"Yellowstone Is A Large Ranch"
R-CALF Wants Brucellosis Eradication In Yellowstone
By Brodie Farquhar, 12-15-06
A national cattlemen’s organization normally associated with meat-packer concentration issues, is urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture to eradicate brucellosis in Yellowstone’s bison, “by multiple means.”
Barring development of 100 percent effective vaccinations, that goal could only be reached by a massive test and slaughter program, said Larry Cooper, a USDA spokesman.
Brucellosis is a disease that can cause abortions in cattle, bison and other animals. It was first detected in a Yellowstone bison in 1917 – and probably contracted the disease from cattle in the Lamar Valley.
The Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund (R-CALF) wrote Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns last month, urging USDA to:
• Mandate brucellosis testing of bison in the Yellowstone Ecosystem;
• Work toward eradication of brucellosis in Yellowstone bison by multiple means, including but not limited to trapping, testing and vaccinating bison in that area;
• Work with the National Park and Wildlife services to control the size of bison and elk herds in the Yellowstone Ecosystem;
• Continue brucellosis testing, vaccination and surveillance where it already occurs and implement surveillance in all states where cattle are present;
• Maintain a national brucellosis surveillance/vaccination program for livestock disease traceback purposes; and
• Redirect funds for an animal ID program to fund ongoing and existing brucellosis surveillance/vaccination programs.
As of 2003, the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee (GYIBC) has a stated objective to plan for the elimination of brucellosis from wildlife populations in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) by 2010.
According to a Yellowstone policy statement, the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture have no intention to utilize a broad scale program of test and slaughter of wildlife in the GYA as a means to eliminate brucellosis.
Currently, bison are from time to time tested for brucellosis and may be shipped to slaughter as a means to manage bison that are free ranging beyond the Yellowstone National Park boundary.
Critics sound off
“What R-CALF is really calling for,” said Amy McNamara of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, “is the mass wasting of wildlife and the agricultural management of wildlife, rather than allowing wildlife agencies to do their job.”
George Wuerthner, co-editor of “Welfare Ranching,” said he wondered why the cattlemen were focusing solely on bison, since there are other wildlife that carry the disease – especially elk, and in much greater numbers than bison.
“You might be able to achieve a momentary elimination of the disease in bison (before reinfection),” said Wuerthner, “but what then?”
A serious brucellosis eradication program would have to include elk and other wildlife, said Wuerthner, but that’s politically risky because elk have a political constituency – hunters.
“Bison don’t have a constituency and they’re viewed by ranchers as direct competitors against cattle for forage,” Wuerthner said.
The goal of brucellosis eradication in the Yellowstone Ecosystem has huge implications for wildlife, he said, yet the real risk of infection from wildlife to livestock is very low.
He noted that brucellosis transmission to livestock can only occur by contact with body fluids, and the only bison body fluids that pose a threat to livestock are those associated with birth or abortion. This alone means that even brucellosis-infected bison wandering near cattle, outside of the primary abortion or birth season, don't pose a threat of infection at all, Wuerthner said.
Yet this hasn't prevented agencies from killing bison, he said.
“Why should U.S. citizens tolerate massive manipulation of the public’s wildlife, just to appease livestock interests?” Wuerthner asked.
He believes that brucellosis is “an excuse – a Trojan horse if you will – for agriculture to take over the management of wildlife, take it away from state wildlife agencies.”
No apologies
“I view Yellowstone as a large ranch,” said Dennis McDonald, immediate past-president of the Montana Cattlemen’s Association (MCA) and currently representing Region I (Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon) on the R-CALF board of directors.
McDonald said he pushed the brucellosis resolution through R-CALF and takes pride in the fact that the MCA is putting pressure on federal agencies to eradicate brucellosis in both bison and elk in the Greater Yellowstone. McDonald acknowledged that such a task would be “more problematic” for elk, but insisted it is doable with bison.
McDonald said large-scale test and slaughter programs, combined with vaccinations, is what is needed to protect regional cattlemen from economic penalties caused by losing their brucellosis-free status. He acknowledged that a large-scale test and slaughter program would mean the death of hundreds, perhaps thousands of animals.
