New Bills Could Help Migrating Animals

Specifically, the bill would create a Wildlife Movement and Migration Corridor Program; fund state, federal, and tribal research; provide money for habitat and connectivity work; and continue migration-route mapping projects currently being conducted by the USGS. Over 50 organizations have already voiced their support, including the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Boone & Crockett Club, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA).

“Big game species such as pronghorn, elk, and mule deer rely on established movement and migration routes to access seasonal habitat. The Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act would build on successful and innovative partnerships between government agencies, private landowners, and conservation organizations to benefit these and other species,” Kaden McArthur of BHA said in a press release. “This legislation will further prioritize critical resources to conserve habitat and reduce obstacles to wildlife movement.”

The bill, however, is not an end-all solution to migration problems in the West. Mule deer and pronghorn populations are down across the board, but winter and summer range connectivity is only part of the problem. “We cannot forget the seasonal habitat—the summer range and the winter range—because whether you have connectivity or not, if those two seasonal ranges aren’t in good shape, aren’t productive for the animals in question, you’re not even going to have the animals to use those corridors,” said Casey Stemler, former advisor to the Department of Interior’s previous migration work.

In conjunction with the Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act, another bill was introduced in May, sponsored by congressmen Ryan Zinke (R-Mont) and Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.), alongside senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M). The legislation, called the Wildlife Corridors on Working Lands Act (“Working Lands Act”), is intended to incentivize western ranchers to make their rangelands more friendly to wildlife—both resident and migratory.

The bill (as with the Partnerships Act) has gained bipartisan support, as well as endorsements from a handful of conservation and sportsmen groups as well. If passed, it will provide payments for costs associated with planning, design, materials, equipment, installation, and maintenance of infrastructure on eligible grasslands enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program, which was first established in 1985. It’s part of a recent push to establish more voluntary, locally-led, producer-driven conservation measures rather than forcing top-down solutions on ranchers.

Enrollment in the conservation programs proposed by the Working Lands Act will be entirely by choice but heavily incentivized with money. Similar measures have already been piloted in Wyoming, with the Migratory Big Game Initiative, with success. The pilot program protected 11,830 acres of land as open space for migrating wildlife through conservation easements (both short- and long-term) and helped ranchers modify fencing and conduct weed control on their properties.

In terms of physical modifications that aid migrating wildlife, a common example involves replacing the bottom strand of a barbed-wire fence with smooth wire along pronghorn migration routes. Pronghorn often slip under fences, rather than jumping them like elk or deer, so smooth bottom wires significantly ease the strain of migration, especially if the animals are crossing hundreds or thousands of fences. Modified H-braces—with less wire—is another modification, but like anything having to do with fencing these days, it isn’t cheap.

In addition to funding for fencing modification, the Working Lands Act also provides funding for research and development of “virtual fencing”—think invisible fencing for dogs, but applied to cattle. A perimeter is set using GPS and reception towers, which transmit to collars on the cattle. When a cow hits the perimeter, the collar beeps. If the cow doesn’t stop, it then receives a mild shock. Early tests of the technology show that it’s surprisingly effective.

The main benefit of virtual fencing, of course, is that it necessitates less physical fencing on the landscape (perimeter fences are still required, but virtual fencing can help eliminate interior fence lines). But there could be other benefits as well, under the right applications and scenarios. Research from Oregon State University has shown that virtual fencing can also help create fire breaks in vegetation by forcing cattle to graze in small, focused areas at strategic locations.

Overall, the new measures—from both bills—are set to benefit wildlife while making it easy for ranchers to implement conservation measures. It’s unclear whether either bill will be pushed through in this session, as they were both introduced so late, but the pressure is on from dozens of groups, lobbyists, and organizations.

Feature image via Wyoming Game and Fish Department.