Brucellosis in Montana
Montana Ranchers Agree with Slaughter Payment for Infected Cattle
By David Nolt, 7-13-07
After lengthy negotiations between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Bridger ranchers Joe and Sandy Morgan, the USDA agreed to pay the Morgans $475,000 for 589 cows that will be slaughtered in order to save Montana’s brucellosis-free beef status.
The USDA discovered the disease—which affects cows, elk, bison, sheep, goats, deer, pigs, dogs and other mammals —in six cows in the Morgan’s herd on May 18, 2007. The cows—284 calves, 289 cows and 16 bulls—are ordered to be slaughtered by Tuesday, July 17.
The Billings Gazette reports the Morgans will receive $423,000 under the deal reached with Brian McCluskey, the USDA’s western regional director for veterinary services. The remaining $52,000 will go to Karen Hergenrider of Belfry, who will lose 33 cows and 32 calves that she ran on the Morgan ranch. The compensation for the Morgans is $100,000 less than the cow’s true value because the USDA compensates for what the cows’ values are now, not what the value could become once the cattle fatten up in the fall.
It is unknown where the Morgan’s cattle received the brucellosis infection from, but the slaughter comes as state officials, ranchers and landowners around Yellowstone National Park try to come up with a solution to wild bison roaming outside the park. Some bison have been known to carry the brucellosis disease, though there is no record of a wild bison transmitting the disease to cattle.
Still, the issue of how to contain the roaming bison in order to maintain the state’s economically important brucellosis-free beef status has been a contentious debate in the state for many years. The Montana Department of Livestock (DOL) has practiced “hazing” roaming bison back into the park with helicopters. If bison continue to roam, the DOL hazes them into pens and sends them to slaughter. The Buffalo Field Campaign states the Montana DOL has slaughtered over 5,000 bison since 1985.
Brian Schweitzer is proposing a brucellosis-free buffer zone around the southern edge of Gallatin, Madison and Park Counties adjacent to Yellowstone National Park. All cattle entering or leaving the zone would be tested for brucellosis. Many landowners fear the plan will result in government takings, and they also question logistical issues of who will oversee the zone and whether or not government facilities will be built on their property. There is no agreement yet on implementing the governor’s plan.
For the Morgan’s, the loss of all their cattle represents more than a financial burden. The line of cattle has been in the family for three generations, since the 1920s.
Jim Morgan stated in the Billings Gazette article, “Sandy’s grandpa started this line of cows in the 1920s. A way to look at it is there’s some cow families that will be totally lost forever because it’s just the last of a certain line of cows.”
It is as of yet undecided where the cattle will be sent for slaughter.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
Mr. Nolt fails to mention that, try as they might, officials and ranchers couldn't pin this transmission on bison, and admitted in all liklihood that elk were responsible. In addition, recent outbreaks in both Wyoming and Idaho WERE linked to elk. Yet the piece above, while admitting that "there is no record of a wild bison transmitting the disease to cattle," proceeds to focus on bison, leaving the impression that they are, indeed, the problem.
Bison advocates will continue exposing the taxpayer-funded fraud that is brucellosis risk management until Gov. Schweitzer and the state of Montana get it right--designated year-round habitat for wild bison on public land surrounding the park. It just makes sense.
Why buy into the whole "Bison = Brucellosis" thing when it doesn't seem to be the case?
Part of the journalist's job is practice a little editorial judgement; just because the livestock industry wants to link Bison to brucellosis doesn't mean you have to play along -- especially when there's little or no evidence supporting the assertion.
All indications are that it is ELK that transmitted brucellosis to the herd - not Bison. Yet you've nary a mention of ELK.
As TCwriter points out, there is yet to be a definitive link of Bison to Brucellosis transmission - and, in fact, if you had done your homework, you would have found out that the only known and confirmed transmissions of brucellosis to domesticated animals - both cattle and horses - have been from ELK.
'Disgusted' is way off base, and obviously knows only that which is printed as hysterical truth - as killing off Bison is not the solution to eradicating the disease.
Do some homework next time instead of regurgitating the Montana Cattlemen's Association talking points.
I did mention there is no record of the disease transmitting from bison to cattle, and I did mention, albeit briefly, the fact that the disease also affects elk. I suppose I am taking the government's word for it when they say they still don't know how the cattle got the disease, but until this is proved otherwise I can't say the cattle "probably" got it from elk. Did they probably get it from elk? Probably. Something to look into, and I will follow up on this story. It definitely would be a shame to see economics and politics trump science as is too often the case these days.
However, it is a bit disheartening to see a family's labor so immaturely and callously mocked. I'd rather see our valleys full of wild bison rather than cattle too, but do any of the above posters eat beef?
Thanks again for reading, and please stay posted.
The officials appear to be looking into the possiblity that the wolves are spreading the disease, maybe by carrying diseased tissue around, certainly none of the states had a brucellosis outbreak until the wolves were brought in.
I doubt you guys would be that thrilled with buffs roaming everywhere. Drive thru Yellowstone and get caught in buffalo ambling up the road for miles, then imagine this on a busy highway with everybody going 70 MPH.
The buffalo don't need to all be killed, immunization coupled with killing has proven effective in other parks. It is irresponsible to try to keep this disease alive just to get rid of ranchers.
As for your unwillingness to even report that officials/ranchers had speculated that elk were the culprits, please note this, from the Bozeman Daily Chronicle: "Neither herd ever mixed with bison from Yellowstone National Park, Malcolm has said, but large numbers of elk -- some of them possibly infected -- use his Park County ranch." (The Morgan herd came, in part, from the Malcolm herd.) http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2007/07/04/news/40brucellosis.txt It requires no speculation or taking anyone's word for anything to report a possible (and probable) link, one provided by the rancher himself.