Wyoming just regained brucellosis-free status, he said, but Idaho is still struggling to get it back, while Montana ranchers are worried it might happen to them.
He claimed that Yellowstone is badly overgrazed and overpopulated by bison, who leave the park because they’re starving.
Yet Glenn Plumb, supervisory wildlife biologist at Yellowstone, has stated that research indicates that Yellowstone can handle between 2,200 and 7,500 bison, and that overgrazing is not a problem.
A cautionary note
Kathleen Kelley, a co-founder of R-CALF and a family rancher based near Meeker, Colorado, said she was personally disappointed by R-CALF’s brucellosis recommendations.
“It is not a thoughtful stance, and it takes a difficult position in terms of public relations,” said Kelley, who stepped down from the R-CALF board earlier this year. She said she’d prefer R-CALF to get back to its original mission – that of fighting the concentrated power of meat packing companies, rather than take up “a parochial issue” like brucellosis in Yellowstone.
(This article also appeared in the Casper Star Tribune.)
Links:
Yellowstone National Park’s policy about brucellosis eradication
More information about the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee
R-CALF USA is at http://www.r-calfusa.com/
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
People now have a choice--where do the priorities lie, with wildlife or cattle? Cattle now have the priority. To protect wildlife and wildlife habitat, the priority must go to wildlife.
I'm sure as learned as you are, you are both aware that moose don't abort if they become infected....they die. Perhaps wolves are not the only reason for the severe decline in moose in the area. Just do a google on moose and brucellosis, the info is pretty easy to find.
Oh by the way Billie, the cattle are vaccinated, every one of the infected animals in Wyoming had received their vaccinations. Nice to know that you pay attention to facts.
He is also chairman of the Democratic party in MT. I suggest that Montana Democrats--those who care about native wildlife, about an honest (rather than political) application of science, about ecosystem integrity--contact Gov. Schweitzer and tell him the party no longer has your support and not one more dime in political contributions until McDonald is replaced as party chairman. That is, unless you, too, view Yellowstone "as a large ranch" rather than the spectacular, wild, intact ecosystem that it is.
From the very beginning man has been trying to improve what is in the park, and I have no doubt that they will continue to try to make it fit the ideals of the day for centuries to come.
Wild? Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Cattle are an INVASIVE species. Bison are NATIVE wildlife. Bison trump cattle for this simple fact alone. The cattle industry is greedy for land, scared of losing their subsidies, and they take it out on a perceived "competitor" the bison, by making up this brucellosis scare. The stockgrowers are scared to death of wild bison restoring themselves on their native, stolen land. Scared of it. So, make up something that makes other people scared of it - brucellosis. Disease, the ultimate scare tactic. Brucellosis came from CATTLE. Do not forget that. If a livestock cow contracted brucellosis, she would lose her first fetus and then resume a normal birthing cycle. The smart thing to do would be to let it move through the cattle herds and let it work itself out. But, this issue is not about brucellosis. If it was the elk feed grounds would be IMMEDIATELY shut down in Wyoming and Idaho (who both lost their brucellosis-free status because of them - and what dire consequences have they suffered anyway?). Wild bison should be free to disperse if you really want to prevent the spread of disease. Even APHIS has been quoted saying that dispersal of animals would lessen the already miniscule threat of brucellosis transmission. How many times must it be repeated: Wild Buffalo Have NEVER Transmitted Brucellosis To Cattle - EVER. Even where they do co-exist. Why is the cattle industry so damn selfish? The state of Maryland produces more beef than Montana does. Cattle do not belong in this ecosystem. Bison do. Cattle should be fenced in or removed from the country entirely. If they stay, they should be vaccinated against their own cattle diseases and prevented from infecting our native wildlife with them. They brought it here, they and the industry who enslaves them should bear the burden. Brucella abortus is not DEADLY and you cannot get it from eating meat... all the elk and bison slaughtered by APHIS, Montana DOL, Wyoming F&G;, NPS, etc. and all its wicked corhorts give that meat away to food banks and tribal charities (so they say). Right, it's a third world disease that came from an invasive species - get rid of the cows and brucellosis will not be a problem any more.
