What do you see as your greatest challenges as the director of the Game and Fish Department?
There is no lack of issues and challenges facing the department. They run from securing adequate funding to wildlife diseases and diminishing habitat. And the drought is having a huge impact on wildlife as well. So we’ve got plenty of things to keep us busy.

I’ve heard a lot of talk about funding issues for the Game and Fish Department. How are you funded?
Currently we are funded by hunting license fees and by federal excise taxes on sporting goods, firearms, etc. We do not get any state funds… Actually this year we did get 4.2 million from the state’s general operating fund for capital improvements, but our operating funds come from hunting licenses and federal taxes.

We’ve tried repeatedly for over 20 years to establish a permanent trust fund to provide a more reliable revenue stream. But we’ve had no success. This year the [Legislature’s] Interim Travel, Recreation and Wildlife Committee is looking into alternative funding for the department. Our hope is that something will come out of this that ensures adequate funding for the department. Unfortunately when we have budget shortfalls, often our non-game programs suffer.

What is your relationship with the Game and Fish Commission?
The Game and Fish Commission sets policy for the department and establishes the budget. I report directly to both the commission and to the governor. The governor can remove me, but the commission cannot. The commission is comprised of seven individuals from throughout the state who serve staggered six-year terms. We’ll be replacing three commissioners in March, 2005. These commissioners represent each of the seven judicial districts in the state. Within the districts, commissioners come from the different counties on a rotating basis.

I’d like to talk about some specific wildlife concerns, and I guess the best place to start is the state’s most contentious issue: wolves. Do you have any ideas for ways to defuse the emotions that surround the wolf-management issue in Wyoming?
I do not. I’ve never seen an issue that polarizes people as much as wolves do. People either love them or hate them. I think the only thing that will moderate these emotions is time. As people have more experiences with wolves, they will become less extreme in their views of the animals.

How has the state’s decision to pursue a lawsuit over the wolf-management issue affected the Game and Fish Department?
We have no management responsibilities for the wolves until they are delisted, so the state’s lawsuit does not have any direct impact on our current work load. Wolves do have an impact on our big game management. We are dealing with the effects of wolf predation on ungulates.

When people talk about the impact of predation on big game you hear extremes. Some people say the wolves are decimating the herds, others say they are culling them of the weak and old. What is the truth about the effect of wolves on the state’s big game?
There’s no doubt that wolves are having some impact on our big game numbers, but it is hard to tease out what that impact is versus the impact of things like the drought and habitat loss. Elk cow-calf production is down significantly in some herds, but again it’s hard to tell if that is due to dwindling habitat, prolonged drought or wolf predation. Furthermore, we have to factor in predation from bears and mountain lions as well, so it is difficult to assign any specific blame.

What about the effects of wildlife diseases? Is there any one disease that causes you more concern?
Clearly all wildlife diseases are a threat. Some have more impact than others. Brucellosis is less of a threat to overall herd numbers than chronic wasting disease, but both are concerns. Still, I go back to shrinking and fragmented habitat as the single biggest threat to our wildlife populations. Look at what is happening in western Wyoming. I heard somewhere that there have been more than 1,400 new home starts this year in the Jackson-Star Valley area. The town of Pinedale is expanding west into important migration corridors. You add the growing oil and gas development and the drought, and you have significant stresses on ungulate habitat.

Where did these wildlife diseases come from?
People speculate that brucellosis was introduced by domestic cattle at the turn of the 19th Century. Chronic wasting disease (CWD) has been in the deer population for three decades in Colorado and east. It seems to be slowly spreading west and north. CWD only appears to affect deer and elk. It doesn’t seem to spread to cattle or other livestock.

I’ve heard people question the effectiveness of vaccinating elk for brucellosis in feedgrounds. What is your opinion of the practice?
Vaccination is not the magic bullet to end the disease, at least not with our current vaccine. But we believe—and our veterinarians believe—that vaccinating the elk is an effective way to reduce the incidence of disease over time. Numbers have gone down, although in the past couple of years they are back up a bit. Nonetheless for now it is one tool we have to help fight the spread of brucellosis.

