Interagency Bison Management Plan

State and Federal Agencies Predict Busy Winter for Bison Management

Comment By Dave Skinner, 12-06-07

Oh, it's gonna be "difficult" to manage elk and bison to get rid of brucellosis.
Couple things here. First, brucellosis is an exotic not native to this hemisphere, with no redeeming qualities. Came from the Med. Given the "conservation biology" acolytes all pander to native first last and always, why is there no consensus on zapping an exotic in wild herds, especially when it looks likely that this is the last reservoir on the continent? Give it the smallpox treatment, okay?
Montana is just the third state to get on the brucellosis hit list due to transmittal from the YNP disease core. The Park has a responsibility for containment that it is not fulfilling. Period.

Comment By barb in west yellowstone, 12-06-07

Why weren't tissue samples taken from the 6 or 7 head of cattle found to have brucellosis? Maybe they don't want us to know how these cattle were really infected so that these agencies can continue to make trumped up charges against buffalo and elk.

If the cattle industry was really concerned about controlling brucellosis they should be lining up screaming for the phase out of elk feedlots in Wyoming. Kinda funny that they instead oppose this. I just have to wonder why??????????????????

Comment By Pronghorn, 12-06-07

Correction: Yellowstone bison are NOT Yellowstone PARK bison--they are Yellowstone ECOSYSTEM bison. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even a wildlife biologist) to understand that the park's completely artificial northern and western boundaries fail to account for traditional migration corridors or anything close to a wholistic approach to wildlife habitat. When will someone with adequate backbone and integrity come along to correct this hugely unjust situation? Governor? Ms. Lewis? Hey--anybody out there?

Dumb statement winners:

1. “The argument that it can’t happen because it hasn’t happened is in some ways a flawed argument.” In what ways would those be? It hasn't happened in 90 years where bison are concerned. When's the last time it happened with elk? Oh yeah...

2. ...elk calving is “not nearly the transmission event, except in feedlots, as in bison.” See #1.

3. “but that tolerance needs to be looked at through a risk prism. There is still a residual risk.” To whom? No cattle equals no risk. Dude, you need a new risk prism. You're getting bad refractions.

4. “We will broaden our vision of how we want to manage bison in the entire state as we do with all other wildlife” Then we assume you'll be designating habitat in Montana for bison--as you do with all other wildlife?

5.“This is about as complicated a resource management issue as I have ever run into” It's really quite simple. Public interests? American bison, America's premiere national park, America's public land, American people. Private interests? Montana livestock industry. Nothing complicated about which way THAT scale tips.

6. “One more hit and, boy, we’re in huge trouble,” Isn't everyone just sick to death of livestock industry hyperbole? They lie, bison die. Cut the drama and start taking responsibility for managing your herds. Vaccinate them and get them out of the way.

Comment By mike, 12-06-07

Brucellosis came from England, along with a lot of other undesirable things that keep reproducing and that we can't seem to get rid of. It is also true that the Yellowstone area is actually not the last reservoir of the disease on the continent; cattlemen, real ones, have to contend with occasional outbreaks in many areas far removed from the Yellowstone area. Barb does, however, open up a couple of relevant points. Her second point, about the feedlots and the elk concentration, is already known and there is not much more I can say there. However, her first point opens a question of the testing used to detect/diagnose brucellosis. There are some subject matter experts who contend that the abbreviated test used by Montana will show positive when an animal has been exposed to the disease, even if it is not in an active stage and thus can't transmit, although this may be a moot issue since the risk of transmission from bison is not real anyway. Elk are an authentic concern and there is genuine evidence of transmission from elk in many locations; however, the State of Montana seems decidedly silent on this part of the problem and content to focus the attention and debate on the bison. I think the reason is obvious and kind of disgustingly self-serving.

