source of the contagion was RMNP. Historical elk damage to crops In 1992, the fi rst elk in the region was confi rmed Crop damage by elk and damage to fences TB positive; however, there was litt le wildlife around RMNP has been a recurring problem testing before that, despite an incidental fi nding since farming began (Lundy 1955). Observations of 2 infected wolves in RMNP. Six local farmers from farmers interviewed in this study and that I interviewed during this study believed government records indicated that damage by that several elk that had been shot around elk to agricultural crops has occurred every year RMNP over the last 100 years were infected with over the last century, and most of the damage bovine TB, but none of these farmers turned in was close to the park. From 1997 to 2006, >90% samples for testing: of all elk damage occurred <3 km from RMNP. The Manitoba minister of mines and natural As long ago as 1959, I can remember a resources, C. H. Whitney, indicated that farmers hunt with 2 long-time local elk hunters were reporting considerable damage that (both now deceased), who had hunted elk for more than 20 years before me, Elk have been doing to agricultural leaving an elk in the fi eld because of the products, such as hay in the farming lumps on the rib cage and in the lungs. districts close to the border of the Park. “That elk has TB... [and] we will leave They att ribute the exodus of elk from [it] in the bush.” What really sticks in my the Park to two main reasons, one memory is how emphatic he was that being a reported lack of feed for the elk the elk had TB because of other similar in the Park itself, and the second being experiences in his past. (R. Usick, catt le an over-abundance of timber wolves producer, Rural Municipality of Park and coyotes in the protected area of the South, unpublished report) Park. (Whitney 1950)

In all of the town hall meetings I att ended, An issue paper that was produced by the participants expressed a very high level of Manitoba Department of Game and Fisheries in concern about the presence of TB within the response to minister Whitney further explains region and the risks of transmission to livestock the conﬂ ict: (Brook and McLachlan 2006). It has been largely assumed that TB transmission between elk and An RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted catt le was facilitated by elk use of hay bales in Police] report has also been received 80 Human–Wildlife Conﬂ icts 3(1)

wherein it states that a farmer of the he and neighbours cannot stand loss. Makinak district reported to them he (Malaher 1952) had killed an elk and that they could come pick it up. He further stated The Federal Department of Resources and that he and other farmers of the area Development responded: intended shooting all elk they found on their property in the future. All the The park warden in district opposite the farmers signed a petition and sent it in to lands of these farmers does not think the M.P. [members of Federal Canadian that the farmers have made any eff ort Parliament] for Dauphin, and he took to keep elk off their fi elds. Under the the petition to Ott awa in an att empt to circumstances, it is suggested that any have something done either to prevent action to be taken should be restricted the elk doing damage, or to arrange to to areas outside of the park and that, have farmers paid for damages done by with provincial co-operation, the the elk. The petition brought no results. farmers concerned should endeavour Nothing was done. (Colls 1950) to take eff ective action to protect their interests. (Smart 1952) However, Malaher (1952) noted that not all farmers supported such extreme actions. The A compensation program was initiated by the provincial director of game and fi sheries noted Manitoba provincial government in 1997 that a response from one farmer: provided 100% loss coverage to farmers for crop damage caused by elk. This was then reduced His neighbours have suff ered material to 80% of the value of the loss in 2004. In all damage from elk. Heavy bush comes years and all seasons, there is considerable elk right up to the farm fence lines.... The damage to fences, standing crops, and stored open hunting season is inadequate in hay bales on agricultural lands, with annual preventing damage. Elk coming out damage oft en >$240,000 in the region. to feeding at night. Farmers cannot protect fi elds at night in period of Intergovernmental confl icts intense cold.... He and neighbours