Wild bison will roam the land wild and free once again. Mark my words.
You are getting wild when you say that buffalo (bovines) have never transmitted brucellosis, it has never been documented, which is an entirely different thing.
So are you willing to pay ranchers for all of their cattle, and their land and the extra cost to import beef jsut to satisfy your desire to never see another cow? Or is it that you expect those who own the cattle to take the financial hit to please you?
Have you thought abouot how you are going to keep the buffs from infecting dairy cows as they spread across the country? That is generally where undulant fever is contracted. What about goats, are you sure you can keep them from being infected too? Or do you care?
No wild buffalo will never roam the land like they did in the early days of this country, too many roads, homes, yards, people. I bet you'd be the first in line for compensation if a herd came thru your yard.
If ranchers want to keep wildlife off of their PRIVATE land, I suppose that they should have that right (most of the ones I know seem quite happy to have some elk on their land....despite the fact that transmission of brucellosis from elk to cattle HAS been documented). Ranchers may also vaccinate their animals. As for MY wildlife on MY public lands: leave them the H*** alone!
They already know that they can pass brucellosis to cows in lab settings, so there is no reason to believe that mixing them won't have the same effect. The chance of 3-6% of 5,000 elk passing the disease versus 60% of 5000 buffalo are overwhelming that the buffs would before the elk. On top of that an open cow would attract a bull buffalo post haste.
The need for destroying any Yellowstone elk is now down to about nothing becasue the wolves have thinned them out so tremendously.
Let's get practical, if you are going to make them free ranging, how are you going to keep them out of yards and off highways? Just imagine a Hayden Valley scene on I-90. I have yet to see a proponent of free ranging buffs deal with the issue of them getting on today's high speed roads, or any of the other issues that a free ranging herd would bring totally apart from the impact on ranchers.
Wake up, there is no way you can force things back to the 19th century, especially when you obvioulsy like to live in the 21st century with your electricity, computer etc.
All the nay-saying about buffalo never making a comeback is just selfish talk. It can happen. There are solutions to every livestock-based problem. It's just a matter of not being selfish and being willing to coexist with the rightful roamers of this vast land.
I'm sure you are aware that the only way to prove your contention that the buffalo are only immune, not infectious is to kill them and submit tissue
http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~rgarrott/graduate/m_ferrari.htm
Let's get practical, if you are going to make them free ranging, how are you going to keep them out of yards and off highways? Just imagine a Hayden Valley scene on I-90.>
Ah, yes, the "goring schoolchildren in Ennis" hysteria.
Marion, in these overwhelmingly public land areas adjacent to Yellowstone there just aren't many yards. Of those there are, a substantial number welcome wild bison. HOBNOB, anyone? (Horse Butte Neighbors of Bison).
For the handful who don't want wildlife, existing laws protect their private property rights.
We're not talking about bison in Big Timber, for crying out loud. Some of these areas adjacent to Yellowstone are the most conflict-free habitat we could find, and the idea wild bison there will be the death of the cattle industry is getting a little tired, don't you think? (Remember, we're talking next to no cattle in these areas, and responsibly managing those would require nothing that anyone with a lick of sense isn't already doing.)
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear so.
In fact, I have to wonder about apparently redoubled efforts to sell the "eradication" model. First R-Calf's endorsement of the APHIS-led eradication boondoggle. Then Scott McMillion's fluff piece in today's Comical for APHIS-led wildlife management in the Greater Yellowstone, starting with the bison quarantine program (and by the way, are those bighorns out of the facility yet?!).
But now I see the head of R-Calf also is the head of the Montana Democratic Party.
Good grief, this is starting to look like a Mad Dog's Promenade on both sides!
I still want to touch on Marion's point about elk being exempt from the livestock management model (capture,vaccinate, test, slaughter, etc.) because the wolves have eaten them all.