Comment By barb in west yellowstone, 12-06-07

mike,

i agree the blood test only shows exposure, sort of like a skin test for TB in humans ... tissue samples would show actual disease and perhaps pinpoint more scientifically who infected these animals.

i've said this many times before in the comments in other articles about buffalo on this site: when the DOL starts to extend their predatory reach towards elk, maybe then the hunters and sportsmen's groups will finally begin to realize what a travesty the IBMP plan is and why groups like Buffalo Field Campaign have been standing with and for the buffalo for over ten years.

maybe when DOL/APHIS decides they should be "in charge" of elk and we have an IEMP, with elk managed by DOL, it will be a wake up call. so far the only hunter/sportsman's group to stand up on behalf of buffalo is the Gallatin Wildlife Association led by glenn hockett; i am grateful to glenn and the GWA members for continuing to push for real restoration of native herds of buffalo in montana, with year round habitat ... then, and only then could one conduct an "ethical" hunt rather than the shoot-em at the border fiasco we have now.

Comment By J.D. Kotrla-Chipps, 12-07-07

What is it about "NEVER HAS HAPPENED" that is so hard for DOL to grasp? And if it hasn't happened so far, it's a pretty good bet it isn't ever going to happen.

Buffalo are immune to brucellosis, and can't spread it to anything if they don't have it. Tissue testing will verify this, so why isn't it being done?

You boys afraid you are going to lose your "cowboy welfare" (free grazing).

Comment By Marion, 12-07-07

Buffalo are immune to brucellosis????????????????? Close to half are infected. In fact the disease appears to be endemic among them, which would indicate a very long standing high rate of infection. Does anyone know if any of the Pelican Valley buffs were tested for brucellosis way back when it was first discovered in the park? If so that would indicate it was native to the buffs because it was much later that they managed to get the Lamar imported buffs into contact with the Pelican Valley animals.
There is only one sensible answer, eradicate the disease. The cattle already are vaccinated, now it is time, past time to start vaccinating all of the buffalo. Wyoming is working on vaccinating the elk on the feed grounds. I'm sure the feed grounds will have to be phased out, but that will mean a reduction in elk numbers, just moving them onto ranches to survive is not the answer.

Comment By J.D. Kotrla-Chipps, 12-07-07

It is ignorance, and mis-information like this that keeps the slaughter going.

The buffalo have been exposed, and test positive to the inefficient card tests performed on them. The same as a beef cow will do that has been vaccinated. But they aren't "infected", merely exposed, and immune.

Your recommendation to "vaccinate" the buffalo is more ignorance, there isn't a vaccine for buffalo, and the one for cattle doesn't work on buffalo.

Comment By Inky, 12-07-07

Brucellosis came into the park when cattle and remnant bison were kept in the same corral, ready for slaughter and being served up for tourists.
WY G&F;is dabbling with a 'test 'n slaughter' approach, in which infected elk are killed, so as to reduce the prevalence of the disease within that feedground herd. Unhappily, crowded conditions and curious noses checking out "hot" afterbirth can quickly nullify marginal gains from 'test 'n slaughter.'
Montana is focusing on bison and ignoring elk, because elk have vociferous supporters in the outfitting and hunter community. Despite a lack of evidence of transmission from bison to cattle, cattle growers are paranoid and exercise disproportionate political influence in Montana.
Meanwhile, APHIS is laying the groundwork for a massive 'test 'n slaughter' program that will take on the impossible task of rounding up all wild elk and bison and shoving them through the system, essentially converting Greater Yellowstone elk and bison into "livestock." Such an effort would essentially destroy the wildness of wildlife and violate all kinds of laws and regs underpinning the National Park Service.
Meanwhile, we ignore steps that could keep cattle safely immunized and continue feedground operations that keep brucellosis at high incidence levels -- far higher than they exist in elk herds that don't have feedgrounds.
Yet another example of politics and greed trumping sound science.

Comment By clifhangr, 12-07-07

All the questions about infection rates, possible vaccinations, if transmission is possible etc. are moot points.

Has any of you NIMBYs ever taken a basic biology class? Ever herd of the carrying capacity of an ecosystem?

Herds wander cause there is not enough for them to survive on, so they seek forage over the next hill. Want to see my pictures of winter killed bison and elk in the park? Must be a great way to die, slowly starving.

I enjoy seeing bison, elk and all the others(except whitetails jumping in front of my car!!), but with the increase of private property/loss of habitat caused by our 'civilization' I believe numbers have to be limited somehow. Lets use some COMMON SENSE. Millions was spent on reintroducing wild dogs, er, i mean wolves to yellowstone. I like the idea of re-establishment. Now the big suprise is they breed like dogs!! Quit managing.

