Escaping Social Trap Theory: A Case Study on Elk Feed Grounds and the Practicality of Collaboration. Photo Courtesy Of: New York Times, Kirk Johnson, 2009 Plan B Thesis By: Tayler Heintz Committee Chair: L. Steven Smutko Committee Members: Temple Stoellinger and R. McGreggor Cawley Table of Contents CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER TWO: Social Trap Theory ......................................................................................... 3 What is Social the Trap Theory? ....................................................................................................... 3 Types of Social Traps ........................................................................................................................ 5 Escaping Social Traps ....................................................................................................................... 7 Collaboration and Other Creative Problem-Solving Mechanisms .................................................... 10 Mutual Gains and Value Creation ................................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER THREE: Elk Feed grounds in Wyoming .................................................................... 17 History of Elk Feed grounds ............................................................................................................ 17 Elk Die-Off of 1910 ............................................................................................................................................ 17 Establishment of National Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole, Wyoming ..................................................................... 20 Establishment and Location of Other Elk Feed grounds throughout Wyoming ................................................ 21 History of Litigation Over Feed Grounds ........................................................................................................... 22 Controversial Issues Surrounding Elk Feed grounds ........................................................................ 24 Spread of Disease .............................................................................................................................................. 24 Brucellosis ......................................................................................................................................................... 24 Chronic Wasting Disease ................................................................................................................................... 26 Private/Public Landowner Disputes .................................................................................................................. 29 Prevention of Elk Die-Off ................................................................................................................................... 30 Reducing Elk Feeding and Other Step-Down Approaches ................................................................................. 32 CHAPTER FOUR: Stakeholder Groups and Correlating Positions Regarding Feed grounds ...... 34 Hunting/Outfitting Groups ................................................................................................................................ 34 Wyoming Game and Fish ................................................................................................................................... 37 Environmental Organizations ............................................................................................................................ 41 Citizens/Tourists Near Elk Feed grounds ........................................................................................................... 44 Private Landowners ........................................................................................................................................... 45 CHAPTER FIVE: Where to go from here. ................................................................................ 47 Are the Elk Feed grounds a Social Trap? ......................................................................................... 47 What Type of Social Trap are the Elk Feed grounds? ...................................................................... 48 Can we escape the elk feeding ground social trap? ........................................................................ 51 Measures To Turn To ..................................................................................................................... 55 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Concerns over the supplemental feeding of elk within the State of Wyoming have become increasingly more prevalent within the last couple of years. With a longstanding history of supplemental feeding of elk on twenty-two elk feed grounds throughout the state, various organizations, private landowners and recreational and tourist industries have come to rely on elk feed grounds to maintain not only the populations of elk, but the overall way of life individuals have become accustomed to within the State of Wyoming. Originally created as a way to mitigate the negative impacts from the rapid expansion of cities within western Wyoming, the feed grounds quickly presented many benefits to these settlers that individuals would still be reliant on over 100 years later. The expansion of cities such as Jackson Hole cut off mitigation corridors and led to a rapid elk die off in and around these areas. The creation of elk feed grounds proved a valid solution to this die off problem and sustained healthy populations of elk throughout harsh winter months. Along with this came other benefits unknown to decision makers at the time of the implementation of supplemental feeding including; keeping elk off of private lands, limiting interaction of elk and livestock and preventing the spread of disease cross-species, healthy populations of elk for hunting and outfitting groups, the creation of a large and prosperous tourist attraction, and more. In recent years, however, there have been emerging concerns over the elk feed grounds and the spread of certain diseases. Many biologists and conservation groups believe the artificial populations of elk that congregate on these feed grounds are not sustainable and could be breeding grounds for the spread of diseases like Chronic Wasting Disease and Brucellosis. While there has not been a confirmed case of CWD to date within the feed grounds itself, these groups 1 believe that with such a high population density of elk congregated in an area, the disease will move rapidly through the population once exposed. One thing that is becoming increasingly more clear is how incompatible the interests surrounding the elk feed grounds are. Different interest groups have deeply seeded beliefs in the best management practices of the feed grounds and what solutions, if any, need to be implemented. Such incompatible interests and a general lack of solutions that satisfy these interest groups point to the potential that the elk feed grounds could be a social trap. While discussed more in depth below, a social trap is generally when individuals (or individual stakeholders) in a society continue to choose short-term reinforcements that benefit them, yet harm societies long-term best interests in the future. Once caught within a social trap it is incredibly difficult for interest groups to find solutions that satisfy every stakeholder’s interests. Many suggest that collaborative learning mechanisms are the way to escape these social traps, however, this is not always a feasible solution, leaving many to wonder what mechanisms to turn to in the event collaboration fails to find an escape from a social trap. This paper aims to demonstrate the social trap theory in the context of the elk feeding ground issue within Wyoming. An in-depth discussion of the social trap theory and collaborative learning process and an analysis of all relevant stakeholder groups and individual issues surrounding the elk feed grounds will show how the elk feed grounds fit within the definition of a social trap. Furthermore, we will then show why collaborative processes are not a feasible solution to certain social traps, including the elk feed grounds, and what solutions are available when collaboration fails. 2 CHAPTER TWO: Social Trap Theory What is Social the Trap Theory? The social trap theory is one of many theories that attempts to explain human behaviors and interactions with the surrounding environment. Such theories help us to analyze complex problems with the environment through the lens of human beings. The goal is to find patterns of human behaviors to understand why certain environmental issues seem impossible to solve and why certain methods for problem solving do not work. A social trap refers to when society is put into a situation where “men or organizations or whole societies get themselves started in some direction or some set of relationships that later prove to be unpleasant or lethal” and they have “no easy way to back out of or to avoid” (Platt, 1973). Oftentimes these traps are created when society is put at a crossroads between the short- term benefits (or “reinforcements”) of the individual and the long run best interest of society (Costanza, 1987). These short-term local reinforcements are oftentimes based on economic incentives, social acceptance, and physical pleasure or pain. The trap arises once individuals follow the short-term reinforcements and find themselves creating long term problems for society as a whole, that they are unable to solve due to the fact that they are now trapped into continuing to make the same short-term reinforcing decision. They may be trapped for several reasons including: the economic incentive may be too great to give up, individuals have become too socially accustomed to the status quo created earlier in time, etc. Put simply, the decision the individual makes may be rational at the individual scale, whereas the decision that would benefit society as a whole would be irrational for that individual to make. The social trap theory is best described through analogy. One analogy commonly used goes as this: you are driving down the interstate when you come upon a massive traffic jam. Cars are 3 backed up for an hour and you are concerned because you are running late for a job interview. When you come upon the cause of the traffic jam you realize it is because a mattress that had fallen off the roof of a car ahead of you is in the middle of the interstate. Everyone ahead of you simply drove around the mattress without stopping to pick it up. You have the choice to do the same as those ahead of you, given the fact that you are late for a job interview and traffic is clear past the mattress. The other choice you have is to get out of your vehicle and remove the mattress. Being that you personally knew how large of an issue the mattress caused for you it seems logical that you would stop and remove the mattress. However, to stop and remove it would mean that you potentially put yourself in harms way, or cost yourself being even later to your job interview. The social trap theory emphasizes the fact that individuals are more likely to drive around the mattress and not stop to pick it up. It states that the short-term incentive of the individual will almost always prevail over the long-term benefits it will bring to society as a whole. It simply is not rational for the individual to risk themselves and their interests in order to help everyone else. The social trap theory is especially prevalent in environmental issues because solutions to environmental issues are often overcome by economic considerations and other social concerns. Consider issues such as global climate change. There are many potential solutions available to the environmental community to deescalate or even begin to reverse global climate change, however these solutions are oftentimes seen as too expensive or too risky to try. This could be seen as a social trap because the solutions to the problems at hand go against the status quo and are generally seen as impracticable. One of the biggest factors behind social traps are the balancing of stakeholder group’s interests. A stakeholder group was originally defined in the context of business management as: 4 any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm’s objectives (Arun, 2012). When conflict arises, these stakeholder groups are the ones that go to bat to defend their interests: “Such conflict can exist between different users and uses of a resource, between the users of a resource and those who would conserve it, and between decision makers and those who want more of a say in those decisions” (Arun, 2012). With these varying stakeholder groups, it is important that environmental managers adequately balance these competing demands. This relates to the social trap theory because when these stakeholder groups have interests that directly compete against each other and are unable to be balanced, where do environmental managers go from there? Types of Social Traps Platt outlines three types of social traps, including one person traps, the missing hero trap, and the individual goods and collective bads trap (Platt, 1973). In a one-person trap, an individual consistently will choose a short-term reinforcement that satisfies their needs in the now versus choosing what would be best for them in the long run. A one-person trap can occur when individuals are ignorant of the long-term negative reinforcements that they may experience by choosing a short-term reinforcement. This is described by Platt as a fish knowingly swimming into a baited net. While the fish ultimately chose the short-term reinforcement, he was unaware of the long-term consequences of choosing to swim into the net. A one-person trap can also occur even when the effect of short-term reinforcers decline over time. The premise behind this is that while the repetitive behaviors of choosing the short-term reinforcers ultimately become less and less, the individual holds out 5 hope that once again the short-term reinforcer will ultimately be as rewarding as it was at one point. (Platt, 1973) The second type of social trap is that of the missing hero. Platt uses the above outlined example of the mattress in the middle of the highway to best describe this type of social trap. The missing hero is simply the person that should exit their vehicle in order to remove the mattress. Without this person the social trap would never get resolved, yet as outlined above, finding the individual willing to put themselves in potential danger or willing to take the time out of their day in order to move the mattress is not an easy feat. This generally comes down to a conversation on ethics and morality and the willingness of certain individuals to put aside their short-term best interests in order to be an advocate for the long term best interests of a collective whole. (Platt, 1973) The third type of trap described by Platt is the individual goods and collective bads trap. The key characteristic of this trap is the existence of many individual stakeholders within a group. Having one or two heroes within this group does not matter generally speaking, because they are still outnumbered by the collective whole reinforcing the short-term incentive behaviors. The basic premise behind this social trap is that the actions of some in the group force others into continuing to make short-term reinforcement decisions that may not benefit them. Individually