The entire mismanagement of the Yellowstone bison herd is a taxpayer-funded exercise in "...economics and politics trump(ing) science..." to benefit the powerful and bloated livestock industry. And of course, it isn't about brucellosis, anyhow. The verified elk transmissions make that abundantly clear, yet bison remain in the crosshairs. Where's the science in that?
No unwillingness to report on the elk deal on my part, though. You can argue I may have glossed over that part of the story, but we have to be careful about reporting on speculation. But it certainly was not a concerted effort in cahoots with big beef.
The wolf theory is interesting. Thanks for writing, and keep reading. I plan to follow this story more closely and, hopefully, more comprehensively.
I, for one, do not take glee or mock the Morgan's - I do sympathize with them, indeed. I have worked on a ranch, and I work with many ranchers - all of whom I have the utmost respect.
As for the ELK statements - well, Pronghorn was kind enough to do some googling and find one of the articles I remember having read.
He also pointed out the prospect of vaccination - a nominal cost of less than $2/head, as I recall.
What I know about brucellosis is not solely from the Buffalo Field Campaign - I have read extensively about brucellosis for well over 10 years now - from newpaper articles to science reports to Environmental Impact Statements.
For you to so callously dismiss those who disagree with you and ask that you present a fairly written article is immature.
And I, BTW, love a good steak.
Marion, will you provide a link to your source for this info? I'd greatly appreciate it--thanks.
Mmm, and I love a good steak too...beef or bison.
You've done some great stuff. I went and looked it over, and I can say I've enjoyed quite a number of your pieces.
And I look forward to many more.
Peace.
"The compensation for the Morgans is $100,000 less than the cow’s true value because the USDA compensates for what the cows’ values are now, not what the value could become once the cattle fatten up in the fall."
Just want to point out that the Morgans ARE getting the cows' "true value," since they are getting compensated for what they are actually worth right now, not what they are worth at some future date and at some estimated future price and after they have invested more time and money in them.
Still wondering about that wolf/brucellosis link, Marion...
The animals are healthier and larger than any we have in the West.
The Prairie Star reported awhile back that some of the cattle in question were headed to Iowa and were sold illegally http://www.theprairiestar.com/articles/2007/06/10/ag_news/local_and_regional_news/regional10.txt. Is this an accurate report? Also, where did the 51 cows in the "put together herd" in Baker Montana come from and did they test positive for brucellosis exposure? This was also reported in the Prairie Star. http://www.theprairiestar.com/articles/2007/06/08/ag_news/updates/update13.txt. What were the quarantine violations documented by the Department of Livestock (DOL) with the Morgan herd and what are the consequences to the Morgans and their neighbors? As well, what will the DOL do to ensure cattle in Montana are indeed brucellosis free - just stop looking? As the July 16 Billings Gazette article points out many ranchers who have a cow that aborts a calf now is likely to use the Winchester Code of the West and shot, shovel and shut up.
Also do you readers know that the head of Research for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) is proposing a bison neuter and vaccination program if we can just find him the mega bucks it will take? This was also reported in the July 6, 2007 Prairie Star at the Montana Stock Growers Association meeting http://www.theprairiestar.com/articles/2007/07/06/ag_news/livestock/livestock01.txt.
And finally, did elk share a feed line with the infected cattle in the Bridger area? If so, have these elk been tested for brucellosis exposure? None of the current low numbers for brucellosis exposure in elk that FWP throws out there (typically they claim 2-3% exposure in southwest Montana) are scientifically defensible. It is garbage in gabage out work and yet they act like they now what the actual exposure rate is. Regardless, there are thousands of elk, exposed to this disease, that roam freely throughout the Upper Madison, Gallatin and Yellowstone drainages. Blaming, confining and killing bison is just hypocrisy.
Consider also that the wolves have moved mountain elk down into the cornfields around Bridger and on the Yellowstone River below Gardiner. This latter info came from two FWP sources.
Here's the low-down from Wyoming on Class A status http://wyagric.state.wy.us/relatedinfo/BRucellosis/FactSheet1.pdf
You are right-on in wondering about a comparison with what we're doing now to wild bison--spending millions of taxpayer dollars on hazing (with helicopters, even!), capture facilities, shipment to slaughter with Dept. of Homeland Security escorts, millions more on quarantine facilities and experimentation year after year --when, haha, elk are the problem, anyhow! The joke is on the sucker taxpayers, 'cause the powers-that-be have a nice, lucrative little brucellosis cottage industry going, and to change the status quo would be to lose that. The hysteria coming from the livestock growers is over the top--their industry introduced brucellosis to the ecosystem in the first place, let them step up and take responsibility for managing their cattle to deal with it. They, too, are taxpayer subsidized, but that's not enough--they want our wildlife, too.
http://www.theprairiestar.com/articles/2007/07/19/ag_news/updates/update74.txt
>>>>>>
“Agriculture is the backbone of our state’s economy and I’m going to do all I can to make sure it stays that way,” Baucus said. “That’s why Jon and I worked so hard to secure these dollars. We want to keep our cattle safe from this devastating disease.”
“As a Montana farmer, I know how destructive brucellosis is,” said Tester, a third generation Montana farmer. “Montana is proud of its brucellosis-free status and we want to make sure we keep it. That’s why Max and I worked together to secure this funding.”
Errol Rice, Montana Stockgrowers Association executive vice president, said he was pleased with today’s news.
“We appreciate Senator Baucus’ and Senator Tester’s efforts to secure funding for brucellosis eradication and mitigating brucellosis’ effects upon Montana cattle producers,” said Rice. “This is extremely important for Montana ranchers.”
<<<<<<<<<<<