have Diff erences of opinion among federal and tried every means to keep elk away. He provincial agencies regarding options to feels that nothing can stop all his crop manage elk damage have occurred regularly going before spring. Anticipates elk due to diff erences in mandate and jurisdiction. will reach his fi elds soon. Suggests the An internal provincial memo stated: Government buy the crop of himself and neighbours and then let the elk feed Our main object is to eliminate the on it. If no compensation is granted he elk outside of the Park, as elk and is considering suing the Government agriculture are not compatible.... The for damages on behalf of all the group. root of the trouble lies within the RMNP He thinks the problem is increased by which is under Federal jurisdiction. the cutt ing and removing of hay from (Davey and Reeve 1950) the Park by farmers, under permit. This hay should be feed for the elk. Elk The internal confl ict is evident in seem to have formed the habit of grain correspondence from the Manitoba provincial eating. Each generation of young now senior game manager, E. F. Bossenmaier, learn habit from the adults. He would regarding a conversation he had with the federal not like to see all the elk shot. In normal director of national parks, J. R. B. Coleman: years there is not much problem as the crops are all off the fi elds. This year it We asked him for his viewpoint on the is critical—only threshed 20 acres. Has proposal that some system be devised no remedy to suggest except perhaps whereby sport hunters could shoot organized feeding in the Park. Insists elk inside the Park boundary. Again Elk–agriculture confl icts • Brook 81

he was sympathetic but dismissed Both the federal and provincial governments the idea on the basis that it would be are regularly accused of herding elk back into a dangerous precedent. When it was the park before the start of the hunting season mentioned that possibly a mile to three (Winnipeg Tribune 1952b, Dauphin Herald 2004). mile wide strip of the Park periphery On one occasion, the provincial government could be removed from the Park and did conduct a herding trial using a helicopter designated a game management (Winnipeg Free Press 1950a). However, G. W. area, he countered by proposing that Malaher, the provincial director of game and the province buy up a one to three fi sheries, noted that not all farmers supported mile wide strip adjoining the Park such extreme actions. boundary and designate this as a game Some discussion has occurred regarding management area. (Bossenmaier 1960) holding meetings with farmers about crop damage, as was noted by the federal senior Interviews with local farmers elicited many game manager: stories regarding confl icting mandates and objectives between federal and provincial As a means of easing tension among the agencies. Government employees from both farmers in the vicinity of the Park, Mr. levels stated that communication among the Coleman speculated about the value federal and provincial employees oft en was of public meetings. It was his thought rare. One RMNP warden noted that his staff that if the disturbed landowners had typically learned about the number of elk tags an opportunity to air their grievances, to be provided to hunters in the upcoming there might be less grumbling in the season by obtaining a Manitoba hunting guide, future. (Bossenmaier 1960) a publication by the provincial government given to all hunters, and that no consultations However, there were very few records of were held with federal staff before sett ing meetings being held with farmers to discuss seasons. In 2001, the establishment of a crop damage or mitigation options, and few bovine TB management task group with farmers interviewed in this study recalled representatives from the government agencies att ending meetings. One meeting held to and key stakeholders facilitated increased discuss elk management with local stakeholders dialogue, though considerable confl ict remains and government offi cials in 1991, however, regarding elk use of farms and the associated was identifi ed by 11 interviewees as the most damage done to fi elds and crops. intense confl ict in which they have ever been involved. Their ill-feelings stemmed from the Mitigating elk damage to crops RMNP superintendent’s opening remarks: Att empts to reduce elk damage on farmland have largely focused on liberalizing hunting I prefer a buff er concept. Additional seasons (Winnipeg Free Press 