Let's not forget grizzly bears, OK? They feast on elk calves during calving season, and presumably run high Brucellosis infection levels. That's what I want to hear about, is the grizzly bear vaccination program!
Biologists that I have communicated with tell me that predators are end stage and do not transmit brucellosis, so wolves and bears shouldn't need immunization, if they did, they could do it when they color weigh, do dental check, etc.
Make no mistake a buffalo will gore people if they are too close and the animal takes a notion, they do every year.
It also makes sense that a HUNTED bison herd outside the park would be much less likely to hang out on the road, then the non-hunted herd in the park. That certainly seems to be the case with elk. Though I sometimes see them cross the 89, I rarely if ever see them standing in the middle of it. No one is suggesting that bison be allowed to wander the streets of Livingston!
But how did this discussion get turned to free ranging bison anyway? This is a story about slaughtering bison and elk INSIDE the National Park, where they can't infect cows because there aren't any! So let me ask you this one: between Wyoming testing and slaughtering elk, and Montana testing and slaughtering bison, and the USDA testing and slaughtering elk and bison in the park, what will be left for the bears, coyotes, cougars and wolves to eat? Ahh! Cows? Then of course the R-CALF will insist that these troublesome predators all be "removed". Tourist money will dry up, as all the people who come here to see wildlife will have to go to Alaska (before they kill all of their's), outfitters will go out of business....nothing to hunt. Locals who rely on elk steaks to get them through the winter will go hungry. But hey! The cows will be safe! Think this is far fetched? It's already happened in most of the country.
Believe it or not, but I have near-daily hands-on experience with bison. Recently deceased ones, or soon to be, mostly. In fact, we've built a pretty substantial sideline business of it, and so you see that affects my viewpoint.
I see what a huge asset we're overlooking here. It wouldn't take much at all to better protect our B-free status, while still having wild bison on the landscape, admittedly in some quite limited areas. The upper Gallatin, for one, has some pretty good geographical bottlenecks that wouldn't be too hard to enforce.
If the bison go beyond that, their likely exit points are a couple of narrow canyon mouths that wouldn't be too hard to patrol.
If they go beyond those... if we have noticeable amounts of year-round habitat for them, & they stray; shoot 'em.
In fact I know from firsthand knowledge that the demand for "management bison hunts" far exceeds supply.
Of course this would require a minor tweak of the "Plan", which gives all the bureaucrats the bad heebie-jeebies.
Have you tried to get an unvaccinated child enrolled in public school lately????? It won't happen. I don't believe any ranchers had a thing to do with that.
Двигатель -ЯМЗ - 238ГМ2
Тип двигателя- четырехкратный, восьмицилиндровый, дизельный, v- образный.
Мощность Квт(лс)- 125 (170)
Запас топлива кг.-450
Стоимость катера-договорная.
Контактные телефоны: Тел/факс 8(103752351)43535
Тел 8(103752351)43132
__________________________________________________________________
Продаём Бензовоз МАЗ - 6 цилиндров (мазовский движок), дизель, объём-7,790 куб. метров. 1987 года выпуска.
Стоимость-9 000 $
Контактные телефоны: Тел/факс 8(103752351)43535
Тел 8(103752351)43132
___________________________________________________________________
Продаём Асфалтоукладчик ДС-191-94г.(отл. состояние)
Стоимость-договорная.
Тел/факс 8(103752351)43535
Тел 8(103752351)43132
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Продаём кран грузоподъёмность-6тонн
Стоимость-договорная.
Тел/факс 8(103752351)43535
Тел 8(103752351)43132
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Продаём кран MKPC300П 91год выпуска
Стоимость-договорная.
Тел/факс 8(103752351)43535
Тел 8(103752351)43132
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Продаём козловой кран МККС-12.5 1991 года выпуска.
Грузоподъёмностью 12.5 тонн.
Первой комплектности.
колея- 16 метров,
консоль-4 метра.
Стоимость-договорная.
Тел/факс 8(103752351)43535
Тел 8(103752351)43132
В наличие бывает и другая техника, звоните.