Tax dollars being put to good use.



guywhofishes

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Posts
28,774
Likes
4,259
Points
958
Location
Faaargo, ND
It shouldn’t be.

Putting money into habitat seems wiser.

Unless it’s moose collision people deaths they’re trying to prevent.
 

ItemB

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
May 4, 2015
Posts
1,296
Likes
9
Points
191
I guess I get what they are trying to do, but my arm chair biologists view is wild animals are going to go where they want, probably not to a pinch point then through a tunnel. Probably a covering their butts type of deal. Is under the highway public land? Maybe I should go get my spot and hang a treestand
 

dean nelson

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Posts
8,270
Likes
66
Points
308
Location
Bismarck
These have been built in many states and definitely work at keeping big animals and vehicles apart. As far as things a waste of our tax money on this one seems to be far better than any of the others. And it's definitely better than some parents getting woke up by a call in the middle of the night telling them that their sixteen-year-old daughter is dead because she hit a moose in the dark.
 


Achucker

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Posts
2,022
Likes
120
Points
283
Location
Bismarck
Do they work?! Ask yourself this. Where would you put up a tree stand a long a strong 4 wire fence or by a gat or opening in the fence. Animals will in general use the easiest pat. This of course will have to be learned over time but I would guarantee you see a decrease in animal hits in them areas
 

Jdubya

Established Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Posts
144
Likes
1
Points
78
Location
Dickinson
I drive 85 between Belfield and Grassy Butte almost everyday I work, seen some really nice animals killed by traffic (including a monster muley that had his skull plate/antlers sawed off by the time I came back down) if these things work I’m all for it, seen too many deer and antelope laying by the road rotting. Wish they’d put them in further south...
 

guywhofishes

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Posts
28,774
Likes
4,259
Points
958
Location
Faaargo, ND
These have been built in many states and definitely work at keeping big animals and vehicles apart. As far as things a waste of our tax money on this one seems to be far better than any of the others. And it's definitely better than some parents getting woke up by a call in the middle of the night telling them that their sixteen-year-old daughter is dead because she hit a moose in the dark.

better put them everywhere in ND then - lots of sixteen year old daughters driving nowadays

- - - Updated - - -

Coleharbor area needs two or three
 

raider

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Posts
3,397
Likes
45
Points
256
Location
williston
this is on corps land on federal highway rite of way - doubt anyone in nd had anything to do with the decision... by the way, i would guess that there were ~ 200 deer hits in this area per year when the deer numbers were high - prolly 1/2 of that up until now, in a 4 mile stretch between the 85 bridge and the bottom of indian hill...
 

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
13,730
Likes
709
Points
438
Location
williston
there has been 10-12 moose/vehicle collisions on that three miles stretch in just the past two years.
 


ItemB

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
May 4, 2015
Posts
1,296
Likes
9
Points
191
Not familiar with area, I hope it works or helps. Again not familiar with area but would there have been any possibility to use the money on habitat to try to move the animals the other direction?
 

Brian Renville

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2015
Posts
4,144
Likes
64
Points
273
Location
Fairview, MT
Yep, there is a fence that does steer them toward the "underpass". In MT the interstate has them almost the entire way from Glendive to Billings. They aren't 100% but they definitely work.
 

dean nelson

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Posts
8,270
Likes
66
Points
308
Location
Bismarck
Not familiar with area, I hope it works or helps. Again not familiar with area but would there have been any possibility to use the money on habitat to try to move the animals the other direction?
This is the area in question.

20180717_225059.jpg
 

Allen

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
10,560
Likes
1,601
Points
638
Location
Lincoln, kinda...
Right, these critters are working their way up and down the Missouri River valley in that area. I've seen some pretty nice animals using these kinds of crossings in the past.
 

Davey Crockett

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Posts
13,849
Likes
1,344
Points
563
Location
Boondocks
Yep, there is a fence that does steer them toward the "underpass". In MT the interstate has them almost the entire way from Glendive to Billings. They aren't 100% but they definitely work.