1950b, Davies 1968, lands surrounding the park could be Schroeder 1981), and the province has been set aside and used on a sustainable reluctant to provide farmers with kill permits yield basis…. The land could be for problem animals. In many years when crop designated under new special damage was high, the provincial government set provincial legislation that would open elk-hunting seasons around RMNP. The promote sustainable management, maximum number of elk harvested by hunters including wood cutt ing, hunting and in 1 season was estimated at 2,298 during 1959– trapping. (M. H. Estabrooks, Parks 1960 (Carbyn and Flook 1969), though farmers Canada, unpublished report) indicated in personal interviews for this study that the actual number was much higher due to Farmer interviewees in this study 15 years poaching and unreported kills by landowners. later frequently cite this statement as evidence Elk were frequently killed inside RMNP by park that a primary goal of RMNP was to expand wardens, and a reduction program was carried beyond its boundaries. All RMNP staff that I out inside RMNP during 1959–1960 when 319 interviewed, however, strongly argued that elk were killed (Carbyn and Flook 1969). park expansion is not their objective. 82 Human–Wildlife Confl icts 3(1) ve been variable in tim- stionnaires, Malaher 1950, ce harvest of elk. inimum estimate for the number of Estimates of elk harvest by licensed hunters on the agricultural lands around Riding Mountain National Park. Hunting seasons ha

Figure 4. All elk-hunting occurred during the winter months and thus, provide a m ing, duration, and number of available hunting permits. elk moving outside of the RMNP boundary. Data were compiled from diverse sources (Manitoba Conservation, unpublished hunter que boundary. elk moving outside of the RMNP Parsons 1952, Blood 1966, Carbyn and Flook 1969, Richards 1997). No data are currently available on First Nations subsisten Elk–agriculture conﬂ icts • Brook 83

Elk hunting to off set elk impacts, as indicated by the words While farmers have regularly raised concerns of 1 catt le farmer: about elk damage, hunters (who oft en are also farmers) around RMNP frequently have been My wife and I go for the landowner frustrated by the total ban on elk hunting in the season every year since it started, and park (Winnipeg Tribune 1952a, 1952b). Indeed, we usually get an elk for the freezer. If it the season length, number of available hunting weren’t for this program, we probably permits and the number of elk killed each year wouldn’t do nearly as well. (Catt le on farmalnd around RMNP have varied greatly producer, personal communication) (Figure 4). In the winter of 1951, a group of 133 hunters signed a petition, stating: While hundreds of farmers participate in the landowner season, there remains confl ict over We fi nd that aft er two days hunting that the nature and timing of the program. One no elk venture outside of the park area catt le producer said: aft er the fi rst shot is fi red. We have paid our $10 and we want a gambler’s chance The landowner elk season should to get an elk. We strongly recommend remain open at any time another elk that the game and fi sheries branch give season is open in that area. Many us at least six days hunting within the landowners are unsuccessful during boundaries of the Riding Mountain their hunting season, which usually National Park, as the lands bordering occurs during their busy harvest season on the park are privately owned, we in the fall. Then they have to put up with do not wish to enter upon same. These the hordes of city slickers that don’t elk come out into the open at night and have a clue about hunting etiquett e do damage to the farmers crops when and coming out roaring around and it is illegal to shoot them. (Hunters of sometimes asking permission, then Manitoba 1951) wanting all kinds of assistance when they accidently harvest an animal. All In 1981, the provincial government estab- this when the landowner goes without lished a special landowner hunting season an animal aft er trying to be sympathetic in the early fall of each year specifi cally for towards elk and moose—doing damage farmers and other landowners. In an interview, all year long. (Catt le producer, personal D. Chranowski, the regional biologist for communication) Manitoba Conservation (the provincial agency responsible for hunting seasons), explained the For many local residents, including farmers value of the landowner season: and Anishinabe