While i don't eat beef, I support the montana's cattle industry. Without the agricultural products -animal and plant- that are produced here and sold worldwide, we will further our decline into
the bottom tier of states. For us that actually work and raise familys here economics are important; schools, infrastructure are in a shameful state. I suppose it's different if you came from somewhere with a pocketful of dollars from selling an overvalued house. I'm tired of seeing massive overconsumption of everything.

Comment By Marion, 12-07-07

Inky, I suggest you go back and read some history about Yellowstone. The remnant herd which was in Pelican Valley were never gathered up and kept in pens. thsoe kept in corrals were the imported domestic buffs from Texas and Montana herds. The cattle were brought in to provide milk for park employees and baby buffs as best as I can understand and were not around very long.
There was an attempt to catch some of the Pelican Valley animals and breed them to the tame ones, and then release them when they were old enough, however that did not pan out and of course the tame buffs managed to expand to interact with the others so it became a moot point. The only way to be absolutely sure that cows gave the disease to the buffalo is if they had 100% negative tests in the Pelican Valley buffs before they found it in the Lamar animals, and of course no one thought of having to prove anything at that point in time. I'm sure they never dreamed that anyone would be trying to have the right to overload the land with thousands of buffalo.
Of course there is no reason to believe that buffalo will stop wandering at Horse Butte or anywhere else. anyone who thinks they will turn back to avoid a dairy any more than a beef cow is kidding themselves.
By the way the elk do not deliver their calves until very late May and early June....after leaving the feed grounds, so no they are not checking out the placentas on the feedgrounds. On top of that elk deliver in solitary unike the buffalo.

Comment By Craig Moore, 12-07-07

I just wonder if brucellosis was already here before cattle. The elk, bison, and caribou all may carry the disease and we share these animals, or their species cousins, with Europe and Asia.

Comment By Marion, 12-07-07

Craig, that is the question no one has courage enough to deal with. Of course no buffalo lover would ever admit it, but the fact remains, they are the animals that tend to show the least effect, indicating the disease in endemic in them, which would indicate they have dealt with it for a very long time.

Comment By Timothy Border, 12-07-07

This IBMP meeting is just another in a long string of events stretching back thirty plus years. The agencies involved have not done jack to solve the issue. The DOL still controls Helena, the Governor has made promise after promise and acted on none, the FWP it scared to stand up to the legislature and DOL and assert their legal obligation to manage wildlife, and the FEDs, well we know how useful they are.

As Pronghorn states, “When will someone with adequate backbone and integrity come along to correct this hugely unjust situation?

This winter with the changes on Horse Butte may just be the winter that makes a difference. Leadership and change certainly will not come any of the participants of the IBMP.

Comment By Glenn Hockett, 12-07-07

David: Thank you for covering this story. I am disappointed you did not have more coverage on the excellent interaction and ideas presented from the public, which largely pointed out the failed, flawed, disrespectful and expensive nature of this overall planning effort. As well, and perhaps unfortunately, it was the public not the agencies that pointed out a variety of win-win cost effective science driven management solutions that better protect and respect private property rights, better protect our livestock brucellosis-free status and better restore and conserve wild bison as valued native wildlife in southwest Montana. I think some interviews with those members of the public would have added much to your story and thus the public understanding of the important issues of the day.

Interestingly, the agencies had no area or booth for the public to officially submit written comment. This was a significant failing of this process. As well, all the questions asked of the agency representatives during the panel session were screened and thus controlled by the agencies (you had to write your question on a note card that was then reviewed by the agencies and thus who knows what questions were never asked, much less answered). Furthermore, the only written public record was controlled by the agencies during the roundtable discussions by their note takers. For the record, I did provide written comments on behalf of the Gallatin Wildlife Association to representatives for at least 4 of the 5 IBMP member agencies, but I have no way of knowing whether this is part of an official public record or not. I wonder if you could request a copy as a member of the media.

Anyway, I would like to compliment the agencies on the Open House format and for conducting the 3 roundtable discussions. That format allowed for a truly democratic public process to take place and I think those discussions were quite fruitful. I learned a lot, however mostly from other interested publics. More time in the roundtable discussions would have been even more beneficial in my estimation. They took notes, I guess we will see what they do with them.