choosing the short-term reinforcement leads to a collective bad. Being the hero doesn’t do any good because others will continue to choose the short-term incentive behavior and the collective bad will persist. Therefore, it is in your best interest to continue to make short-term reinforcement decisions because you at least gain some benefit. A significant feature of individual-goods-collective-bads traps is that they can escalate over time. The problems that accrue from these traps may start out small and the long-term collective bads are not 6 immediately known to the stakeholders. This is the point where the short-term reinforcement behaviors take hold and individuals become engrained in making these choices. As time goes on and problems resulting from these behaviors arise, individuals may continue to make the same choices and lock in this behavior. The only way to fix the problem is to break the individuals of this locked-in behavior, which is a nearly impossible task (Platt, 1973). Defining the type of social trap is necessary to better understand why people are locked into the behaviors that result in negative outcomes. From here you can then analyze what solutions could be available to the stakeholder groups, and if possible, how they could escape the social trap they are in. Escaping Social Traps Then arises the question of when a social trap is created, how does one escape it? Academics have theorized on this and come up with three ways of avoiding or escaping the social trap. These methods include education, superordinate authority, and converting the trap to a trade-off (Costanza, 1987). Education is best used preemptively. Education tends not to be an effective method when used reactively to combat an environmental problem once it has already occurred (Costanza, 1987). Where education is best utilized would be when it is used to warn people of the long-term impacts. This would be the equivalent of broadcasting a sign warning of the mattress on the road before individuals got to it, so that they may analyze alternative routes and determine the best way to avoid the problem that lies ahead. Education has shortcomings. One is that it is costly in both time and resources. This is only emphasized on a larger scale the more complex a social trap gets. While the mattress in the road has a simple, straight forward solution, that is not always 7 the case. Effective education requires an understanding of the social trap and the stakeholders’ relevant interests. As stated by Costanza, education is not always an effective approach to solving a social trap: “For education to be effective in avoiding traps involving many individuals, all the participants must be educated…our current society is so large and complex that we cannot expect even environmental professionals, much less the entire voting public, to know the details of all the extant environmental traps.” (Costanza, 1987). Superordinate authority is another approach used in avoiding social traps. The term “superordinate authority” covers many different scopes of authority including: legal systems, legislative government, and religion. The point of this approach is that these authorities can forbid or regulate any actions that have been deemed socially inappropriate. This type of solution is also addressed by Platt when he states that one solution to a social trap is by changing the delay of the consequence of individuals actions (Platt, 1973). Using the threat of judicial action against an individual for violating legislatively created laws can be an effective mechanism to curb the short-term incentives that drive the individual to make the decisions deemed not beneficial to society. By changing the delay of the threat individuals are more likely to change their behavior in the moment. By facing fines or consequences for contributing to a long-term societal issue the consequence of their action is much more immediate and they are more likely to change their behavior in the short term. One difficulty with superordinate authority mechanisms, however, is the fact that they are costly and oftentimes difficult to enforce. On the enforcement side, police forces and other law enforcement officials are oftentimes underfunded and understaffed. Creating more jobs and funding to enforce even more legislative laws comes at a high cost to society. On the judicial side, court and attorney fees and administrative funding can also present a costly mechanism for curing a social trap. The judicial process does not 8 provide a guarantee of the outcome that would best benefit society as a whole. Oftentimes courts reach decisions based upon the stronger litigator, interpretation of the evidence, or even technicalities in the process. Especially dependent upon judge’s political views and their own opinions and backgrounds on the subject matter, one may not reach a judicial decision that would ultimately solve a social trap. From a legislative standpoint, lobbyists, politicians, and interest groups can oftentimes influence the outcome of proposed legislation intended to fix the social trap. The benefit to the superordinate authority mechanism is that a precedent is set that society is required to follow. This leaves little room for discussion around the social trap, as well as choices individuals can make surrounding the social trap. Once the precedent is set, that is what individuals are required to follow, until they chose to fight against it, usually in a judicial format. This can be beneficial when other mechanisms fail and consensus on a social trap cannot be reached. Ultimately when the harm of the social trap is great enough and stakeholder groups cannot come together is when superordinate authority mechanisms take hold and can oftentimes be the only resort. The last mechanism is converting the social trap into a trade-off. A trade-off system allows people to continue to make choices within their best short-term interests, but to charge them a compensatory fee for doing so. Sophisticated trade-off systems oftentimes create a way for people to earn money from others who continue to make the short-term decision in favor of the best interest of society. This could also be described as a counter reinforcer, as discussed in Platt’s article. The idea is to create opportunities for people to change their short term behaviors in a way where they can actually gain a benefit from others who do not (Platt, 1973). The largest example of this type of system is a cap and trade program for CO2 pollution. While each large 9 CO2 producer is still allowed to admit up to a certain amount of pollutants, it is within their best interest to reduce the number of pollutants and “trade” their pollutant deficit to another producer for a price. This creates incentive to reduce the number of pollutants, but is not as strict and costly as superordinate authority mechanisms. Costanza explains why so many theorists support trade-off systems as such: “Many theorists believe that this method is the most effective in avoiding and escaping from social traps because it does not run counter to our normal tendency to follow the road signs; it merely corrects the signs' inaccuracies by adding compensatory positive or negative reinforcements.” Citation needed Not every social trap, however, has a way of being overcome through a trade-off system. The best use for this mechanism is when consumption of a resource is at play. When a resource is being consumed and any consumption above an optimum level being used is taxed, for example, this creates a very effective argument for the consumer to stay below that threshold of use. This mechanism is not as effective for social traps that do not involve consumption of a resource. For this reason, trade-off mechanisms are actually rarely used in the environmental field: “In terms of environmental management, converting traps to trade-offs implies determining the long-run, distributed costs of environmentally hazardous activities and charging those costs to the responsible parties in the short run” (Costanza, 1987). Collaboration and Other Creative Problem-Solving Mechanisms Emerging environmental conflicts are breathing life into the concept of collaboration as a way to solve more complex issues. These complex issues, often referred to as “wicked problems” are generally problems that have a lot of different stakeholders and seemingly no clear solutions. Collaboration best happens when these stakeholder groups are better informed about the opposing side and their viewpoints and can come to some sort of agreement or creative solution 10 to the issue: “Collaborative process must be well grounded in learning theory. It will not suffice to convene a group and merely assume that they can address the technical issues with adequate competence.” (Daniels and Walker, 2001). Collaboration only truly works when every party is well educated on the subject matter because being fully informed of the issue is crucial when trying to create creative solutions to these wicked problems that will ultimately satisfy all stakeholders. Collaboration is not a synonym for compromise. While oftentimes stakeholders mistake these concepts, collaboration and compromise they are very different methods of conflict resolution. While compromise means giving up some interests in favor of other interests, collaboration is much more in depth: “Collaboration is fundamentally a process in which Figure courtesy of Research Gate. interdependent parties work together to affect the future of an issue of shared interests.” More specifically collaboration entails “the pooling of appreciations and/or tangible concerns, information, money, labor, etc., by two or more stakeholders to solve a set of problems which neither can solve individually”. (Daniels and Walker, 2001). While parties can walk away from a negotiation generally satisfied with a compromise, ultimately that party gave up an interest that they had. Collaborative processes are different in the fact that instead of compromising an interest, the stakeholders work together all interests at least partially satisfied. This is why collaborative processes are gaining in popularity in the world of negotiation, because ultimately a decision will be reached that will most likely satisfy both parties in the long term. 11 It is important to not jump too quickly to the presumption that every issue can be classified as a “wicked problem”. While some problems are indeed challenging and may be hard to come to a consensus on, they are not truly wicked problems until they reach a certain level of challenge that is not easily overcome simply by talking it through with fellow stakeholders. The conflicts in wicked problems are generally so contentious and multi-faceted that it truly feels to the stakeholders like there is no logical way that everyone involved in the resolution will get even a small number of interests satisfied. Daniels and Walker boiled down the way that these conflicts get created in the following list: 1. perceived incompatibility 2. interests, goals, and aspirations 3. Two or more interdependent parties 4. Incentives to cooperate or compete 5. Interaction, communication 6. Bargaining/negotiation 7. Strategy/strategic behavior 8. Judgements and decisions. Through these listed ways, conflicts that could have been able to be solved devolve into these wicked problems that are much harder to find an answer for. When collaborators meet with preconceived notions on what their fellow collaborators interests are this can break down the initial communication and problem-solving techniques. Another major influence on whether a successful collaboration is possible is whether the parties are interdependent. To be an interdependent party means that they are not reliant upon their fellow collaborators to reach an ultimate decision. This party is able to ultimately decide that it is in their best interest to go instead with their “best alternative to a negotiated agreement” (BATNA). This is to say that they are easily able to opt out of collaborative processes whenever they feel their interests are not being met or feel that they do not need to try and meet the interests of the other party. Having this strong BATNA can give one party a sense of power over the other: 12 “Imbalances in interdependence could encourage mistrust and unilateral action. Consequently, stakeholders may try and maintain a strong, viable BATNA as they operate from a controlled distributive strategy. Parties might attempt to use ‘facts’, history, jurisdiction, and values as a basis for power, control, and even separation…unless interdependence concerns are confronted, integrative negotiation strategies seem unlikely”. (Daniels and Walker, 2001) Collaborative process experts advise that every party come into a collaborative negotiation process able to be open about their interests and their BATNAs. Using a BATNA as a negotiation “chip” can be extremely harmful to collaboration because it does not encourage the other stakeholders to feel that the party is invested in a collaborative process and coming up with a creative problem-solving tactic. Collaborative learning is the process of stakeholder groups coming together to generate a set of improvements that are mutually beneficial to the parties: “In a nutshell, Collaborative Learning seeks improvement through creativity, and creativity derives from a rich understanding of the complexity of the situation at hand” (Daniels and Walker, 2001). Collaborative learning processes are also aided through the use of a facilitator. The role of the facilitator is not to present ideas or participate in the discussions, but rather to help the parties in setting ground rules for negotiation and lead the group in the necessary steps to a final desirable and feasible outcome. Successful collaborative learning is reliant upon stakeholder groups having reasonable expectations for the process and the goals such as: “stress[ing] improvement rather than solution, emphasiz[ing] situation rather than problem or conflict, focus[ing] on concerns and interests rather than positions, target[ing] progress rather than solution, and encourage[ing] systems thinking rather than linear thinking” (Daniels and Walker, 2001). This is a very important aspect because if parties go into the process with the mindset that improvement of the situation and progress towards their interests is seen as a feasible and obtainable and they don’t have to solve 13 every detail at once, collaboration can thrive. Emphasizing that any small improvements and negotiations are successful can also build a better working relationship between the parties and lend better to negotiations in the future if a good foundation is built. Mutual Gains and Value Creation Collaboration thrives on the creation of mutual gains and value. In order to reach creative problem-solving techniques stakeholder groups must find the mutual gains in the solution that will serve their interests. Mutual gains and value can encompass a large range of things but boils down to something that the stakeholder can walk away from the negotiation feeling good about obtaining. This doesn’t always mean money, resources, or something tangible, but can be anything that the party feels is a benefit to their interests and goals surrounding the conflict. Before attempting a mutual gains negotiation, stakeholder’s need to differentiate between what their positions are versus their interests. Positions are generally defined as the stakeholder’s demands, i.e particular changes they are seeking throughout a negotiation