hunters, the greatest frustration expressed with regard to hunting is the total Landowners were experiencing dep- ban on hunting within RMNP where the vast redation from elk, and this special majority of the elk population resides. season was the government’s way of saying “thanks” for putt ing up Habitat change with the elk. Second, it was a way of Farmers view many areas of the park as encouraging landowners to retain overgrown with forest and shrubs resulting from habitat on their own land that helped intensive fi re control and the discontinuation retain elk in the general area. (D. of haying, forestry, and catt le grazing. These Chranowski, Manitoba Conservation, changes in habitat oft en are considered to be personal communication) primary factors associated with elk–agriculture confl icts. One catt le producer described the The value of the landowner hunting season situation in this way: was referred to extensively by local residents, and it oft en is viewed as a positive contribution Many years ago when farmers were permitt ed to cut hay in the park, 84 Human–Wildlife Confl icts 3(1)

large meadows were kept treeless farmland and caused considerable fl ooding in and provided good feeding areas for some years (Menzies 1998). elk.... When cutt ing hay was no longer permitt ed, these areas became treed-in The way forward and also because of the explosion in The basis of confl icts that are currently the beaver population, these feeding occurring around what is now RMNP are the areas are either grown in or fl ooded. result of a wide range of cumulative factors that So I feel the government must improve have been operating since farming began in the habitat for elk in the park and also the 1880s. All resource management decisions make sure that the grazing areas are must refl ect and accommodate these past issues large enough to support the current elk in addressing existing and emerging confl icts. populations. (Catt le producer, personal Despite the on-going challenges that farmers and communication) other stakeholders have with elk, local att itudes toward elk are largely positive and considerable Changes in farming practices also have economic and social benefi ts are derived from infl uenced elk confl icts. One catt le producer hunting and observing them. However, there commented: are considerable ongoing challenges with regard to human–human confl icts associated I’ve gone from more of a grain crop with elk damage and disease management. base—from what my dad had—to a Eff orts by management agencies to mitigate catt le-based operation here since a lot elk impacts historically have been minimal and of the land is bett er suited for catt le. have relied almost solely on hunting to reduce So I’ve been sowing it down, and now elk populations and deter elk from farms I tend to see more elk because of the and compensation to off set these impacts. alfalfa out there. I’ll see more during Hunting is an important component of long- the day than you would if it was term management of the elk population and summer fallow or anything else. (Catt le has contributed to a reduction in elk impacts producer, personal communication) in some cases. As such, hunting opportunities both for local people and other residents of The initiation of controlled burns within Manitoba should be maintained throughout the RMNP in the 1990s is seen by most farmers as fall and early winter. Hay-yard barrier fences important for reducing confl icts with elk. One that are comprised of 3-m-high paige wire and grain farmer said: “The controlled burning in are provided free by the federal and provincial the park over the past few years has benefi ted governments are the most eff ective and widely- the elk habitat; therefore, the elk are staying in accepted management tool in use to mitigate the park more. They had nothing to eat before, elk–agriculture confl ict (Brook 2005). This and now they do” (Grain farmer, personal program should be continued and expanded to communication). However, this success has other areas of Manitoba and encouraged for all then resulted in confl icts with hunters who farmers with any problems with elk damage. have complained that the habitat improvement The current Manitoba crop insurance has reduced their success. program, which provides compensation to Declining elk habitat caused by beaver farmers for wildlife damage, is an eff ective (Castor canadensis) activity within RMNP also short-term strategy to help farmers deal with is