Unfortunately, Pat Flowers speaking for all the agencies made it quite clear prior to the roundtable discussions that nothing would change this winter/spring. So, the message was: Here is what we are going to do and this is set in stone no matter how ridiculous, inhumane or expensive it may seem, now we would like to hear from you.

Comment By Glenn Hockett, 12-07-07

Tim: I agree leadership from the governor's office and FWP is what is needed here. As well, our federal Congressional delegation(s) need to quit sending earmarked public money to this porkbarrel boone-doggle.

At the meeting, only the public pointed out all the conflict-free public and private land habitat that is inappropriately mapped as zone 3, a drop dead zone for wild bison. I don't think I heard one agency person say the word habitat. What a waste. This plan is laughable, but it is getting increasingly harder to laugh at all this waste and needless wildlife harassment and slaughter. The DOL has no business messing with our wildlife and our public and private property rights when they could simply protect a few cows.

Comment By Robert Hoskins, 12-08-07

I had told Bill Schneider last year I was going to quit making comments on NewWest because too few people who comment here seem to have any respect for facts, civility, or reason, and I have in fact not made any comments on NewWest for nearly a year. However, since bison are close to my heart, I'll make an exception here.

David Nolt's article, though well written, pretty much follows the status quo of reporting on brucellosis, bison, elk, and feedgrounds: all the reporters accept the claim from the livestock industry that brucellosis in elk and bison pose a serious economic threat to the livestock industry, which, they also claim, is important economically to the West.

For years, I have urged reporters to dig into the merits of these claims. If they dug, they would find out that brucellosis is not a serious economic threat to the livestock industry. They would also find out that there isn't much of an economic future for the livestock industry in the West for both ecological and economic reasons.

Once in possession of these facts, I have suggested to reporters that instead of accepting these fraudulent claims from livestock industry apologists about the so-called brucellosis threat, they should look to the politics of brucellosis, which is, simply, that brucellosis "management" is merely a tool for extending the control that the livestock oligarchy exerts over wildlife and land use policy, not to mention the federal and state wildlife and land management agencies, for its own private benefit.

In other words, brucellosis management isn't about disease; it's about power. Brutally pursued power, as a matter of fact, as the abuse of bison in Montana make abundantly clear.

The brucellosis problem isn't a true problem; it's a fraud. The real problem faced by the livestock industry is how to maintain its political power and economic privileges, both illegitimate, in the changing political, social, and economic environment of the New West.

Broadcasting the big lie about brucellosis in wildlife is one strategy followed by the livestock industry to achieve this illegitimate, oligarchic goal.

It is now approaching two years that Wyoming got its brucellosis-free status back from APHIS after the outbreaks of brucellosis in cattle in Sublette and Teton Counties four years ago. (I have discussed the nature of these two outbreaks in earlier commentary on elk feedgrounds on New West at http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/article/5493/).

These outbreaks were legitimately ascribed to infection by elk from at least two feedgrounds, although the circumstances of infection point to deliberate negligence by the ranchers involved and the Wyoming Game & Fish Department, which operates the feedgrounds as an agent of local ranchers and the livestock industry. I discuss this issue of responsibility in detail for the outbreaks in the commentary at the above listed URL.

Anyway, I have recently been perusing Wyoming livestock data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, a part of the US Department of Agriculture, for the years prior to, during, and after these recent brucellosis outbreaks in Wyoming cattle.

I have yet to find any evidence that loss of brucellosis-free status has had any significant economic impact on Wyoming's livestock producers. That is, the data do not support a claim that loss of b-free status obstructed the ability of Wyoming producers to market their cattle out of state, nor do the data support the claim of significant economic loss to producers.

While this is a preliminary conclusion because I am still looking at the data, it seems so far that there wasn't much difference economically between b-free status and class A status as far as marketability and price are concerned.

The only difference between the two conditions was the requirement for increased testing and surveillance of Wyoming cattle. The cost of additional testing was externalized to the public purse when the Wyoming legislature appropriated $1.6 million as a(nother) subsidy to producers.