process. On the flip side: “in mutual gains bargaining, negotiators are encouraged to present interests, leaving open how those interests can be addressed”. The benefit to mutual gains negotiations are that rather than becoming “locked into defending or rejecting particular positions” they can “continue to explore new options if any one idea is rejected” opening up the possibility that their “opponents may know of a way to address the issue that is acceptable to them” (Friedman, R. A., 1993). This is to say that instead of going into a negotiation setting with the positions and acceptable solutions to the problem already decided upon, that negotiators should instead go into these negotiations with honesty about the problems they are concerned about and allow problem solving to unfold. Approaching the negotiation process this way allows for creative problem 14 solving and the collaborative mechanisms to take hold. This also opens the door to mutual gains from all negotiators since within these collaborative processes, the focus is increasing the potential value to all the parties involved. This idea of mutual gains is best described through analogy. As described by notable scholars Roger Fisher and William Ury in their book Getting To Yes: “Yet all too often negotiators end up like the proverbial children who quarreled over an orange. After they finally agreed to divide the orange in half, the first child took one half, ate the fruit, and threw away the peel, while the other threw away. the fruit and used the peel from the second half in baking a cake. All too often negotiators "leave money on the table" - they fail to reach agreement when they might have, or the agreement they do reach could have been better for each side. Too many negotiations end up with half an orange for each side instead of the whole fruit for one and the whole peel for the other. Why?” This analogy perfectly describes the downfalls to traditional negotiation without the options of collaborative measures. Had these children better communicated their interests rather than their positions they could have come to a negotiation solution that would have left both the children completely satisfied with the outcome, with nothing “left on the table”. The authors go on to state that there are four general reasons for why individuals tend to struggle to find these mutual gains including: premature judgement, searching for a single answer, the assumption of a fixed pie, and thinking that “solving their problem is their problem”. (Fisher and Ury, 2013). Premature judgement is the idea of thinking your stakeholder group has all the correct answers to the problem, without the critical thinking needed to fully analyze an issue and come up with solutions that would suit the needs of all the parties involved. Narrowing down the problem too much and searching for one solution to a broad problem is also a barrier to mutual gains bargaining because it closes off the possibilities of collaborative mechanisms. This is a natural reaction to a lot of negotiators because they see opening the discussion up to multiple stakeholders and their interests as only serving to complicate an issue and make coming to a 15 solution even harder. On the contrary, broadening the field of negotiators and interest groups could lead to collaborative solutions unknown to the stakeholders otherwise. Along this same vein is the idea that collaborative solutions do not exist at all, and that the pie is fixed. This leads to a competitive-type negotiation where negotiators simply negotiate over what they see as value and gains, without worrying about how to both mutually gain from the issue (Fisher and Ury, 2013). The disregard of others’ interests simply because you do not have time or resources to fully understand them can inhibit mutual gains bargaining greatly. This is especially prevalent in negotiators who think they have the power in a negotiation. Having this power could realistically mean that they do not need to worry about other’s interests within a negotiation. When a party is aware that they have the power to get their interests met regardless of mutual gains by the other party, they do not see the benefit in a negotiation process. Negotiations that have an inherent power imbalance are the hardest ones to implement mutual gains negotiations. This is known within the field as the negotiators dilemma and surrounds the tension between creating and claiming value: “This tension results from the fact that creating value requires cooperative behaviors while claiming value revolves almost entirely around competition. Given that everyone in a group process has “mixed motives” (i.e. they want the pie to be as large as possible, but they also want as much for themselves or their side as they can get), they’ve got to figure out how to cooperate and how hard to compete”. (McKearnan, Thomas-Larmer & Susskind, 1999) Authors claim that the key to overcoming these competitive “value claiming” type negotiations is by agreeing to a consensus building, in which all parties agree to “a good-faith effort to meet the interests of all stakeholders”. They expand by stating that in a successful consensus building simulation, participants “have both the right to expect that no one will ask them to undermine their interests and the responsibility to propose solutions that will meet everyone’s interests as well as their own.” (McKearnan, Thomas-Larmer & Susskind, 1999). By implementing these 16 notions that a negotiation is not a “win-win” and rather a way to discover how every stakeholder can get every interest met, negotiators can successfully partake in a mutual gains bargaining and come to a better outcome. CHAPTER THREE: Elk Feed grounds in Wyoming History of Elk Feed grounds Elk Die-Off of 1910 Cervus Canadensis, more commonly referred to as elk, once roamed the entirety of the United States in numbers unimaginable to us today. It wasn’t until increased pressure from early American settlers moving west pushed these elk into just the greater Rocky Mountain region for a period of years. Elk soon became a very characteristic animal to the region, and people valued them for a number of services they provided to the area. These animals would, however, would be forced to face a lot of threats to their survival as a species including overhunting, harsh winter conditions, and disease. Unfortunately, a lot of these threats still persist today despite, and sometimes due to human intervention into these problems. The town of Jackson Hole, Wyoming and the surrounding areas served as a migration corridor for elk for thousands of years. Starting within the late 1800’s, more and more settlers headed west to Figure 2: Elk Carcasses in town of establish their homesteads and the town of Jackson Jackson Hole, 1909. (Photo Courtesy of Jackson Hole Historical Society Hole started to emerge. As the town of Jackson Hole FMiguures e1:u Emlk C) arcasses in town of Jackson Hole, 1 909. (Photo Courtesy of Jackson Hole Historical Society Museum) expanded in the early 1900’s more and more ranching 17 communities began being established, and with the expansion of these private ranching operations came lots of fencing. This fencing disrupted the elk’s traditional migration corridors and began to make it difficult for the elk to find sufficient food sources (Smith, 2012). Another factor that proved difficult for these elk became harsh winter weather. A reported 50,000 elk once roamed the town of Jackson Hole in the late 1800’s, but between the winters of 1889-1890 an estimated 20,000 elk died (Morriss, 2017). Another couple of harsh winters between 1909-1911 then dropped the overall number of elk to less than 10,000. One account from a resident that lived in Jackson Hole during this period stated: “it was possible to walk at least two miles stepping on elk carcasses without ever putting a foot on the ground” (Smith, 2012). This massive elk die off was not sitting well with the town of Jackson Hole and the surrounding communities. Elk began invading more ranching lands and even the town perimeters itself in search of food. The last factor that led to the ultimate decrease of elk in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s was the over-hunting and over-exploitation of elk during the war against the Native Americans and early settlement periods. During the late 1800’s settlers were in a war-time situation with Native American populations inhabiting the land before them, and during this war time situation hunting of elk became extremely prevalent to provide sustenance for the soldiers fighting these Native American populations. At the time the hunting of elk was not regulated whatsoever, and the areas in which these elk lived were much more vast than the traditional mountain-range habitats they mostly inhabit today (Smith, 2012). These elk often frequented the plains, right in the midst of the settlement and fights over land of the west of this time. Elk were seen as a “free game” in which people could hunt as much as they wanted without repercussions from the lawless west. In addition to this, poaching of the elk became widespread for the ivories of the 18 elk. The ivories consisted of the two back molars of the elk which were often extracted, and the rest of the elk left to rot and die without being used. At this time this was not altogether uncommon to disrespect the kill of an animal such as this. The buffalo was also a victim of these brutal practices; poachers would oftentimes kill the buffalo simply for the tongue of the animal, without using anymore parts of the animal, either for meat or other uses. These poaching and otherwise unregulated hunting practices further decreased the elk populations, contributing to this elk die off (Smith, 2012). This is when the first efforts to feed the elk began to unfold. Various ranchers and townspeople together raised money to begin feeding these elk populations. These individuals divided up a schedule for each rancher to go out and feed these elk in order for populations of elk in the town to stay relatively stabilized. Individuals began to realize that this community effort, while a good start into preventing the elk die-off, was not going to be enough in order to truly stabilize the elk populations (Morriss, 2017). There simply was not enough funding and hay to go around, especially once elk numbers began picking up once again. In 1910 the town of Jackson Hole petitioned the State of Wyoming to receive more funding for these efforts and was granted $5,000 that was used to purchase 400 tons of hay for the distribution to the elk populations throughout the region (Morriss, 2017). Individual’s and various interest groups throughout the region continued petitioning and trying to raise more awareness for the situation surrounding the elk of Jackson Hole. As pictures of dead and starving elk began circulating in newspapers, and Figure 2: Newspaper Clipping concerning interested individuals started lecturing around the Elk Feeding (Photo Courtesy of Jackson Hole Historical Society Museum) 19 country concerning the elk die offs, more interest to conserve these elk populations began taking hold (Smith, 2012). Establishment of National Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole, Wyoming The creation of a National Elk Refuge was ultimately going to need lots of funding and large areas of land. In 1911 Congress again appropriated $20,000 for the feeding and protecting of elk. Shortly after that in 1912, Congress budgeted another $45,000 and created the National Elk Refuge (Smith, 2012). One interesting part of this is the fact that the creation of the National Elk Refuge by Congress in 1912 actually made no reference to the feeding of elk on the land, the funds were simply set aside “for the establishment of a winter game reserve in the State of Wyoming lying south of Yellowstone Park” (Smith, Cole and Dobkin, 2004). Initially, the National Elk Refuge consisted of 1,000 acres of public land and another 1,760 acres along Flat Creek (Morriss, 2017). From there, the National Elk Refuge began acquiring more land by purchasing private homesteads and ultimately purchased 34 of these homesteads in order to expand the elk refuge. Years later, Congress appropriated $6 million for the acquisition of an additional 14,000 acres, as well as 3,000 acres of J.D Rockefeller’s Snake River Land Company (Smith, Cole and Dobkin, 2004). Throughout all these acquisitions the total acreage of the National Elk Refuge sits at about 25,000 acres today. This is the largest elk refuge in the United States, and it is the most extensive wildlife feeding program as well, even if Congress did not originally account for the feeding of the elk in the setting aside of public lands in order to carry out these operations. This acquisition and funding by Congress shows the passion of citizens across the country to save these elk populations. Some of the first homesteaders were willing to sell off 20 portions of their lands in order to aid in the creation of these elk feed grounds. Ranchers and farmers were volunteering their time in order to go and feed these elk populations. The funding by Congress and private individuals during this time period was extensive. While $6 million does not sound like a lot by today’s standards, that would equate to $80 million today. The $600 that the private landowners and townspeople raised in 1909 would equate to $15,000 by today’s standards (Smith, Cole and Dobkin, 2004). The commitment by these interest groups and other stakeholders was prevalent from the beginning, and it was just the start of a more extensive series of elk feed grounds throughout the state of Wyoming. Establishment and Location of Other Elk Feed grounds throughout Wyoming In Wyoming today, there are now twenty-two elk feed grounds that are managed by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. The map below also shows the location of the National Elk Refuge, as well as the North Piney Staging Area. While most of these elk feed grounds are still primarily located throughout the Jackson Hole area, they are also slowly expanding south through the elk’s traditional migration corridors. Eight of these feed grounds are located on National Forest Lands, and the others disbursed amongst other BLM lands, and even one private Courtesy of U.S.F.W.S land location. The private landowner that allows elk feeding on their land, however, has only issued yearly leases to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department due to concerns surrounding the spread of disease. 