My last trip up and down I-29 a light went off in my head, Didn't there used to be a fence all the way from GF to Fargo ? Or was it someplace else that I saw it.
 


bowhunter12

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 21, 2015
Posts
94
Likes
1
Points
103
Location
G.F.
Would be nice to own land on one side of those tunnels and then have a tag for the critter, hang a stand near the pinch point or set up a blind. Would be some fun hunting anyway.
 

Duckslayer100

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Posts
4,611
Likes
189
Points
293
Location
ND's Flatter Half
Path of least resistance in a high traffic -- both vehicle and animal -- area. I bet the critters will use it once they figure it out.

Then again, some big, wise kitty cat may just find the easiest choke point to a meal ticket thanks to our tax dollars. Could be a primo puma spot come hunting season!
 

ndlongshot

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Posts
1,781
Likes
121
Points
268
Investing in habitat is always a great solution. But that isnt the issue here. You aren't going to create habitat else where to lessen the amount of vehicle collisions in this area. The habitat is the missouri river bottom, which is on both sides of the road. The highway is a barrier. We can keep on keepin on, keep smacking moose and deer...or put in an underpass which have been proven to work in other states. This isnt a pipe dream. Its working in other states. I"m all for it. Its safer, and leaves more animals on the landscape for me to eat instead of the scavengers.
 

guywhofishes

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Posts
28,774
Likes
4,259
Points
958
Location
Faaargo, ND
The unique circumstances of the Williston location wasn't the only underpass that was discussed in the article.

The state's proposal includes an underpass designed for bighorn sheep south of the Long X Bridge. Another underpass is proposed farther south near the Summit Campground that would be geared for mule deer but also accommodate other animals, Kreft said. In addition, the corridor under the Long X Bridge serves as another wildlife crossing.

The wildlife crossing system, which includes fencing and jump-outs, or one-way escape routes to prevent animals from getting stuck, is estimated to cost $7 million, according to a draft environmental impact statement.

The North Dakota Wildlife Federation is pushing for additional wildlife crossings, including at least two overpasses for bighorn sheep and pronghorn antelope, said Mike McEnroe, past president and lobbyist for the organization.
Agencies studied the possibility of a bighorn sheep overpass north of the Long X Bridge in the North Unit of Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

Matt Linneman, project manager with the Department of Transportation, said that was eliminated as a viable option because the agencies wanted to minimize the impact to the national park.

McEnroe said he's concerned the bighorn sheep won't use the underpasses.
Bighorn sheep, particularly ewes, would prefer to use an overpass, Kreft said.

"However there's been other studies in other states that a large underpass, if put in the correct location, will be effective to allow the movement of ewes," he said.


The Wildlife Federation also is advocating for wildlife crossings in the Grassy Butte and Fairfield areas to accommodate pronghorn antelope, McEnroe said. Currently, there are no wildlife crossings planned in those areas.


But I'll play along and pretend that places like Grassy Butte and Fairfield weren't mentioned too.
 

ndlongshot

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Posts
1,781
Likes
121
Points
268
Same issue applies in those areas. You going to go create new badlands habitat somewhere? The highway splits habitat on both sides and animals have already developed natural pinch points for crossings in those areas. Thats why we see the increased collisions in those areas. Mucho $$$ has went into big horn sheep in that area and many of them get killed crossing 85. Should we just accept it? This is rainbows and butterflies "wishing". These crossings work. But if you dont think its worth the costs thats fine. I never said it was cheap. Under your assumption the money would be used for habitat? The reality is that wont happen either. Its either do something. Or do nothing. DOT/FHA won't be doing big horn sheep projects anytime soon and good luck having them give 7 million to NDGF to build habitat. Still wouldnt fix the problem being discussed if they did!

I'm sure Brett Wiedmann loves completing a transplant relocation, helicopter captures for radio collars, and pneumonia surveillance (another discussion for another day) just to have them smacked by a tanker on 85. Frustrations of the job I suppose. 7M isnt cheap either. Maybe we stick with the status quo.
 
Last edited:


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 108
  • This month: 74
  • This month: 60
  • This month: 54
  • This month: 50
  • This month: 49
  • This month: 44
  • This month: 39
  • This month: 34
  • This month: 32
Top Bottom