Nothing new; just another example of how heavily dependent livestock producers are on taxpayers--that is, you and I.

Comment By Glenn Hockett, 12-08-07

Here are some of the excellent points made by the public at this Open House:

Brucellosis can not be eradicated without eradicating all the wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone Region. APHIS admitted that the only way APHIS eradicated brucellosis from any given livestock herd was to kill all the animals, period. Thus the wildlife vaccination program is a farce and waste of tax payer money.

Brucellosis is a seasonally contagious disease with the primary risk of transmission window being February through June 15. Brucellosis infected birthing materials purposely placed in southwest Montana by APHIS and FWP researchers never persisted past June 15. Never!

Only mature (18 months or older), breeding age and capable cattle are susceptible to brucellosis and therefore testing. There are very few susceptible age cattle using the area south of the elk winter ranges in Montana, especially between February – June 15. Protect these few cows and the “problem” is largely solved.

July 1 turnout dates for livestock are a sound brucellosis protection/prevention measure. The 2 cattle allotments on Forest Service public land in the Taylor Fork area of the Upper Gallatin watershed represent the only potential risk factor in the entire watershed all the way to Big Sky and these cattle do not enter this area until July 1 (Cache/Eldridge allotment) and July 10 (Wapiti allotment).

Many private landowners in the region are extremely wildlife friendly and some have made a clear statement to the DOL that they do not want them entering their property to haze, harass or kill bison. Elk are allowed to migrate and winter on many of these private lands both in the Upper Madison and Upper Yellowstone area.

The entire Horse Butte peninsula is completely free of any conflict from cattle and desired habitat for bison, including calving. There is no scientific or political reason for removing bison for this area ever.

Bison are wildlife, not livestock, and they should be managed by the Montana FWP as valued native wildlife.

Cattle vaccines are effective. Protect cows and quit killing and harassing our wildlife. Any research on vaccines should be designed to improve livestock vaccines and procedures (adult vaccination).

APHIS brucellosis rules for livestock are outdated and brucellosis no longer poses a significant human health risk the United States. The pasteurization of milk largely cured that problem and the “infected” cattle that have been slaughtered over the years go directly to the food chain. We eat them, so what’s the harm?

There is no need to capture a bunch of bison if they head down the Madison valley this winter, because they are all headed to conflict-free winter range where thousands of elk currently graze without restriction. However, if the DOL/APHIS feel compelled to capture a bunch of bison just because they can under the auspices of this plan or because they truly threaten some susceptible cow somewhere, we can transplant these bison to public lands in the Park in the Upper Gallatin at Specimen or Dailey Creek or on our Gallatin Wildlife Management Area at Teepee Creek where there are absolutely no susceptible cattle.

These are just some of the great ideas that were shared by the public at this meeting. I’m sure I haven’t listed everything, but for now, I’m of to the elk summit in Bozeman.

Comment By Craig Moore, 12-08-07

Glenn, what is the carrying capacity of the area for both elk and bison? What are the current populations of both? What are the effective and humane means to reduce and stabilize these populations in their limited environments?

The reason I ask is that bison management needs definition of methods and results to sell alternatives to current processes.

Why doesn't anyone ever discuss what's going on at Turner's Flying D operation and compare it to this situation?

Comment By Marion, 12-08-07

First of all, the buffs are Yellowstone NP buffalo, not state wildlife. No state maintains wild buffalo herds roaming freely. Those presently roaming in Wyoming are from Yellowstone, and most are now in GTNP. The NP service has been totally irresponsible in managing buffalo and to a degree, other wildlife, and they leave the difficult decisions to the surrounding states to deal with.
Any state that wants to take on the responsibility of dealing with them should be able to do so, no state should be forced to do so.
Brucellosis is only one problem that free roaming buffalo would present, there are a lot of disease free herds in the country if the states wanted to take on the responsibility of managing them.
Responsibility is the key word, and the one not understood by those living in a dream world. We live in the 21st century, not the 19th, and we cannot turn back the clock. It would be so much more productive to work on helping find a way to eradicate disease and control the numbers of buffalo to the carrying capacity of the Park. All of the state parks having buffalo herds are able to do it, why not a NP with many more resources?

