WILD BILL
The Elk Problem
By Bill Schneider, 10-27-05
 | |
|
While writing several articles about the contentious bison hunt, one little fact has been sticking in my throat like one of those Y-shaped bones you find in pike fillets. (And those “little facts� are like “little problems;� they’re rarely little.)
We all know lots of people are major league excited about a few dozen bison leaving Yellowstone Park and instantly turning into truckloads of buffalo burger on network news, but this concern looks way overdone compared to our little elk problem.
Meanwhile, thousands of elk freely move around the Greater Yellowstone area, and some of them carry brucellosis, the same dreaded livestock disease that has caused decades of political gridlock over bison management. We have been brought to our knees trying to keep bison away from cattle in two relatively small areas on the boundary of Yellowstone Park. Imagine the controversy trying to keep elk away from cattle throughout the Greater Yellowstone area!
So why isn’t everybody suffering from high blood pressure over our “little� elk problem? Why aren’t agencies worried about elk transferring brucellosis to cattle? Or Montana losing its coveted brucellosis-free status? Or what we’d have to do to fix the elk problem?
To get these answers, I had a long chat with Keith Aune, chief of wildlife research for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Aune has studied the brucellosis situation for years and is now deeply immersed in the bison controversy.
For starters, Aune says, clearly with some frustration, “We have more heartache over elk than bison. We have a lot of energy going into reducing the risk of elk spreading brucellosis. People think we’re only concerned about bison, but go to our website and you’ll see. We’re more concerned about elk spreading brucellosis than bison.�
Second, and most surprising to me, Aune points out that “The only documented cases of brucellosis being transferred from wildlife to cattle is from elk, not bison. There has never been a fully documented case of bison affecting cattle.�
So why do we outdoor writers keep writing about the threat from bison instead of from elk? That’s a question Keith Aune would like me answer, and I’m a little embarrassed to say it out here on the Internet, but I’ll confess. We writers tend to follow controversy instead science.
This brucellosis situation can get complicated in a hurry, but briefly, it’s all about the prevalence of the disease—i.e. the percentage of the animals carrying brucellosis. Yellowstone bison have a prevalence of up to 40 percent, but Montana elk around the park have what’s called “ zero prevalence�—with one exemption. (“Zero,� incidentally, really means “almost zero� because the disease has to be fairly prevalent to, in Aune’s words, “maintain itself.� This means if only a small percentage of the animals, such as the 1-3 percent we see in Montana, have brucellosis, it somehow becomes self-limiting or even magically disappears from the population.)
The exception is a “hot spot� on a private ranch in the Upper Madison River drainage without much hunting pressure to keep elk numbers down. Right now, the prevalence on that ranch is 6.9 percent. When it reaches 7 percent, alarms go off, and something has to be done, such as reducing the size of the affected elk herd. What happens if this hot spot spreads to other areas of the state? “That would be a really big problem,� Aune admits.
“This is all about risk management,� he explains. With the exception that one hot spot, he considers elk in Montana “a low-risk situation.�
The USDA gives a state “one free lunch,� which means one documented case of brucellosis. Assuming the affected cattle herd is immediately cleaned up and the disease contained, the state won’t lose its brucellosis-free status but is put “on notice.� A second incident means a state loses its brucellosis-free status.
Earlier this year, the USDA put Idaho on notice because of a documented case of elk transferring brucellosis to cattle when a rancher fed elk from the same facilities used to feed cattle. One more case and Idaho loses its brucellosis-free status, a disaster for the livestock industry because it severely limits or prevents stockgrowers from shipping live cattle out of the state.
To put it bluntly, Wyoming is the problem. The Cowboy State has had multiple cases of elk transferring brucellosis to cattle and lost its brucellosis-free status in 2003. Wyoming, in essence, poses a huge threat to Idaho, Montana and other neighboring states.
Wyoming creates unnatural concentrations of elk by feeding them during winter months. In addition to the famous feedgrounds on the National Elk Refuge near Jackson, the state not only condones but actually operates twenty-two additional elk feedgrounds. Elk herds using these feedgrounds have a brucellosis prevalence of up to 50 percent. And of course, there is nothing to prevent these affected animals from traveling over state boundaries.
Aune laments the fact that most people think “Yellowstone Park is the problem,� but it’s actually the Wyoming feedgrounds creating an epicenter for the spread of the disease. A high concentration of animals produces ideal conditions for spreading brucellosis and other diseases, including the granddaddy wildlife disease of them all, Chronic Wasting Disease. (More on that in an upcoming column.)
“The risk of elk spreading brucellosis is not as great in Montana because we don’t have feedgrounds,� Aune explains. “The farther you get from the feedgrounds, the less prevalence of brucellosis you have. The disease needs high density of animals to maintain itself. Otherwise it disappears.�
Aune also explains that elk habitat and behavior differs from cattle more than bison. “But the real difference between bison and elk is risk,� he explains. “Bison are more likely to have brucellosis and are more likely to transfer it to cattle.�
That’s one reason Montana puts emphasis on bison. “We can’t put too many resources into a low-risk situation.� After my chat with Keith Aune, I have to thank Montana and Idaho for trying to keep elk populations high by protecting critical winter ranges instead of feeding hay to elk during winter months to maintain artificially high populations.
Fortunately, in Montana, brucellosis has not been found in elk outside of the Greater Yellowstone area. Even if it were detected, it would probably be zero prevalence. Nonetheless, the brucellosis situation waits on the horizon like a nasty-looking storm cloud. The Upper Madison hot spot could spread to other areas. Not a good thing! Also, what happens if cattle on that Upper Madison ranch are diagnosed with brucellosis? If that happens, it will probably be assumed that the transfer came from elk, so what do we do? Kill all the elk in the local area? Nobody would consider this a little problem.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Both you and Keith Aune have some serious misconceptions about brucellosis and the disease as it exists in elk and bison and the alleged threat to cattle. There is no "elk problem." There is however a huge "cattle" problem. Let me explain.