frequently identifi ed as a primary source impacts from elk. However, it largely removes of elk–agriculture confl ict (Brook 2007). The the incentive for farmers to examine ways of concern about the impact of beavers on habitat eliminating the damage and the associated risks is exacerbated by the long-standing resentment of disease transmission that exist whenever over Parks Canada’s reintroduction of beavers wildlife and livestock come into direct or aft er the animals were almost completely indirect contact. As a result, over the long extirpated from RMNP during the fur trade term, the existing program can be a disservice (Green 1933). The reintroduced beavers to farmers with chronic wildlife problems and dispersed in large numbers onto surrounding may play an indirect role in facilitating disease Elk–agriculture confl icts • Brook 85 transmission. I recommend that Manitoba Crop Mountain National Park, Manitoba. Journal of Insurance Corporation (MCIC) begin exercising Wildlife Management. 13:127–134. the option that they have to provide fences to be Bird, R. D. 1961. Ecology of the Aspen parkland of used toward preventing wildlife damage in lieu western Canada. Canada Department of Agri- of, or in partial replacement of, cash payments culture, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. for damages and to deny payments in areas with Bissonette, J. A., C. A. Kassar, and L. J. Cook. chronic issues where no mitigation att empts 2008. Assessment of costs associated with have been made. deer–vechicle collisions: human death and in- Communication and cooperation between jury, vehicle damage, and deer loss. Human– farmers and the agencies involved in Wildlife Confl icts 2:17–27. wildlife–agriculture interactions are essential Blood, D. A. 1966. Range relationships of elk and components of successful management of cattle in Riding Mountain National Park, Mani- confl icts associated with elk. Much greater toba, wildlife management bulletin, Series 1. eff orts are needed to include farmers in the Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, Alberta, wildlife management process and keep them Canada. informed of government actions. I recommend Bossenmaier, E. F. 1960. Memorandum: interview establishing an on-farm program that provides with J. R. B. Coleman, director, National Parks an opportunity for agriculture extension Branch. Manitoba Department of Mines and experts, veterinarians, biologists, and farmers Natural Resources Wildlife Branch, Winnipeg, to work together to develop individualized Manitoba, Canada. farm management plans to eliminate or reduce Brook, R. K. 2005. Riding Mountain hay yard bar- wildlife contact with hay bales and catt le and rier fencing program evaluation, fi nal report. facilitate meaningful discussion regarding Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initia- these issues. tives and Manitoba Conservation, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Acknowledgments Brook, R. K. 2007. Elk–agriculture confl icts in the I thank the farmers within the Riding Greater Riding Mountain ecosystem: building Mountain Biosphere Reserve for patiently bridges between the natural and social sci- sharing their expertise, particularly R. ences to promote sustainability. Dissertation, Armbruster, C. Pawluk, J. Whitaker, and A. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Cleland. I also thank A. Thorgilsson, J. Preston, Canada. J. MacDonald, N. Lavalee, and G. Arnold for Brook, R. K., and S. M. McLachlan. 2006. Factors help in documentation; S. M. McLachlan for infl uencing farmers’ concerns associated with guidance; Manitoba Agriculture, Food, and bovine tuberculosis in wildlife and livestock Rural Initiatives; Parks Canada; Manitoba around Riding Mountain National Park, Mani- Conservation; University of Manitoba; Riding toba, Canada. Journal of Environmental Man- Mountain Biosphere Reserve; Louisiana agement 161:156–166. Pacifi c; Nature Conservancy of Canada; Rocky Carlyle, W. J. 1996. Agriculture in Manitoba. Pag- Mountain Elk Foundation; Manitoba Wildlife es 219–236 in J. Welsted, J. Everitt, and C. Federation; Natural Science and Engineering Stadel, editors. The geography of Manitoba. Research Council of Canada; and Social Sciences University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg, Mani- and Humanities Research Council of Canada, toba, Canada. which provided funding. Thanks also to K. Carbyn, L. N., and D. R. Flook. 