21 The typical structure of these elk feed grounds is that a “feeder” is hired throughout the winter months to feed the elk, and on some feed grounds, vaccinate the elk they come into contact with. These feeders regularly monitor these populations of elk for overall population numbers, and also any signs of disease, increases in predation, and more. Feeders hired by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department provide a first-hand service to these elk and potential issues that may arise within these elk feed grounds. History of Litigation Over Feed Grounds The first time the elk feed grounds were the subject of litigation was in 2002 when the State of Wyoming filed suit against the United States and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for their refusal to permit the state to vaccinate elk on the National Elk Refuge. Wyoming Game and Fish requested the USFWS approve the administration of brucellosis vaccines at the State of Wyoming’s own expense in hopes to eradicate the disease from the Greater Yellowstone Area. The USFWS denied this request, citing reasons such as the State of Wyoming failing to demonstrate the effectiveness of the vaccine and a lack of data about the spread of brucellosis along the feeding line of the feed grounds (Wyoming v. United States, 2002). The State of Wyoming challenged that they possess a sovereign right to manage the wildlife within its borders, including the right to vaccinate elk on the National Elk Refuge. The court held, however, that the State of Wyoming did not possess this sovereign right to vaccinate elk on the National Elk Refuge and that the USFWS preempts state management and regulation of wildlife under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Therefore, if a state is dissatisfied with a final agency action under this act from the USFWS, the only remedy is to file a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act stating that the agency decision was arbitrary 22 and capricious. In this case the court held that the State of Wyoming did state a claim under the APA so the case got remanded back to district court (Wyoming v. United States, 2002). Nine years later the elk feed grounds once again became the center of litigation when the Defenders of Wildlife sued the United States Fish and Wildlife Service challenging a plan to manage the elk and bison populations on the National Elk Refuge. DOW challenged the plan due to the fact that it failed to include a timeline for ending the supplemental feeding of elk on the National Elk Refuge. Both the District Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the plan and held that the failure to state a timeline in which the supplemental feeding would end was not arbitrary or capricious. The court stated that the plan was written in a way that allowed agencies the “flexibility needed to respond to the facts on the ground” and that the agencies must “proceed in a manner that is consistent with the science and accounts for the risks posed by supplemental feeding” (Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 2011). The court went on to state that the agency not providing specific timelines was not arbitrary or capricious and that going forward into the future it would only be deemed arbitrary or capricious should the agencies: “act unreasonably in establishing criteria for the transition or in otherwise carrying out the plan” (Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 2011). This is to say that the agency failing to set a timeline for phasing down the feeding is not itself arbitrary or capricious, however if they were to set an unreasonable timeline, however, the court may be better suited to review this. The court more than likely takes this approach to reaffirm that agencies require some flexibility to handle issues as they arise. The latest litigation came from several environmental organizations suing the USFWS, once again over the issue of the timeliness of the phasing down of the feed grounds. In October 2019 the USFWS released their official step-down approach that addressed phasing down the population of elk on the refuge from 25,000 to 5,000 over the winter of 2019/2020. These 23 environmental organizations suspended ongoing litigation they had against the USFWS after the release of their plan. However, they have now re-filed their lawsuit in February of 2020 due to the fact that they feel the USFWS is acting arbitrarily and capriciously in delaying the phasing down approach to the feed grounds. Controversial Issues Surrounding Elk Feed grounds Spread of Disease One of the biggest controversies surrounding the elk feed grounds is the potential for the spread of some various diseases, including brucellosis and chronic wasting disease. Some stakeholders are concerned with the spread of disease because of the concentration of the elk on these elk feed grounds could increase the chance for disease spreading dramatically. These diseases can also be spread to other types of animals, including livestock, which is of particular concern amongst ranchers located within the areas of these elk feed grounds. Brucellosis Brucellosis is a global zoonotic disease caused by Brucella abortus. The disease effects cattle and causes abortions, retained placentas, male reproductive tract lesions, arthritis, and bursitis. This disease can also be spread to humans and cause recurrent fever, night sweats, joint and back pain, other influenza-like symptoms, and arthritis (Rhyan et. Al, 2013). It is undisputed that the spread of brucellosis is of particular concern in the Greater Yellowstone area because of the significant interactions between livestock and elk. The exact risks of brucellosis to the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem to date is unknown, but wildlife biologists are concerned about the potential for rapid spreading of the disease if it were to spike in the elk feed grounds due to the high concentrations of elk in one particular area. 24 A brucellosis task force has been established within the State of Wyoming in hopes of reducing the number of brucellosis cases. This task force generally makes up groups of private land-owners, members of ranching industries, and experts from state and federal agencies. According to the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation the production of livestock in Wyoming totaled $897 million in 2017, the third biggest economic industry in Wyoming behind energy and tourism (Wyoming Farm Bureau, 2019). Due to the importance of the livestock industry in Wyoming citizens and organizations have taken the threat of brucellosis extremely seriously. When brucellosis is found in a herd of livestock the entire herd must be destroyed, causing severe economic damage to the rancher and the livestock industry. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department closely monitor the spread of brucellosis in elk and bison herds in northwest Wyoming where brucellosis cases are most prevalent. Each year WGF assembles 11,000 blood sample collection kits to mail to hunters successful in drawing an elk tag. Of these 11,000 blood samples though only approximately 900 are successfully sent back and able to be tested (Wyoming Game and Fish, 2019). WGF monitor the elk surrounding the feed grounds and of those elk tested for brucellosis between 0-4% of the southernmost herds and 1-23% of the northernmost herds tested positive for brucellosis (Wyoming Game and Fish, 2019). According to one study the average disease prevalence of the elk on feed grounds is approximately 20% (Cotterill et. al, 2018). While this rate is considerably higher, Wyoming Game and Fish states that they have found no evidence that brucellosis rates have a significant impact on populations of elk. This is to say that stakeholders are not as concerned about the threat of brucellosis to the populations of elk, but rather the elk/cattle interactions and the risk brucellosis poses to that species. 25 While ranchers are worried about the spread of brucellosis through elk herds they generally believe that the elk feed grounds are helping in this due to the fact that if the elk are concentrated on the feed grounds, they are coming in extremely limited contact with their own private livestock operations: “That feedgrounds facilitate disease transmission has in itself created an additional reason for feeding elk—to separate them from cattle. Thus a cycle is perpetuated whereby feeding creates and mitigates the same problem: it enhances transmission among elk while also limiting contact between elk and livestock in winter.” (Cotterill et. al., 2018) It is clear that brucellosis is a major concern to the stakeholders surrounding the elk feed grounds. While the spread of disease does not seem to be presenting a major issue to the elk species themselves, the livestock industry is very concerned about inter-species transmission between the elk and the cattle. What is unclear is whether the elk feed grounds is helping or hurting the spread of brucellosis and what management solutions will be available in the future. Chronic Wasting Disease Chronic wasting disease is another disease of primary concern the elk feed grounds. Chronic wasting disease is a prion disease found in mule deer, white tailed deer, moose and elk. CWD is commonly fatal and attacks the central nervous system of the animals in which contracts the disease. Researchers believe that CWD is transmitted through saliva, urine, feces, infected carcasses and even through the environment through feed and pastures (Wyoming Game and Fish Veterinary Services, 2019). The prions that exist in the feed and pastures generally are capable for surviving for years. The earliest case of CWD found in mule deer in Wyoming in 1986 in southeastern Wyoming. Since then CWD has progressively moved westward and has now been detected in both mule deer and elk populations within the Jackson area (Wyoming 26 Game and Fish Veterinary Services, 2019). Chronic wasting disease is of particular concern due to the concern that higher concentrations of elk will lead to higher contraction rates of CWD. Unlike brucellosis, CWD does not seem to pose a direct threat to cattle or human populations: “To date, there have been no cases of CWD in humans and no direct proof that humans can get CWD. However, animal studies suggest CWD poses a risk to some types of non- human primates, like monkeys, that eat meat from CWD-infected animals” (Wyoming Game and Fish Veterinary Services, 2019). For this reason, and until further studies are completed, the Centers for Disease Control and World Health Organization are recommending that humans do not consume animals that have tested positive for CWD. WGF department is putting forth a lot of effort to get hunters to test their harvested animals for CWD including distributing videos and informational fliers, setting out large green bins along hunt areas to dispose of heads/lymphnodes, and warning people to not consume the harvested animal until the test results are back from the State Veterinarian. Despite these efforts hunters oftentimes Head Disposal Bin located in Jackson Hole, do not properly submit their harvested animal for WY. Photo Courtesy of Wyoming Public Radio, 2018 testing which makes finding exact statistics on the rates of CWD difficult to measure. One thing that is also unknown is whether CWD will cause as extreme of a population decline in elk as it has in deer. Nathan Galloway, a wildlife disease ecologist for the National Park Service states, however, “we are also not certain that it won’t cause decline” (Kudelska, 2018). The Laramie Peak Elk Herd currently has the highest CWD infection rate in the State of Wyoming with an average of 6.4% and Galloway and other biologists have agreed that they have 27 not seen any negative population impacts upon this herd. Galloway also adds, however that while CWD is much deadlier in deer populations and that CWD could simply move slower in elk populations. The Rocky Mountain Elk herd in Colorado currently has an infection rate of 13%, but has been monitored for several decades as progressively growing upwards. This lends towards biologists suspicions that CWD could present an extreme risk to the elk population in Wyoming, even if we are not seeing the direct impacts now (Kudelska, 2018). What’s becoming increasingly clear is that the majority of stakeholders do believe that CWD is something that needs addressed when discussing the elk feed grounds due to the potential threat posed to the population of elk in the future. With this knowledge, the WGFD launched a CWD Collaborative Process Interim Report. This process started with five different public meetings throughout the State of Wyoming in order to solicit public input and management options. From there, a “Working Group” consisting of relevant stakeholders would present to WGFD about their recommended plans of action and consensus around the draft. These working group members consisted of scientists, sportsman, outfitters, individuals from federal agencies, landowners and agricultural community members, conservation NGO’s, state agencies, WGFD, local governments, legislators, and people simply deemed to be a part of the “general public.” It is then up to these working groups and WGFD to implement these recommendations, amend the final proposal, and present to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission in March of 2020 (Ruckelshaus Institute, 2019). While centered around CWD generally, many of the proposed solutions included references to the elk feed grounds in Wyoming. The proposals offered that even vaguely mentioned elk feed grounds went very much opposed, showing a strong disagreement about the threat CWD poses to the higher concentrations of elk, particularly upon 28 the feed grounds. These specific opinions are addressed more fully in the stakeholder positions in Chapter 3. Private/Public Landowner Disputes Another significant issue facing the elk feeding ground debate is the fact that the elk migrate from the public lands of the National Elk Refuge onto private land. This private land the elk tend to migrate onto generally belongs to some prominent ranchers and other landowners in Jackson, Wyoming. This is of significant concern due to the fact that these ranchers and landowners are concerned about the spread of disease to their livestock, as well as the elk eating the forage on their land that is dedicated to their livestock. As stated above, private landowners tend to support the elk feed grounds due to the fact that it congregates the elk on the feeding ground and limits the exposure the elk have with the livestock industry. This concern mainly stems from the spread of brucellosis from the elk to the livestock and is one of the main interests the livestock industry would like to protect against. The other reason these ranchers and other private landowners prefer the elk to be fed is simple, the elk are fed on public land and do not wander onto private land and consume the resources and forage dedicated to their livestock. Damage to the landowner’s land and property is also a significant issue the private landowners of Jackson do not want to affect them. Damage to fencing, structures, and the forage on their land are all significant property concerns these landowners are concerned with protecting. Elk tend to be very destructive to existing structures and elk herds of large enough size trample the land in which they are entering and exiting when coming to and from the public and private land. This is a major concern for private landowners because they would be the ones suffering an economic harm due to the costs of repairing fences and structures, and for the 29 supplemental forage they would have to provide their cattle in order to combat the destruction the elk would cause on their land. One member of the Chronic Wasting Working Group is a Douglas, Wyoming area rancher named Garrett Falkenburg. In summarization of the ranching industries interests concerning the elk feed grounds, Falkenburg states: “Agriculture in the state of Wyoming has no interest to abolish feed grounds. First, they keep the forage damage on private lands to a minimum. Second, it helps keep haystack damage to a minimum. Third, it helps keep elk from raiding feed lines put out for cattle. Fourth while elk and cattle commingle on feed lines is when diseases such as brucellosis are transmitted. Wyoming Ag cannot lose our brucellosis free status and furthermore I do not believe that the wildlife-viewing public has any interest in seeing starving