Comment By Dave Skinner, 12-08-07

Yep, it's all about power all right.
The power to claim land, to eliminate economic sectors one hates, the power to play God in Yellowstone.
The premise that a population needs to be eliminated to eradicate brucellosis is not true. Otherwise there would be no cows anywhere on the planet.
For practical purposes, brucellosis is an exotic isolate in the Yellowstone region. A period of aggressive, targeted management of both elk (about 3 percent infection) and bison (50 percent) over a span of two or three generations would certainly address the endemic occurrence of this exotic, non-native disease in its last continental stronghold.
I suspect that soon, Wyoming will in fact begin to aggressively deal with elk infection at the feedgrounds, and DOL APHIS NPS need to do precisely the same test-and-slaughter regime starting now, and lasting as long as it takes. For that matter, MT FWP and ID DFG need to start seriously monitoring elk infection. Whether that means tissue samples at hunter-check stations in the region, with more-intensive follow-ups if positive animals cluster in an area, I don't know.
But the political agenda needs to step aside from the real problem of disease. Using brucellosis as a social foil is a crock. Get rid of the disease, and THEN we'll discuss bison and elk distribution on the merits.

Comment By David Nolt, 12-08-07

Great comments everybody.

After my first brucellosis story on NW, I soon gave up the notion that I would be able to please all or any of the myriad of people involved and interested in this issue. Quite honestly, that's not my job. It is my job to get important, interesting information to the public, and whether or not this story did that -- whether or not I just reaffirmed the status quo or accurately reported on the meeting -- can certainly be up for debate.

A couple things: I had the misfortune of going to school for journalism, not wildlife biology or ecology or veterinary science. So, on a story like this I suppose I am being a bit of a BS artist, but I'm learning as I go. That said, I have absolutely no interest in maintaining any status quos that are detrimental to the environment or public. There is obviously much, much more to this story than what you see here, and I can only tell y'all that I'll keep after it. This was a report on the meeting, not an exposé on the IBMP and ranching and politics in MT. I think you can read this story and draw your own conclusions, which all of you have and I continue to look forward to reading the feedback about this issue. I'm not trying to shirk my duties as a reporter, just explaining where I was coming from with this story.

Bottom line: The IBMP and DOL's involvement with bison management is controversial (as stated in the story), but it is what it is. The take home from this story was that all these agencies will be fully implementing the IBMP in what they expect to be another busy season for the management plan. Is the logic of the IBMP flawed and does the DOL exert excessive authority over bison management? That's for the public to decide. I'll try to continue to provide the facts, the players, the science, etc., and hopefully something worthwhile will bubble to the surface.

Neither the DOL or the critics of the DOL and IBMP are happy with this story, so I guess, in a way, I'm doing my job. Once again: I am well aware there is much more to this story, and I will continue to cover it. And for the record, I am neither an agent of the Department of Livestock or the Buffalo Field Campaign or any other vested interest outside my own life as a citizen and resident of southwestern Montana. A lot's at stake here and a lot's involved. I'll do my best to get at the heart of it all. Thanks for the feedback, stay tuned and thanks for reading.

-David Nolt

Comment By bob jackson, 12-09-07

A few thoughts on the story and the comments that followed;