1969. Riding Moun- Kingdon, M. Catt et, M. Conover, P. Parisi, and 2 tain National Park: discussions of the wildlife anonymous reviewers for valuable comments. problems as posed at the federal-provincial conference held in August 1968. Canadian Literature cited Wildlife Service, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Badola, R. 1998. Attitudes of local people towards Colls, D. G. 1950. Agricultural damage by elk out- conservation and alternatives to forest resourc- side Riding Mountain National Park. Manitoba es: a case study from the lower Himalayas. Game and Fisheries Branch, Winnipeg, Mani- Biodiversity and Conservation 7:1245–1259. toba, Canada. Banfi eld, A. 1949. An irruption of elk in Riding Dauphin Herald. 2004. TB fi ght continues, Parks 86 Human–Wildlife Confl icts 3(1)

Canada hopes to limit effects of fl ights. Dau- the federal and provincial government. Mani- phin Herald, January 13, 2004, Dauphin, Mani- toba Department of Natural Resources, Winni- toba, Canada. peg, Manitoba, Canada. Davey, A . P., and A. J. Reeve. 1950. Elk depre- Jacobson, S. K., K. E. Sieving, G. A. Jones, and dation in the agricultural areas surrounding A. Van Doorn. 2003. Assessment of farmer at- the Riding Mountain National Park. Manitoba titudes and behavioural intentions toward bird Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, conservation on organic and conventional Flor- Manitoba, Canada. ida farms. Conservation Biology 17:595–606. Davies, D. 1968. A brief history of Riding Moun- Jamieson, S. M. 1974. A synthesis of archaeologi- tain elk movements and associated problems. cal research in Riding Mountain National Park Report 14. Manitoba Department of Mines and to 1973. Canadian Department of Indian and Natural Resources, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Can- Northern Affairs, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. ada. Kreswell, J. W. 1998. Qualitative inquiry and re- DeVault, T. L., J. C. Beasley, L. A. Humberg, B. J. search design. Choosing among fi ve traditions. MacGowan, M. I. Retamosa, and O. E. Rhodes Sage, Los Angeles, California, USA. Jr. 2007. Intrafi eld patterns of wildlife damage Lundy, A. M. 1955. Damage to hay by elk around to corn and soybeans in northern Indiana. Hu- Riding Mountain. Province of Manitoba Depart- man–Wildlife Confl icts 1:205–213. ment of Mines and Natural Resources, Winni- deVos, A. 1965. A study of the resources and relat- peg, Manitoba, Canada. ed problems of RMNP. Parks Canada, Ottawa, Malaher, G. W. 1950. Letter to Mr. Harold Mead. Ontario, Canada. Game Branch, Department of Natural Resourc- Dickson, J. R. 1909. The Riding Mountain Forest es and Industrial Development, Prince Albert, Reserve. Canadian Department of Interior For- Saskatchewan, Canada. estry Bulletin 6. Department of the Interior, Ot- Malaher, G. W. 1952. Interview with Arthur tawa, Ontario, Canada. Schmidt, January 24. Province of Manitoba Dushinsky, R. P. 1981. Haying and livestock Department of Mines and Natural Resources, grazing in Riding Mountain National Park: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. past practices, present status, future consid- McShea, W. J., C. M. Stewart, L. J. Kearns, S. Lic- erations. Thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, cioli, and D. Kocka. 2008. Factors affecting au- Ontario, Canada. tumn deer–vehicle collisions in a rural Virginia Evans, S. L. 1923. Report of land classifi cation county. Human–Wildlife Confl icts 2:110–121. surveys in part of Riding Mountain Forest Re- Menzies, C. E. L. 1998. Practicum: cooperative serve. Canadian Department of Interior, Ot- beaver management in the Riding Mountain tawa, Ontario, Canada. Biosphere Reserve, Manitoba. University of Flook, D. R. 1956. Range conditions and livestock Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. grazing in RMNP. File 753. Canadian Wildlife Messmer, T. A., and D. R. Messmer. 