elk, nor does the elk hunting sportsman want to give up sport hunting opportunities because of herd reduction.” (Ruckelshaus Institute, 2019). The ideas summarized above showcase how passionately the ranching industry feels against massive amounts of elk coming onto their private lands. The area surrounding the elk feed grounds have all become accustomed to elk being within the area for these hunting and viewing opportunities for the private landowners of Jackson, but at a far enough distance that they are in no way financially responsible for the potential damage and destruction these elk can cause. The above quote also captures the relevant interest private landowners of Jackson, along with several other interest groups, have of not wanting to see a massive elk die off, discussed more below. Prevention of Elk Die-Off Another very relevant interest surrounding the elk feeding ground debate goes back to the history of the elk feed grounds and how they got started: the prevention of elk die-off. Simply boiled down to both a moral and aesthetic defense, the town of Jackson as well as surrounding areas, just do not want to see another elk die off within their lifetimes. From all accounts of the citizens of Jackson Hole in the early 1900’s the elk die-off was a very serious public health and 30 safety concern, as well as an issue playing on the humanity and ethics of the people of Jackson Hole as a whole. The town of Jackson Hole, as well as the general population, do not wish to see these elk populations decrease to the point that individual citizens are seeing dying and deceased elk on the sides of the roads in the town limits, as was the case in the early 1900’s on the city limits of Jackson Hole. Along with the citizens of the towns surrounding elk feed grounds comes the millions of tourists that come to the Grand Teton area for these wildlife-viewing opportunities. At the National Elk Refuge specifically, winter sleigh rides as well as other paid elk-viewing activities are very common through the refuge. Sleigh rides specifically depart 3-4 times per hour from 10:00am to 4:00pm on a daily basis during the season the elk gather upon the refuge (National Elk Refuge, 2019). These are all paid activities and generate economic income for not only the USFWS itself, but also for the surrounding towns where patrons must pay for food, drink, lodging, souvenirs, and more. As Bruce Smith, author of Where Elk Roam puts it: “If a place can be considered synonymous with an animal, then Jackson Hole is interchangeable with elk. What other county with a performing arts center, three ski resorts, oodles of art galleries, and four-star restaurants can brag more elk than people in its midst?” From this quote we can gather that despite all of the prevalent tourist draws that the city of Jackson Hole has to offer, by far the most prevalent is the elk refuge and the continuous flow of individuals who visit Jackson Hole in order to see an animal that they potentially would never see apart from this tourist destination. Simply put, if the elk populations where to start dying off at extreme rates, people would not want to spend money on these tourist activities. The elk are only a tourist attraction if they are in healthy condition and in the thriving numbers that the tourists wish to see. 31 Reducing Elk Feeding and Other Step-Down Approaches As stated above, while the WGFD controls 22 of the feed grounds within Wyoming, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service control the largest and most publicized one: the National Elk Refuge. The USFWS has a drastically different view of how to manage the elk feed grounds in Wyoming than the WGFD. After the litigation discussed above, the USFWS has, as of December 2019, released its official National Elk Refuge Bison and Elk Management Plan/EIS. Predominately influenced by the suspension of the ongoing litigation with Earthjustice, the USFWS agreed to implement an immediate step-down feeding approach within the winter of 2020. Groups such as Earthjustice required the immediate action of the USFWS due to the threat of chronic wasting disease: “That was essential to us,” Earthjustice Attorney Tim Preso says, “because we can’t continue business as usual with [chronic wasting disease] already in the valley” (Koshmrl, 2019). These interest groups advocated heavily for these progressive step- down approaches to decrease the number of elk on the feed grounds, and ultimately the USFWS and these interest groups reached consensus within this plan. Within this plan the USFWS details how it plans to systematically reduce the feeding of the elk on the National Elk Refuge and ultimately reduce the populations of elk on the feed grounds from 11,000 to 5,000 overall. “Because elk use of feed grounds is a learned behavior, over time this could increase the proportion of elk that winter on native winter range, reduce the number of elk that move from the Gros Ventre drainage to [the refuge] and decrease the [refuge] wintering elk population. The resulting shift in elk distribution would allow us to achieve the 5,000 elk objective for the refuge” (Koshmrl, 2019). Some of the largest holes many stakeholders see within this plan, however, are 1.where the elk will ultimately disperse to 2. estimates of how many elk will ultimately starve to death without this supplemental feeding and 3. the spread of disease when these elk ultimately do migrate 32 outwards onto private lands. Generally speaking the plan has been criticized for a lack of flexibility, ultimately reducing the number of alfalfa pellets disbursed to the elk populations by half within the first year. WGF and other stakeholder groups believe that the USFWS has not properly accounted for seasonal variability in the amount of forage ultimately available to the elk during certain years: “The thing that’s problematic about it is that any kind of a prescriptive cookie-cutter approach that’s consistent year after year is difficult, because weather changes and some years there’s less forage and some years there’s more forage” (Koshmrl, 2019). Still many stakeholder groups believe that this step-down approach will ultimately solve the feeding ground issue. While criticized for the rigidness of the plan and how quickly it is being implemented, advocates of the plan draw attention to the monitoring that would take place at each step of the step-down approach. Former Refuge Manager Brian Glaspell states: “We are not advocating starvation. Never have, never will, and that’s the bottom line. If and when we start moving forward with any of these plans, it’s not like we flip the switch and everything’s different on the landscape tomorrow. It will be a very slow process where we make tiny steps, and then we review the impact” (Koshmrl, 2019). USFWS and other advocates of the plan insist that reducing the feeding on elk feed grounds is the only way to combat the threat of disease posed to the elk while attempting to avoid a massive elk starvation and die off. Others still argue that the plan does not account for other relevant interest groups. 33 CHAPTER FOUR: Stakeholder Groups and Correlating Positions Regarding Feed grounds Hunting/Outfitting Groups One of the biggest interest groups within the Jackson Hole area are those individuals associated with hunting and outfitting groups within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. As one wildlife biologist, Edward Preble, stated when tasked by the USFWS with the investigation of elk populations in the early 1940’s put it: “Some of the most intelligent residents of Jackson Hole have estimated the value of the elk to the region is equal to the revenue derived from stock raising, which is the principal industry…and that without them the region under present conditions would not support nearly so large as it does now. Whatever the opinion of individuals on this point, it is evident that elk have played a very important part in the development of the region. Probably a majority of the more successful residents owe their start to the presence of these animals” (Smith, 2012). As the above quote has stated, hunting outfitters account for a large portion of stakeholders within the Jackson Hole area. Hunting and outfitting groups are reliant upon there being large populations of elk within the Jackson Hole area. These hunting and outfitting groups generally charge between $3,000-$10,000 per individual to take on a hunt for an elk, regardless of the outcome of said hunt (Smith, 2012). This is obviously a huge economic impact for the State of Wyoming as a whole, especially for Northwestern Wyoming. 34 To eliminate these elk feed grounds the hunting and outfitting groups of Wyoming risk a massive elk die- off that would have a huge economic blow to their hunting and outfitting businesses. These hunting and outfitting businesses are wholly reliant upon the elk staying within the area of these elk feed grounds, and having sufficient forage and feed to sustain them through harsh Wyoming winters to reduce the risk of massive elk die off. Furthermore, these outfitting Photo Courtesy of Trophy Mountain Outfitters groups are oftentimes reliant upon the use of public lands in order to conduct these hunting activities: “Our western elk herds only exist in huntable numbers because of feed grounds. If we quit feeding we would lose a solid 80% of our public land elk herds and cause major impacts upon the AG community. Elk leaving their traditional wintering area would end up on private land and onto our limited mule deer wintering areas” (Nesvik, 2019). Many individuals within the hunting and outfitting businesses have expressed their opinions over the risk of the spread of disease. Similar to the risk of starvation, so does the risk of disease causing massive elk die off present a potential problem to members of these hunting and outfitting groups. If disease were to spread rapidly amongst these elk feed grounds, the ultimate result could be a die off of elk populations and cause an ultimate harm to the hunting and outfitting industry. This is a delicate balance for these hunting and outfitting groups to try and accomplish. While they do not want any entity to take control in regulating these elk feeding ground areas and potentially decreasing the populations through alternative measures, they also 35 do not want diseases such as brucellosis and CWD to take hold in these elk feed grounds and reduce the populations of elk in this respect. Some spokesman for hunting and outfitting organizations, such as Sy Gilliland, VP of the Wyoming Outfitter Association have gone on record as not being concerned about the threat of disease to the elk populations at all: “The whole bias, we're somehow going to lower the infection rate of CWD amongst elk. In my opinion, it is false. Eliminating feed grounds isn't going to do a darn thing” (Kudelska, 2018). Gilliland bases this assertion of the data gathered from the Laramie Peak Elk Herd that has the highest CWD infection rate in Wyoming. Gilliland states that while this elk herd congregates in very high numbers the infection rate amongst this herd is not at all very high do the feed grounds are a “non-factor”. Hunting and outfitting groups are also very concerned with the idea that their outfitting clients are being made to feel as though the risk of CWD within the hunting area is significant enough that it is not worth spending money into come hunt in the area. One interest group proposed a solution that these hunters should be reimbursed their license fees if they were to harvest an animal that was infected with CWD (Wyoming Game and Fish, 2019). Unsurprisingly, hunting and outfitting groups are opposed to this idea, stating that while they are not very concerned with the threat disease poses to the elk herds as a whole, they also do not want to send the message that there is no risk that a hunter who paid for an outfitter could harvest an infected animal: “If we make sure all hunters are fully aware that animals being hunted in these units are likely to be infected then they understand the possible consequences. The department should never place themselves in a situation of sending the signal they are selling a product instead of a hunting opportunity. As an outfitter I am very concerned that a client that kills a CWD infected animal could request a refund. We must all stay the course that Wyoming is home to hunting wild free ranging animals and not providing a product”-Sy Gilliland (Ruckelshaus Institute, 2019). 36 This is an interesting position for this stakeholder group to be in because while advocating that disease is not a large enough concern to reduce the supplemental feeding of elk, they are also unwilling to back this with a guarantee that their clients will not be susceptible to harvesting an infected animal. Their focus, as stated, is that the hunting trips they sell are not simply about harvesting an animal, but rather the overall experience involved in hunting in Wyoming. In fact, most of these individuals who pay for these hunting trips are living out of state and very rarely take the harvested meat with them, instead donating it through the processing facility they take the animal too. This again emphasizes that the risk of disease to these animals is not of major concern to these outfitting groups, because they are not alone concerned with the health of the individual animals, but rather being able to sell the overall hunting experience that Wyoming has to offer due to the large population of elk. Wyoming Game and Fish Wyoming Game and Fish (WGF) is in a particularly delicate position when engaging in the elk feeding ground dispute. Along with being in charge of the operation of 22 of the feed grounds in Wyoming, WGF is one of the biggest proponents of disease control and maintaining healthy populations of wildlife populations and all hunting operations within the state. They are reliant upon healthy populations of elk in their overall goals of Courtesy of Wyoming Game and Fish Department wildlife conservation and maintaining sufficient numbers of elk populations to continue their gaming activities. WGF recently distributed a survey to both residents and non-residents in which 1,2000 individuals responded that they see CWD as a major risk to their hunting activities. The survey emphasized that hunter’s biggest concerns was the 37 health of the populations of animals for future generation’s hunting opportunities and that they did not see the threat of CWD as an immediate threat to their hunting operations (French, 2019). Furthermore, the survey found that 20% of hunters were not aware of the fact that animal remains are one of the ways that CWD is most commonly spread and that they should not transport an animal carcass out of an area known to be affected with CWD. Furthermore, the survey found that the majority of hunters would continue to hunt even if the prevalence of CWD was increased 4-5 times in their hunt area (French, 2019). These responses demonstrate that the threat of disease to the populations of elk and deer will not generally stop or even slow down the interest in hunting. While they may be concerned overall about the health of the animals, they still carry their interest to hunt them which means they still value the feed grounds for the service they provide to them: to keep the huntable deer and elk within Wyoming and in huntable numbers near private lands. WGF is also almost wholly reliant upon funds from gaming and fishing licenses and tags in order to continue their conservation efforts. And hunting is also a contributor to the state economy. One study recently found that big game hunting, of which elk hunting is most popular, contributes $303 million to the state’s economy (Kudelska, 2018). For WGF, this means the agency has an incentive to protect hunting interests, because they are the main sources of funding for the agency. Without these big game species, the hunting industry cannot exist. On the other hand, experts within the agency are concerned. WGF Director Brian Nesvik is well aware of the competing interests WFD has to balance when managing the elk feed grounds: “Humans and wildlife are competing for the same wildlife resources, and Game and Fish must manage a balance between both. The efforts of the agency affect more than hunters. Our agriculture industry relies on and works with Game and Fish to responsibly manage elk in a way that prevents disease transmission to livestock. Our tourism-based industries rely on healthy and abundant elk populations for the benefit of those who want to see elk and for those wildlife species that prey on them” (Nesvik, 2019). 