To Suzanne Lewis I say, "Bison are very predictable if one understands what makes bison tick. It’s just that your advisors, the Park biologists, do not understand bison nor for that matter any basic herd behavior. If they did you would be closing the interior of Hayden Valley and the Mirror Plateau to overnight and day use during the sensitive summer calf caring time to keep bison from leaving the park in the numbers seen today". One can not confuse the apparent tameness of extended families near the road to the isolation needed in each family’s core home. The explosion in outfitter and private day trips allowed during the summer in Hayden ultimately pushes these hazed and corral stressed bison extended families out of their homes and makes carrying capacity a mute point. These buffalo end up seeking out other homes ....which happens to be out of the Park (no Plains Indians were stupid enough to disturb the cow-calf herd’s pre rut because this meant these herds would not be back the next year). For the Pelican-Mirror herd, being of wary Mt. Bison culture, there is no recourse to leaving the country because humans occupy any area bison scouts venture into. Thus the result of the Park allowing huge increases in backcountry users in Mt. Bison home turf, coupled with expansion of Plains bison, in the last 30 years has eliminated the upper Lamar-Saddle Mt. habitat and severely stressed Mt. Bison's last summer stronghold, the Mirror Plateau.
What is worse is the Park biologists are playing an active role in disturbing bison cow-calf herds by physically following these animals when the calves are so small and their mothers so feeling the need to protect. Just because bison families aren't running from these researchers following close on foot doesn't mean they are not terminally disturbing them in their home bases. To Suzanne I say, "You keep applying for research money to "understand" bison better but you end up indirectly killing these animals with each of these direct or indirect congressional appropriations". Most of your biologist bison projects today remind me of the well intended conflict oriented grizzly studies of the "70's when Park backed research meant human guinea pigs finding out what happens when grizzlies were purposely repeatedly disturbed in the back country. The results are seen in researcher Barry Gilberts face when a griz circled back and attacked him while he was going to the john behind a tree... after being disrupted several times by him and another researcher that morning. The only difference in the outcome of studies then and now is bison mothers leave their homes without fighting back.

To the IBMP stated plan of proceeding full steam ahead with trapping and shipping bison for slaughter I say to those who don't agree to this, the only way it can be stopped this winter is to get a court injunction pertaining to the inhumane way these bison are allowed to be handled in Park corrals. Whether the agencies are right or wrong proceeding with their supposed brucellosis driven agenda makes no difference when it comes to treatment as now seen in these corrals. Abuse can not be tolerated, no matter what the end justification. Yellowstone and the other agencies presently have the 'license to kill" and are above the law when it comes to animal cruelty contentions. This is because these agencies enacted "experimental" status at the beginning of this brucellosis endeavor. Thus, inhumane acts that would put a Montana livestock producer in jail can not be acted on when applied to activities at Park bison corrals. I can not understand why Yellowstone would want or agree to above the law stipulations when the animals being affected are Park animals, but then again our country feels we can justify being above the law when it comes to interrogating potential terrorists.
Thus, an injunction to question the right of these agencies to proceed with inhumane animal treatment, as allowed in a corralling operation clearly non scientific in nature, is needed even before monitoring of these facilities for inhumane acts is sought. Whether the verdict is life or death for Yellowstone bison, every participant in the IBMP needs to consider the welfare of every animal first in any decision of life or death they make on these animals. Without this emphasis, as seen with every roundup in these corrals, one has to question the ethical validity of participation by any agency in IBMP wanting to be above the law when it comes to handling of the animals they are responsible for.

Comment By Glenn Hockett, 12-09-07

There seems to be some myths floating around out there. I’ll start with the first one – European cattle not North American Bison are the native species of southwest Montana. Whether we like it or not, cattle are like cheatgrass, they are an exotic invader and both have had a dramatic impact on the Western United States, including southwest Montana. Just like crested wheatgrass isn’t big sagebrush, exotic cattle do not equal native bison.

The second myth out there being subtly perpetuated by some is that exotic domestic cattle are “diseased free”. Again, and perhaps unfortunately, this is far from the truth. Let’s just consider one of the significant diseases other than brucellosis that cattle can carry and spread to native wildlife and other domestic animals.

1.) Blue Tongue was recently reported in central Montana http://fwp.mt.gov/news/article_6004.aspx and is a series disease that can kill both domestic sheep and native wildlife, including whitetailed deer, mule deer, antelope and even elk. The impacts of this disease to both domestic sheep and native wildlife were fatally dramatic this summer in Montana. Please also check out this web site from Utah State University http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/factsheet/AH_Beef_02.pdf, which points out cattle are the main reservoir for overwintering of Blue Tongue Virus in temperate climates. Gnats become infected from cattle and then spread the disease to other cattle and sheep as they take blood meals. Reproductive effects of Blue Tongue include abortion, infertility, mummification, and stillbirth. As well, the presence of Blue Tongue significantly limits marketing opportunities for cattle internationally. See: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fsheet_faq_notice/fs_ahbluetongue.html “For about 25 years, the presence of bluetongue viruses in the United States has blocked the export of U.S. cattle, sheep, and goats to many major world markets. Currently, these markets include Australia, New Zealand, and the European Union. Canada accepts U.S. cattle, but requires rigorous testing before the animals may cross the border.” As well please check out http://www.addl.purdue.edu/newsletters/2002/spring/bluetongue.shtml from the Purdue Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory where the following is outlined: “The threat of decreased trade associated with Bluetongue outbreaks has become an even bigger threat to the livestock industry than the actual disease itself. According to Kahrs, “bluetongue is a major obstacle to exportation of U.S. ruminants and ruminant products and probably affects the United States more than most countries.” This is because of the prevalence of BTV in conjunction with competent vectors within the U.S., vague surveillance and reporting policies, and extensive BTV research emanating from U.S. laboratories.” Furthermore, “The overall seroprevalence of cattle in the United States is >18%.”