2008. Deer– Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. vehicle collision statistics and mitigation infor- Goldrup, C. 1992. Practicum: an historic overview mation: online sources. Human–Wildlife Con- and analysis of consumptive uses of resources fl icts 2:131–135. in Duck Mountain Provincial Park. University of Noss, R. 1995. Maintaining ecological integrity in Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. representative reserve networks: a World Wild- Green, H. U. 1933. The wapiti of Riding Mountain, life Fund, Canada/World Wildlife Fund, United Manitoba: an ecological study and commen- States, discussion paper. World Wildlife Fund, tary. Canadian Field-Naturalist 47:105–111, Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 122–132. Nyhus, P., H. Fischer, F. Madden, and S. Osofsky. Herkert, J. R. 1994. The effects of habitat frag- 2003. Taking the bite out of wildlife damage: the mentation on mid-western grassland bird com- challenges of wildlife compensation schemes. munities. Ecological Applications 4:461–471. Conservation in Practice 4:37–43. Hewitt, C. G. 1921. The conservation of the wild- Parsons, G. 1952. Post-season report on 1951– life of Canada. Scribner, New York, New York, 1952 elk season. Manitoba Department of USA. Mines and Natural Resources, Winnipeg, Man- Hunters of Manitoba. 1951. A petition submitted to itoba, Canada. Elk–agriculture confl icts • Brook 87

Peckett, M. K. 1999. Practicum: Anishinabe home- in Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba. land history, traditional land and resource use Canadian Field-Naturalist 100:488–495. of Riding Mountain, Manitoba. University of Turner, J. P. 1906. The moose and wapiti of Mani- Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. toba: a plea for their preservation. Transactions Reeve, A. J. 1951. Riding Mountain National Park. of the Historical and Scientifi c Society of Mani- Manitoba Department of Mines and Natural toba 69:1–8. Resources, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Western, D., R. M. Wright, and S. C. Strum. 1994. Retamosa, M. I., L. A. Humberg, J. C. Beasley, Natural connections: perspectives in communi- and O. E. Rhodes Jr. 2008. Modeling wildlife ty-based conservation. Island Press, Washing- damage to crops in northern Indiana. Human– ton, D.C., USA. Wildlife Confl icts 2:225–239. Whitney, C. H. 1950. Elk damage issues around Richards, L. K. 1997. Practicum: elk/moose popu- the Riding Mountain. Manitoba Department of lation dynamics in the Riding Mountain National Mines and Natural Resources, Winnipeg, Man- Park region. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, itoba, Canada. Manitoba, Canada Winnipeg Free Press. 1950a. Helicopter to round Rounds, R. C. 1977. Population fl uctuations of wa- up straying elk. February 20, 1950. piti (Cervus elaphus) and moose (Alces alces) Winnipeg Free Press. 1950b. Special season in Riding Mountain Park, Manitoba 1950–1976. opens Monday on foraging elk. December 14, Canadian Field Naturalist 91:130–133. 1950. Schonewald-Cox, C. M., M. Buechner, R. Sauva- Winnipeg Tribune. 1952a. Elk play it safe in park. jot, and B. A. Wilcox, 1992. Cross-boundary December 15, 1952. management between national parks and sur- Winnipeg Tribune. 1952b. Hunters charge war- rounding lands: a review and discussion. Envi- dens keep elk in sanctuary. January 9, 1952. ronmental Management 16:273–282. Schroeder, R. E. 1981. Practicum: factors con- tributing to resource confl ict, a study of Riding Mountain Park in its regional setting. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Smart, J. 1952. Letter to Mr. G. W. Malaher. Game and Fisheries Branch, Manitoba Department of Mines and Natural Resources, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Stadel, C. 1996. The non-metropolitan settlements of southern Manitoba. Pages 152–166 in J. Welsted, J. Everitt, and C. Stadel, editors. The geography of Manitoba. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Storm, D J., C. K. Nielsen, E. M. Schauber, and A. Woolf. 2007. Deer–human confl ict and hunter access in an exurban landscape. Human– Wildlife Confl icts 1:53–59. Tabulenas, D.T. 1983. A narrative human history of Riding Mountain National Park and area: prehistory to 1980. Report Series 102. Parks Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. RYAN K. BROOK is a postdoctoral fellow at the Trottier, G. C., and R. C. Hutchinson. 1982. Un- University of Calgary in the Faculty of Veterinary gulate–winter severity relationships in Riding Medicine. He received his B.S., Master of Natural Mountain National Park, 1977–1980: large Resource Management, and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Manitoba. His research focus is mammal systems study, fi nal report. Canadian wildlife management and the interface between the Wildlife Service, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. ecological and social sciences in arctic, boreal, and agricultural ecosystems. He is currently studying Trottier, G. C. 1986. Disruption of rough fescue community-based caribou health monitoring in (Festuca halli) grassland by livestock grazing northern Canada.