38 Nesvik has released several statements concerning WFD’s official position concerning the elk feed grounds. WFD does not believe that discontinuing feeding will be the right solution “in either the short or midterm.” Nesvik explains specifically that “[e]lk in northwest Wyoming are important to the people of our state and nation. Stopping feed ground operations could reduce elk populations in northwest Wyoming by as much as 60-80 percent, which is not in the best interest of a strong and healthy wildlife resource and Wyoming’s citizens.” The WGF does not agree with the USFWS plan to scale scaling down feeding. To WGF, this approach would lead to a die off of elk that would not be conducive to a healthy population of elk for the hunting interests of the state. Furthermore, WGF has an interest in keeping the elk off of private lands and keep them on public lands. This is again due to hunting interests, but also having an interest in protecting against disease transmission to surrounding livestock. Along with trying to maintain the health and populations of Wyoming’s elk populations, Game and Fish is also charged with the overall maintenance and conservation of all other wildlife populations within the State of Wyoming. This is a real consideration on behalf of Wyoming Game and Fish when deciding what policies and procedures are best tailored to dealing with the problem of the elk feed grounds. They must not only account for the populations of elk, but also of every other species they are in charge of. This means that policy decisions about what to do with elk populations also must account for deer and moose populations when analyzing the effects of CWD and the potential negative effects that stem from the spread of this disease inter-species. The WGF must also consider the affects the feed grounds have on predatory animals such as wolves in the surrounding areas of the feed grounds. These predatory animals have become accustomed to large populations of elk on and immediately surrounding the feed grounds. This is a concern for the WGF department because if the elk were to suffer a 39 large die off from phasing down or discontinuing the feed grounds these predatory animals would be deprived of an incredibly large food source. With the WGF Department’s opposition to the large-scale phasing out the feed grounds, the question of what their management strategy is needs to be answered. For Nesvik and the rest of WGF they believe that WGF’s history of feeding the elk has created an obligation to continue this feeding. Director Nesvik has stated that "[w]e have a responsibility to provide elk a resource that we otherwise wouldn't be able to provide without supplemental feed" (Koshmrl, 2019). The WGF have been providing this supplemental feeding on 22 feedlots for almost 100 years which has helped sustain an incredibly healthy population of elk that NW Wyoming has become very well known for. To phase out or even take away this resource from the elk could risk many of these elk starving to death, creating both an ethical and economic issue the WGF would like to avoid. The strategy WGF has proposed and began working on lends more towards spreading the elk out on the feeding ground land itself, by physically “distributing feed across a larger area and by reducing the feeding season” (Nesvik, 2019). Furthermore, WGF has stated that the only scenario in which they could foresee shutting down a feeding ground would be if they were certain the “dispersal of elk will not cause damage, conflict, or commingling issues with private property (i.e., stored crops and domestic livestock) or create a need to drastically reduce overall elk numbers.” Lastly, in the event CWD was discovered on a feeding ground, Nesvik and WGF has stated that they would not consider large-scale culling of the elk herd as a management technique for combating the spread of disease (French, 2019). The one thing that is clear from all of this is the confidence WGF has in combatting the issues feed grounds present: “I feel strongly that Wyoming has been, and will continue to be, a leader in wildlife management. Supplemental elk feeding creates challenges that we can mitigate. It will take patience, consideration of the best science and agile decision makers. It will take teamwork and consideration for all interests with a stake in wildlife management in 40 northwest Wyoming. We have a strong track record in our state of using all of these skills to solve tough problems for the betterment of wildlife, and I believe this one is no different.” (Nesvik, 2019). This is important because WGF and many other interest groups do strongly believe that they are the best suited organization to deal with the threat of disease to these animals. With other entities, including federal organizations like USFWS, proposing management strategies the fact that large sections of interest groups believe only one organization should be tasked with this issue could cause issues for collaborative mechanisms. Environmental Organizations Another relevant stakeholder group are people we will classify as the “environmental organizations.” More specifically, however, would be to categorize these stakeholders as the ones concerned with the health of the elk species above all other interests. As mentioned above, these are the groups pushing the USFWS to discontinue the feeding of the elk on the National Elk Refuge and are pushing for immediate action, as evidenced by the latest lawsuit that challenges the step-down approach’s 2 year timeline. Within this group of organizations suing the UWFWS is Earthjustice, the Defenders of Wildlife, The Sierra Club, and the National Wildlife Refuge Association. The sentiment throughout these interest groups is that the elk feed grounds are a “breeding ground” for disease and that the only practical measure for environmental managers is to completely eradicate them. One of the most outspoken individuals in this stakeholder group is Bruce Smith, who served as the Senior Biologist for the National Elk Refuge for more than 20 years. Smith is a strong believer that the feed grounds are a breeding ground for many different diseases, and has stated that: 41 “It is difficult to justify winter feeding that congregates thousands of elk for several months year after year if preventing or managing infectious diseases (e.g. CWD, bovine brucellosis, bovine tuberculosis) is the primary objective. As detailed above, feedgrounds provide nearly ideal conditions for CWD transmission among free-roaming elk … There is no question that discontinuing winter feeding now would greatly reduce the risk of CWD transmission among elk in the GYA [Greater Yellowstone Area]…” (Smith and Peterson, 2019). This quote shows the severity some wildlife biologists believe CWD could pose to the elk feed grounds. Another expert on wildlife diseases relied upon by the environmental groups is Markus Peterson from Texas A&M University. Professor Peterson has stated that “based on what is currently known about CWD in elk, prevalence in a chronically infected feed ground herd could exceed 50% if feeding programs remain unchanged ….”. Furthermore, he states that “there is no CWD management approach that has been shown to reliably eradicate CWD [outbreaks] or eliminate the spread of the disease to new areas” and when asked his opinion about the best management strategy going forward he offers that “again preventing CWD from becoming established in the GYA is a far better option than dealing with it once it is there” (Smith and Peterson, 2019). This thought is shared across the board with these conservation groups; they see the threat of disease as far too great of a risk because of the lack of a management approach that could help with the spread of the disease on the feed grounds. These groups also believe that the feed grounds are a human-caused issue and that the elk would have gone through natural cycles of die-offs and heavily populated years had the citizens of Wyoming not stepped in and provided supplemental feeding. This is why these groups are not as concerned about the potential for massive elk die off; to them the elk dying off is a natural consequence of the elk returning to a natural population level that the environment can sustain without supplemental feeding. While these groups are not promoting massive elk die-offs, they realize that it would be a natural consequence of reducing the feeding and forcing elk back into 42 their natural winter forage areas. For this reason, the environmental groups were not opposed to the step-down feeding approach in order to curtail the elk die off, however, they did emphasize through their complaints that this approach would have to be implemented in a timely manner. The biggest short-term interest these environmental groups see is the timeliness of the solution they best see fit. As stated above, these environmental groups were willing to let the USFWS implement a step-down approach for the elk feed grounds in exchange for them suspending the litigation over the elk feed grounds temporarily. One of the conditions of this suspension of litigation, however, was that the step-down approach would be implemented in the winter feeding season of 2019/2020. However, the step-down approach was not implemented in the winter of 2019/2020, so the groups field a new lawsuit in early February of 2020 to compel the USFWS to implement its step-down approach. In their complaint, the groups included the following quotes stressing the need to implement a reduction in feeding on the National Elk Refuge: “The detection of chronic wasting disease on the doorstep of the National Elk Refuge should be setting off alarm bells for everyone who treasures the Refuge and its wildlife. We cannot afford further delay from the Service in addressing this existential threat to the Refuge. It is crucial that we take decisive action, to protect elk and the integrity of the refuge now, before it is too late.”-Pete Nelson, director of federal lands for Defenders of Wildlife. “As long as feeding continues as usual, risk to the Greater Yellowstone region will increase. Chronic wasting disease is already infecting wildlife in Jackson Hole. We cannot afford to wait any longer, let alone two or more years, before even starting to encourage elk to relearn their natural winter foraging behaviors and reduce the threat that this disease will mushroom into an all-out epidemic.”-Connie Wilbert, director of Sierra Club Wyoming Chapter. “It is long past time for the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a real plan with specific steps and a reasonable time frame to implement phasing out feeding the elk at the refuge. Chronic wasting disease just keeps getting closer and this has gone on far too long.”- Geoffrey Haskett, president of the National Wildlife Refuge Association. (Pratt, 2015) 43 The environmental groups that signed onto the complaint are very prominent and well known within the Rocky Mountain Region. They are known for their steadfast advocacy for the environmental and wildlife interests that otherwise would not get the recognition and attention that they may need in order to overcome environmental conflict they are facing. For these stakeholder groups to come together and pursue the various litigation and negotiation avenues shows how important they see the elk feeding ground issue to be. They first and foremost believe that something needs to be done about the elk feed grounds before Wyoming faces the potential for widespread disease across the feed grounds. They believe this is within the best interest of the species because the elk population would need to seek forage within their natural habitats and would return to a more sustainable population free from the diseases that present themselves in the artificially congregated groups of elk on the feed grounds. Citizens/Tourists Near Elk Feed grounds Generally speaking, elk are a characteristic North American mammal that individuals are concerned about conserving. The elk of Jackson have a characteristic about them that the general population finds appealing and makes people care about the conservation efforts associated with elk. Within this category is the tourism these elk populations draw into the town of Jackson and the surrounding area. Tourists flood to Jackson Hole to view these populations of elk. The local community has an interest in keeping the elk of Jackson Hole thriving and populated as well. Despite the obvious economic advantages of having these elk in place in the area surrounding Jackson, these local individuals also have an emotional, spiritual, and aesthetic attachment to the elk populations that is hard to calculate a value for. As accounted from a local resident in the early 1900’s; the realty we may face if we were to discontinue the practice of elk 44 feed grounds would be a massive elk die off that would be incredibly visible to the local residents of Jackson Hole, as well as any tourists visiting to see the elk alive and healthy. Again, there is a line to be drawn here between wildlife biologists and policy makers. While economically and socially speaking, it could be potentially devastating to discontinue the use of elk feed grounds, this would probably have short-term implications but would ultimately favor long-term goals for the management of the elk populations within Jackson Hole and the surrounding elk feed grounds. The people of Jackson Hole may take on the risk of coming upon deceased elk in the road, and an increased prevalence of starving elk within city limits in search of food if we were to completely discontinue the feeding of elk at these feed grounds. However, the continuance of the elk feed grounds may prove the ultimate demise of the elk populations as well, due to the increased risk of these animals dying off from disease and causing the same issue these stakeholders are worried about to begin with. Private Landowners Private landowners are some of the most outspoken opponents of discontinuing elk feed grounds within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. This is simply due to the fact that Private landowners value elk feed grounds for the service they provide to these private landowners: keeping the elk off of their private land. Elk can be incredibly destructive: between destroying gates, damaging the forage available on the land, increasing liability for hunters coming onto private lands in search of elk, and the potential risk of the spread of disease, elk are not necessarily