Brucellosis is not a biological problem either for elk or bison. The disease, which was brought to the Greater Yellowstone by cattle over a century ago, is now endemic in the elk and bison populations of the Greater Yellowstone and is as entrenched in the ecosystem as is cheat grass. It is not going away; it cannot be eradicated and will not be eradicated, no matter what the agencies and the livestock industry claim. The disease, which causes spontaneous abortions in female ungulates, simply has had no effect on the population growth of either species as we well know. In western Wyoming, many of the elk herds are as much as 30% over objective. It is not fatal. It can be managed by maintaining strict separation between cattle and wildlife. And the best way to do that is to eliminate cows from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Rather than wildlife being a threat to cattle, it's cows that are the threat to wildlife. We need to get out priorities straight.
Brucellosis is strictly a cattle problem, not because it is fatal, but because it affects production, which affects marketing. It is an economic disease for the livestock industry that has largely been managed through the implementation of various controls and restrictions on the industry. We have to ask ourselves, why are we sacrificing priceless wildlife populations for a few cows in the Greater Yellowstone?
The cases in Wyoming where brucellosis was passed to cattle from elk have been grossly misprepresented by the livestock industry and the agencies. In the case in which there has been some information released, the infection of a cattle herd near Muddy Feedground east of Pinedale, is instructive. The Feedground, which sits on National Forest land, could not be used because the Forest Service requires the Wyoming Game & Fish Department to "serve" the certified-free hay. Due to the Department's incompetence, it could only buy uncertified hay. Therefore, it could not feed elk on the feedground. So the Department talked the local landowner, Doc Jensen, into allowing elk to be fed on his private property. That occured in proximity to his cattle. Consequently, his herd was infected. Quite frankly, there was a quite a bit of negligence on his and the Department's parts.
We need to understand that free-ranging elk that have full access to their habitat and are not fed have low rates of brucellosis and the risk of infecting cattle is extremely low, and could be accomplished, for example, by fencing in cattle feedlines. The cost of managing that risk, however, should be borne by the livestock industry.
The second brucellosis outbreak in Wyoming was also traced to Jensen's herd. The third outbreak, in Teton County, has had no information released to the public, no doubt to hide the fact of similar negligence on the part of the landowner and the Department.
Yes, feedgrounds are a serious problem for Wyoming and Montana's wildlife, but not because of brucellosis, whiuch is truly a nonproblem, but because of the risk of truly fatal diseases such as chronic wasting disease, which is moving toward the feedgrounds. When the disease hits the feedgrounds, there will be an epidemic. See my little piece, Elk A Science Fiction Story, here on NewWest where I talk about the consequences of an epidemic speculatively.
We need to understand that the feedgrounds in Wyoming exist only because the livestock industry and individual ranchers demand them. They demand them to protect forage on both public and private lands for cattle. In other words, the feedgrounds exist for the sole purpose of reserving forage for cattle as well as extending the control that the industry already exercises ove wildlife management.
Ask yourself this question: if brucellosis were really a problem for the livestock industry, you'd think that agricultural agencies and the industry would demand that elk not be fed and the feedgrounds be closed, since they are the sole source of continuing infection in the GYE. Yet, ranchers are the strongest proponents of the feedgrounds and have forced the Wyoming Game & Fish Dept to operate them at hunters' expense; the industry puts not one dime into running the feedgrounds. The cost is over $1.5 million per year to operate petrie dishes of disease. That should tell you that the feedgrounds exist for a purpose that benefits the industry. And that's protection of grass from elk and extending control over wildlife for the benefit of the industry. I call this the "fencing in Yellowstone" strategy, and not only is it being imposed on elk and bison, but on wolves and bears.
Thus, brucellosis is a huge fraud being imposed on the people of the Greater Yellowstone by the livestock industry to protect the land use privileges of a dying oligarchy.
I'd love to talk to you some more about this. Contact me at and we can set up a time to discuss it, if you're willing. Thanks.
Robert Hoskins
American citizens, through their federal tax dollars, fund the hazing, persecution, and slaughter of wild bison when, following their migratory instinct, they leave Yellowstone in winter for lower-elevation public land surrounding the park in Montana, where cattle are king.
Why does the Montana Department of Livestock (DOL) have jurisdiction over our country's treasured wildlife -- America's last genetically-pure, free-roaming wild bison? Why are bull bison who test positive for brucellosis anti-bodies slaughtered when a) testing positive for anti-bodies indicates exposure only; b) the disease is transmitted through the birthing process; and c) it has never been transmitted from bison to cattle in the wild anyhow? Fraud indeed!
I suggest that citizens see for themselves the utter injustice and ugliness being played out in Montana (and sanctioned by the National Park Service, Forest Service, and MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks) every winter and spring, when pregnant bison and mothers with newborn calves are chased relentlessly by DOL agents on snowmobiles, ATVs, even helicopters! If you can stomach it, watch the terrified creatures prodded and herded, many injured and bleeding, into capture facilities -- one of them actually inside the boundaries of the world's much-revered first national park, Yellowstone. Is this our vision for native wildlife?
Visit http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org for video clips, or contact BFC for a DVD of footage and information documenting the treatment of wild bison in Montana. But be forewarned: it's both heart and gut-wrenching, and just might turn you into a buffalo advocate.