What about closing feedgrounds?
Clearly there has been a lot of discussion about the pros and cons of the feedgrounds. Feedgrounds have a use. They keep elk from depredating ranch lands and from commingling with livestock and spreading brucellosis to cattle. But the concentration of elk also help spread disease among the elk. Winter feedgrounds were established when ranches began to move into the elk’s winter habitat. That habitat is still gone as far as the elk are concerned, so feedgrounds continue to serve a legitimate purpose. Probably 80 percent of the elk in northwestern Wyoming depend upon feedgrounds in the winter. So we are talking about how to manage feedgrounds in ways to help minimize the disease problem.

How about the impact of oil and gas development on wildlife? Is this impact more or less significant than the spread of housing subdivisions?
Probably more significant since it covers a broader geographic area. Plus much of the development is concentrated in important winter habitat such as the Pinedale Anticline and the Mesa. Every acre of oil and gas development means one less acre for wildlife, so it is a serious impact. At the same time, we recognize that oil and gas development is important for Wyoming. So we are working with the BLM and industry on ways to minimize its adverse effects on wildlife. We are looking into winter stipulations. We are exploring options for reducing the length of time spent drilling and minimizing surface occupancy. But the bottom line is, oil and gas development has a significant impact on wildlife.

Can you document these impacts?
There are a number of studies going on to do that. Hal Sawyer is looking at the effects of winter drilling on mule deer in the Upper Green River Valley. Someone else is looking into the impacts on pronghorn. In the Powder River Basin they are exploring the effects on sage grouse. So we are looking for answers.

I recently read an article in the Casper Star-Tribune reporting that a group opposed to the listing of sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was claiming that the law was "99 percent ineffective." Have you found the ESA to be a useful tool for protecting wildlife? How have you seen it used or abused?
Very few can argue that there needs to be ample protection to wildlife species to make sure they do not vanish from the face of the Earth. My frustration with the ESA is that the entire emphasis seems to be on listing, when I believe the emphasis should be on carrying out work to minimize the need to list. And then when species are listed, the effort should be expended to recover the species and delist them. The entire burden appears to fall to the states. The federal government should be providing financial assistance to the states to help in recovery efforts and to allow states to gather sufficient data that might be used to preclude the need to list.

Speaking of sage grouse, how is it that a species that some people are talking about listing as threatened is still subject to a hunting season?
Wyoming still has a robust sage grouse population, though there are clearly less grouse now than at times in the past. The overall trend is downward. Wyoming’s conservative hunting seasons and bag limits are having little to no effect on grouse since most mortality is compensatory rather than additive. Sage grouse in other parts of their range are not as in good of shape as they are in Wyoming.

What do you think of the suspected link between coalbed methane produced waters, mosquitos, and West Nile mortality in sage grouse?
There is evidence that West Nile causes mortality in sage grouse. I think it is premature to tie coalbed methane, mosquitoes, and grouse mortality together until the research that is on-going is finished and evaluated.

Finally, we haven’t talked at all about WGFD’s non-game programs. What non-game work are you most excited about? What are some of the highlights of these programs?
Wyoming has 600-plus species of wildlife, most of which are not hunted or fished. There needs to be more attention paid to non-game in Wyoming. Clearly we need to inventory species in an effort to determine their abundance and distribution. We need additional revenue streams to do this work. Hunters and anglers should not have to pay for the management of all wildlife in the state. Peregrine falcons and swift fox have been good examples of work the department has done to bring back numbers of falcons on one hand, and to show that swift fox are more abundant than previously believed on the other hand.

What are your top goals for your tenure at the Game and Fish Department?
I would like to secure a permanent source of alternative funding so the department can move forward to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. I would like to maintain the present distribution and abundance of wildlife populations in the state. And I would like to maintain the quality and professionalism of our staff at the Game and Fish Department.