far from welcome guests on private lands. Without the cattle industry in the town of Jackson Hole, the town would suffer immensely. These ranching operations have been incredibly long standing, some even tracing back to the first settlers to the Jackson Hole area in the very early 1900’s. These long standing community members bring a lot of economic wealth to the 45 town of Jackson Hole through these livestock operations, one that the citizens of Jackson Hole would be very against reducing or potentially harming. The private landowners of Jackson Hole are arguably one of the hardest stakeholders to account for because generally speaking, they do not see any tangible benefits associated with discontinuing the feed grounds. While these feed grounds do increase the risk of the spread of these diseases, they also keep the elk into select areas, and reduce the cattle-wildlife interactions that would otherwise be incredibly prevalent. To the private landowners, the elk feed grounds solves the problem of the elk potentially destroying their properties, and at the same time create a designated boundary between the elk and the livestock industry, which goes a long way in protecting their assets. To private landowners, the threat of phasing down or removing the feed grounds comes at too great of a cost for them. They believe if the elk were removed from the feed grounds, they have to end up somewhere, and that somewhere is onto their private lands or within the town of Jackson itself: “In Rocky Mountain National Park, the elk are out grazing in the lawn in front of Pizza Hut. We don’t think that’s a great situation for wildlife in Jackson” (Koshmrl, 2019). Some individuals have proposed incentive programs in order to increase the willingness for these landowners to allow the extra wildlife onto their lands. The thought is that these incentives would help offset the costs the elk would cost. These proposed incentive programs do not have widespread support from these private landowner groups however: “You have to have landowner tolerance [to do this], and I don’t see how you can prescribe that, There are some landowners who may be interested in some kind of incentive, but others, frankly, there’s not enough money that it’s going to make a difference to them. We’re talking about high-value property where they don’t want an extra 300 elk for the winter” (Koshmrl, 2019). 46 This quote shows the lack of excitement for this proposed solution to private landowners. This is also a testament to how valuable the private land surrounding these elk feed grounds is. It is highly unlikely that an incentive program could be implemented that could ever offset the cost savings that the feed grounds provides to these private landowners, making this solution unfeasible in many stakeholder’s eyes. CHAPTER FIVE: Where to go from here. Are the Elk Feed grounds a Social Trap? The creation of these elk feeding areas have created a significant issue the State of Wyoming now must deal with. In some respects, human intervention created an incredibly circular problem for this species. First, humans cut off their migration corridors through development, and when the elk started starving and dying off, they supplemented their feeding through these feed grounds. Now it is the feed grounds themselves presenting a serious threat to the species overall survival within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. As discussed above, there are many diverse and relevant interest groups invested in the issue of the elk feed grounds, and many of their values associated with the elk are not compatible. While the majority of the stakeholders can agree to the fact that the threat of disease to these elk populations could become an extreme issue for the species, no clear solution is being presented that even a majority of stakeholders can agree to. Stopping, or even progressively stepping down, the feeding of the elk is not an option many are willing to consider. Unfortunately for this scenario the ultimate policy decision rests on either continuing to feed the 47 elk or to stop the feeding. This does not leave a lot of room for creative problems solving techniques. It is safe to say that the elk feed grounds is a social trap. What Type of Social Trap are the Elk Feed grounds? We then turn to an analysis of what type of social trap we are dealing with. As outlined above, the main types of social traps identified by Platt are one person traps, the missing hero trap, and the individual goods and collective bads trap. Certain similarities present themselves between the elk feeding ground social trap and the one person social trap, as defined in the Platt article. The idea of sliding reinforcers is especially prevalent within the elk feeding ground issue. Over 100 years ago when the first elk feed grounds were implemented, they were extremely beneficial to the town of Jackson, WY. These feedings grounds helped with the massive elk die offs caused by harsh winters and interference with elk migration corridors. While a seemingly beneficial solution for the time being, the feed grounds slowly started to create new issues. It could be argued that at the time elk feed grounds were implemented individuals were ignorant to the fact that it would eventually lead to the spread of disease amongst the elk populations which is what got us into this social trap. Regardless of whether these individuals were ignorant to the potential problems, the general public is now informed of the issues the supplemental feeding of elk present and a solution has to be presented in order to escape this social trap. The artificial concentration of massive elk populations was used in order to keep elk off of private lands, to sustain a large population of elk for hunting and tourist industries, and for the prevention of spread of brucellosis to the livestock industry. The continuation of elk feed grounds was the short-term reinforcement that many of these stakeholder groups continued to make, though with the continuation of the supplemental 48 feeding came the long term consequence of the spread of disease and the threat that posed to the elk itself. The fact that CWD and other diseases that potentially threaten the elk have presented themselves makes the choice of supplemental feeding less rewarding, yet many stakeholders are not willing to discontinue the feeding due to the idea that they are still benefitting from the supplemental feeding in the long run. This is how the feed grounds have become a sliding reinforcer, because what was once rewarding to society is now not as much, yet individual stakeholders are trapped within the decisions they made in hopes that it will one day be as rewarding again. Closely related to the one-person social trap is the Individual Goods and Collective Bads social trap. While the one-person social trap theory serves to show why certain individuals continue to chose short-term reinforcers, the collective bad portion of this theory shows how collective behavior of the other stakeholders can further hold an individual into a social trap. As discussed above, the stakeholders in this issue continually choose the short-term reinforcements instead of thinking about the long-term best interests of the society as a whole, making this issue a social trap. For instance, the private landowners and ranchers continue to support the elk feed grounds because it keeps potentially disease infected elk off of their private land. This is a short- term reinforcement that the ranchers and landowners chose because it suited their best interests, regardless of what it meant for society, and the elk, as a whole. Now, this interest group is “trapped” within this choice because as disease continues to present an issue, the landowners must continue to act within their best interests, which is supporting the elk feed grounds to keep elk off of their private land. This choice has been within their best interest since the implementation of the elk feed grounds over 100 years ago, because the elk do not interact with their livestock and do not destroy their private fences, forage, etc. This is true for the 49 stakeholders like Wyoming Game and Fish and Outfitting Groups as well. High populations of animals congregated near large amounts of public land can directly correlate to these organization’s economic viability. It is no wonder then, why these organizations chose the short- term reinforcements that supplemental feeding of the elk provide. With hunting interests being tied to both economic and social aspects of Wyoming culture, the discontinuance or phasing down of elk feeding would prove to be a large battle against these interest groups. The reason this is a collective bad social trap as well is the fact that these individual stakeholders cannot influence the long-term negative reinforcer by just their interest group changing their short-term behavior. With so many varying stakeholder groups in opposition to the discontinuance of elk feed grounds for different individualized reasons, one stakeholder group choosing to support the discontinuance of the feed grounds will not only hurt them and their interests as a whole, but will not make a difference in the long term negative consequences of the feed grounds either. Simply put it is better for these stakeholder groups to continue their short term reinforcing behavior, though not as beneficial as it once was, rather than change their behavior and risk hurting their interests for no reasonable gain. On its face it does not seem that this is a missing hero social trap. There are many various environmental groups that are fighting against the continuance of elk feed grounds. These groups believe that the only way to truly stop the spread of disease across elk feed grounds is to discontinue or decrease the supplemental feeding of elk. This stakeholder group has made it very apparent that they are looking to move quickly and effectively in order to get the elk feed grounds discontinued or phased down as quickly as possible and that their number one interest is the health of the elk populations on and surrounding the feed grounds. 50 The problem with these environmental organizations is the lack of power they have over other stakeholder groups. What good is a hero to a social trap if they have very little influence over the decision making? One could propose that the elk feed grounds are in fact missing this hero, because they do not have a hero that can implement change or influence policy making in a meaningful way. If the hero to the social trap cannot metaphorically get out and “move the mattress”, then they are not a hero to the social trap. While these environmental groups are doing what they can and using judicial mechanisms to fight for their interests, as discussed above, this is oftentimes a very ineffective mechanism to solving a social trap. The stakeholders that could implement policy changes and proposed solutions to the social trap without any judicial mechanisms are the ones that will continue to make the short-term reinforcement decisions that benefit their interests. Simply put, the interest groups that could step up and fill the missing hero position have no incentive or reason to because they will not gain any value from this. Wyoming Game and Fish and the USFWS have the authority to regulate the feed grounds the way that they best see fit until the day they are told to change their regulations by a higher authority. With overwhelming support from a majority of interest groups for WGFD and USFWS to continue the supplemental feeding of elk it is clear that neither of these potential heroes will change this practice until their authority runs out, and therefore this social trap will remain without a hero. Can we escape the elk feeding ground social trap? Unlike many environmental conflicts, these stakeholder groups short term interests are in direct opposition to each other. When it comes to a discussion on what the best environmental management solution for the elk feed grounds is, there are really only a few possibilities to begin with: to continue to provide supplemental feeding, to stop feeding completely, or to phase out the 51 feeding over time. The biggest impediment to not escaping this social trap is the inability to create mutual gains and create value within this social trap. As stated above, mutual gains bargaining occurs when the stakeholder groups are able to come to the table not with solutions in mind, but rather a way to describe their interests so that the collaborative group as a whole can propose solutions that would allow every stakeholder member to obtain what they need out of a negotiation. With regard to the elk feed grounds, however, there has not been any proposed solution that would satisfy the interests of all the stakeholders involved. Simply put, the interests are so incompatible that one group would be forced to give up their interests for the benefit of another, which is inherently against the purpose of mutual gains bargaining and value creation. While most environmental issues are multifaceted and have room for negotiation and creative problem solving which creates this value in collaborative processes, there really isn’t a lot of room for the value creation and mutual gains when it comes to the elk feed grounds. The truth to this social trap is that a stakeholder group is ultimately going to “lose” no matter what environmental management solution is ultimately decided upon. At the end of the day either the elk will continue to get fed our not. Even the proposed solution of “phasing out” the feed grounds has not been met with extreme support on either side of the stakeholder battle. While the proposal to phase out the feed grounds at first seemed like a feasible collaborative approach, it did not have the widespread ground it needed in order to make a difference in the elk feeding ground issues as a whole. The two parties that initially agreed to a phase down approach were the Fish and Wildlife Service and the environmental groups threatening a lawsuit in the event FWS continued the feeding. While the FWS agreed to a step-down approach to feeding, this only addressed one out of 23 feed 52 grounds throughout the State of Wyoming. This is crucial because the elimination of one feeding ground does not rid society of the social trap, and if done in a way that is not inclusive to all stakeholder interests it further perpetuates a dissatisfaction with collaborative processes in dealing with this issue. The FWS did not have the same interests as many stakeholders actually within the State of Wyoming. Being a federal agency, they were not concerned with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s viewpoints on the feed grounds, the economic impacts the phasing down of feed grounds could have, and the direct effects on private landowners citizens in Wyoming would face. Furthermore, the step down approach quickly lost ground when the environmental groups were unhappy at the timeliness of the step down approach and re- opened the threat of litigation against the FWS. This shows the lack of a successful collaborative process on behalf of these stakeholder groups. In a true collaborative process, entities such as WGF, landowners, outfitting agencies, and more would have all been involved in a widespread effort to come to a solution and attempt to find mutual gains for each stakeholder involved. It is clear now that many stakeholders did not get their interests met and the agreement initially reached was not in the best interests of certain stakeholders. This has also created a mindset of distrust between federal and state agencies and who should retain more control over issues surrounding the wildlife within Wyoming. This has also become a barrier to escaping the social trap due to how politicized this issue has become when fighting for different interests. The other major barrier to reaching a collaborative agreement over the elk feed grounds is simply the nature of the issue itself, and the various stakeholders with very incompatible interests. The issue of the elk feed grounds has deeply-seeded political ties in the form of ranching industries, hunting and outfitting groups, the tourism industry, everyday citizens and local residents of Wyoming, and the scientific community. It has all the factors and history of 53 political turmoil needed in order to create a problem with seemingly no clear solution. Above all else, the underlying issue is that the stakeholder groups at play here are highly unlikely to prioritize the interests of the elk above their own economic, social, and political values. One of the biggest setbacks to a collaborative process for the elk feeding ground issue is the fact that many of the stakeholder groups are completely unwilling to entertain a collaborative process due to underlying stereotypes, incompatible interests, a lack of incentive to cooperate, and negative past experiences in collaboration settings with these same stakeholders. This coupled with being unable to find and create value from the social trap at hand has caused a negative relationship that is not open to collaborative mechanisms. This is evidenced through statements like this from Wyoming Senator Larry Hicks: “This is a recipe for the anti-feed ground groups to leverage their position and push an agenda and use CWD as a surrogate to accomplish what they have advocated for a long time. The WGFD is more than capable of conducting monitoring and adjusting management as need without providing the anti-feed ground folks a platform to advocate from” (French, 2019). This statement shows the underlying distrust these stakeholder groups have for each other, and the lack of willingness they have to partake in collaborative processes. Another thing this quote highlights is who these stakeholder groups believe should be in charge of the policy decisions surrounding the feed grounds. This social trap has become so entrenched in political undertones regarding federal vs. state based control over the elk feed grounds and who should remain in control of the future of feed grounds. This surfaces when the discussion of collaborative mechanisms gets brought up because certain groups feel that others do not belong within the stakeholder interest groups, and that one group should retain power over others. This position that Wyoming Game and Fish should retain control over the feed grounds is obvious not only 54 through WGF’s own beliefs, but also the beliefs of the outfitting, hunting, and private landowner stakeholder groups: “My issue with this recommendation is that WGFD should utilize the best science to drive any evaluations of feeding practices associated with feed grounds. Questions and data needs can be defined through local work groups/stakeholders, but decisions should be determined by WGFD using the best available science related to elk populations and their needs” (Ruckelshaus Institute, 2019). Many stakeholder groups trust the WGF to make these broad policy decisions on their own without the aid of stakeholder groups. This is most likely due to the fact that WGF does have wildlife biologists, lawyers, field technicians, and more all employed under the same organization with the common goal of protecting the health of the elk while simultaneously balancing the interests of all of the stakeholder groups mentioned above. Measures To Turn To If collaborative mechanisms are not feasible, society would have to turn to other mechanisms such as education, superordinate authority, or a trade-off system. Education over the elk feed grounds is seemingly a non-issue within this environmental issue. Generally speaking, most individuals are aware of the issue of chronic wasting disease and the potential threat it poses to the populations of elk within Wyoming. The area in which education could be more expansive would be through the concerns the various stakeholder groups have regarding the phasing out or complete eradication of feed grounds. However, the reason education is not a large issue within this environmental issue is the fact that individuals are not generally the ones making the decisions on a daily basis. The entities charged with making the overall policy decisions are highly informed about all aspects of the elk feeding ground issue. 55 We then turn to another potential conflict resolution solution: regulation by overarching laws and regulations. We started to see the development of these lawsuits unfold, with even a few orders from judges within Wyoming calling for the “phasing out” of elk feed grounds and the threat of not allowing the permits for these elk feed grounds to continue. The litigation against the National Elk Refuge in 2002, 2011, and 2019/2020 shows the continuing push from these environmental organizations to ultimately phase out or completely end the supplemental feeding of elk. So far what has been established within the 10th and D.C. Circuits are the fact that the USFWS is dedicated to the phasing down of feed grounds, but courts have been reluctant to set strict overarching timelines for the USFWS to accomplish this. The pattern also shows the power dynamics between the state and federal entities at play in this situation. While as of now the only litigation filed has been against the federal government, the State of Wyoming should pay close attention to the process and outcomes of this litigation. Wyoming Game and Fish currently holds control over major management decisions on the other twenty-two feed grounds. However, as seen within Wyoming v. United States, discussed above, courts have held in the past that the USFWS can obtain control over management decisions concerning wildlife and Wyoming does not have a complete sovereignty claim over this species in certain circumstances, such as if the feed ground is located on a federal lease. To successfully litigate their claim, these environmental organizations would be required to successfully show that the USFWS is acting arbitrarily and capriciously in their management decisions over the elk feed grounds. This is a fairly high standard to meet under the APA because these organizations would have to prove that the USFWS is not utilizing the best available science and making management decisions without considering all the relevant factors and data. Generally speaking, the easiest way for an environmental organization to argue this is by 56 pointing to studies and scientific data showing that there is ample evidence available that the agency in charge of the decision making failed to consider. I believe this will be a hard barrier to overcome for these groups, however, because there is a lack of evidence and studies showing the dangers these feed grounds pose to the elk. There are still many unanswered questions surrounding the spread of brucellosis from elk to livestock populations and many still argue that the feeding grounds actually act in a way to stop the spread of this disease. There are also conflicting opinions about the severity of chronic wasting disease in elk versus other types of large game animals. Without knowing the exact impact these diseases could have on elk populations within the feed grounds, these groups would have a hard time proving that the USFWS did not utilize the best available science and information, simply for the fact that the studies and data are currently non-existent. Courts are sometimes reluctant to override an agency decision unless there is clear evidence that the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously. With the USFWS implementing a large-scale plan to phase down the feed grounds to combat the spread of disease, a court would more than likely not deem it arbitrary and capricious just for the fact that the timelines are not as quick as the environmental organizations would prefer. Due to the tie between federal and state wildlife management, the results of the ongoing litigation between these environmental organizations and the USFWS could point towards the future of the rest of the twenty-two feeding grounds. The same arbitrary and capricious standard would apply for any litigation against the State of Wyoming and the other feed grounds, and it is my belief that without better scientific studies and documentation the environmental organizations would have a difficult time meeting this standard. Therefore, I believe that while the most feasible way to escape from this social trap, there would still be some significant hurdles for environmental organizations to overcome in order for 57 litigation to be successful. The lack of certainty regarding the actual threat various diseases pose to the elk species will need to be resolved and more studies be completed in order to show that agencies currently in charge of decision making are acting arbitrarily in their management decisions. With entities such as Wyoming Game and Fish and the USFWS having the ultimate decision-making authority surrounding the elk feed grounds, it seems as though the only way out of this social trap is for one of these entities to fill the missing hero role and implement change, or for superordinate authority to step in and take away this authority through litigation or legislation. Expected results of this litigation would be completely unknown at this point in time given the fact that each jurisdiction and judge may have a different outlook on the feed ground issue. Furthermore, without the present threat of litigation to Wyoming Game and Fish and their management of twenty-two of the feed grounds within Wyoming, it seems as though the supplemental feeding of elk will be a common practice for the foreseeable future on the majority of feed grounds in Wyoming unless the federal government were to step in and take action. Within the coming years the effects of CWD and other diseases once they reach the elk feed grounds are more than likely to become clear once more studies are done, however, the question of whether it will be too little too late is a concern for many stakeholders in Wyoming. The elk feed grounds are a perfect example of a social trap for this reason. While litigation and overarching legislation seem to be the most likely escape from this trap, the solution is still complicated and uncertain as to the outcome and whether it has the ability to solve the problem. The debate of elk feed ground management has been occurring for decades now and it is increasingly more clear why it has become one of the biggest social traps Wyoming has ever faced. 58 Bibliography Abraham, A. “Full Article: A System Dynamics Model for Stakeholder Analysis in Environmental Conflicts.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 55(3) (2010), 387-406. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09640568.2011.604191 Costanza, R. (1987). Social Traps and Environmental Policy. BioScience, 37(6), 407-412. doi:10.2307/1310564 Cotterill, G. G., Cross, P. C., Cole, E. K., Fuda, R. K., Rogerson, J. D., Scurlock, B. M., & du Toit, J. T. (2018, May 5). Winter feeding of elk in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and its effects on disease dynamics. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5882999/ Daniels, S. E., & Walker, G. B. (2001). Working through environmental conflict the collaborative learning approach. Westport, CT: Praeger. Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 651 F. 3d 112 (2011). French, B. (2019, December 5). Wyoming contemplates plans to manage chronic wasting disease. Retrieved from https://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/wyoming-contemplates-plans-to- manage-chronic-wasting-disease/article_0fecc0d9-d1cc-502e-a1b4-b4233ba988d4.html Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (2013). Getting to Yes. Yuan Liu/Tsai Fong Books. Friedman, R. Bringing Mutual Gains Bargaining to Labor Negotiations: The Role of Trust, Understanding, and Control. Human Resource Management 32(4) (1993), 435–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930320403. Koshmrl, M. (2019, August 14). Wyoming contests 2020 plan to wean refuge elk from artificial feed. Retrieved from https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/environmental/wyoming-contests-plan- to-wean-refuge-elk-from-artificial-feed/article_036b852a-d0f7-5556-b609-835500fb165f.html Kudelska, K. (2018, December 21). CWD Detected In Teton County, Do Elk Feed Grounds Need To Go? Retrieved from https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/post/cwd-detected-teton-county-do- elk-feed-grounds-need-go#stream/0 McKearnan, S., Thomas-Larmer, J., & Susskind, L. E. (1999). The consensus building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Morriss, S. (2017, February 27). National Elk Refuge: 1912 - 2012. Retrieved April 3, 2019, from https://jacksonholehistory.org/national-elk-refuge-1912-2012/ 59 National Elk Refuge. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.jacksonholewy.com/things-to-do/national- elk-refuge/ Nesvik, B. (2019, December 19). Elk feedgrounds: A challenge we can take on. Retrieved from https://wgfd.wyo.gov/News/Elk-feedgrounds-A-challenge-we-can-take-on Platt, J. (1973). “Social traps”. American Psychologist, 28(8), 641 651. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035723 Pratt, T. (2015, March 17). Protecting Elk from Harmful Diseases. Retrieved from https://earthjustice.org/our_work/cases/2006/wyoming-elk-feedgrounds Rhyan, J. C., Nol, P., Quance, C., Gertonson, A., Belfrage, J., Harris, L. Robbe-Austerman, S. (2013). Transmission of Brucellosis from Elk to Cattle and Bison, Greater Yellowstone Area, USA, 2002–2012. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 19(12), 1992-1995. https://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1912.130167 Ruckelshaus Institute (2019), Wyoming Game and Fish Department Chronic Wasting Disease Collaborative Process Interim Report. Retrieved from https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Get%20Involved/CWD_Interim- Report_Oct19.pdf Smith, B. L. (2012). Where elk roam: conservation and biopolitics of our national elk herd. Guilford, Conn: Lyons Press. Smith, B. L., Cole, E. K., & Dobkin, D. S. (2004). Imperfect pasture: a century of change at the National Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Jackson, WY: US Fish and Wildlife Service. Smith, B.L., Peterson, M. (2019). Experts Warn That Elk Feedgrounds Are Breeding Grounds For Disease. Retrieved from https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/library/factsheets/Elk_1105_Expert_Report_Highlights. pdf Wyoming Farm Bureau. (2019, July 3). Cattle industry in Wyoming. Retrieved from https://www.wyfb.org/cattle-industry-in-wyoming/ Wyoming Game and Fish. Conserving Wildlife - Serving People. (2019). Retrieved from https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Wildlife-in-Wyoming/More-Wildlife/Wildlife-Disease/Brucellosis Wyoming Game and Fish Veterinary Services, Chronic Wasting Disease in Wyoming Wildlife. (2019). Retrieved from https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Wildlife-in-Wyoming/More-Wildlife/Wildlife- Disease/Chronic-Wasting-Disease Wyoming v. U.S., 279 F. 3d 1214 (2002) 60