If you are an “amenity” buyer of land in the Greater Yellowstone Area or anywhere for that matter you would be well advised to realize that if you lease your property for livestock grazing there can be significant consequences of that decision to native wildlife as well as native plant communities.

The good news for cattle advocates in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) is that it appears some types of cattle can be raised without consequence to the greater livestock industry due to the perceived or real brucellosis transmission risks from wildlife, in particular elk. As I understand the APHIS regulations steers and spayed heifers can be brought into the GYA and leave the GYA without marketing or testing restrictions. As well, I believe the science on brucellosis persistence indicates that July 1 or later turnout dates for susceptible cattle (breeding age and capable cattle over 18 months of age) in the GYA will also work as a sound brucellosis protection/prevention mechanism. Let me be clear, I am not suggesting exotic cattle grazing in the GYA is a good idea, especially at the expense of native wildlife including North American Elk and Bison. I’m just saying we can get along in the context of the brucellosis issue. Bison and elk can be managed as the incredible native Montana wildlife and big game species they are and those interested in raising a few cattle can do so with minimal if any changes.

Eradicate Blue Tongue if you want to do the livestock industry, especially domestic sheep producers a favor. Elimination of that cattle disease will also likely benefit wildlife. But please don’t imply we are wasting all this taxpayer money on this brucellosis boone-doggle for the benefit of wildlife in the GYA or human health in the United States. Again, let’s protect a few cows with some very cost effective and efficient means and move on.

Comment By Glenn Hockett, 12-09-07

Bob Jackson: Thank you for your comments and insight. No wonder the Department of Livestock wants to relentlessly haze bison off the Horse Butte pennisula in southwest Montana each spring calving season. With no cattle anywhere in sight and private landowners standing tall for native wildlife there is no rational reason to continue these tax payer funded intensive government intrusions. Stay tuned. Thanks again, for sharing your local experience and insight.

Comment By Robert Hoskins, 12-09-07

I would like to return this thread to the role of the press in reporting the facts--all the facts, both surface and deep facts.

The point I was trying to make in my comment above is that all reporters, not just David Nolt, have devoted themselves only to the surface facts, not the deep facts, and as a consequence, they are failing to get the important facts into the public debate.

In his response above, Nolt sidestepped this issue of the importance of deep facts by asserting that if no one's happy with the reporting, then he's doing his job. This is what we hear from the agencies all the time, and it's simply a cop-out.

An analogy: I'm sure David Nolt knows who Ernest Hemingway is. Hemingway's aesthetic of writing was the iceberg principle--that the most important things are below the surface, the deep things, the deep emotions. His primary technique was to arrange the surface so that what was hidden in the deep, the bulk of the iceberg, as it were, would become apparent to the reader through his emotional reaction to the surface facts and their artful arrangement in the narrative of the story. This way of writing, of dealing artfully with surfaces--which is actually an impressionist technique, adapted from painting to writing--is of course a kind of poetry, and it takes considerable skill to pull off.

But journalism isn't poetry, it isn't literature. It is sheer fact. Hemingway's iceberg principle doesn't apply to journalism.

The public needs, and we expect, journalism to give us the whole iceberg. And that's not happening, neither with bison nor with any other public issue.

Nolt tells us in his story above that DOL asserts elk are the source of the brucellosis outbreak in the Bridger cattle herd. Fine, but that doesn't get us anywhere. Does he tell us that there is no evidence for it? Not at all. It would have been easy to find out about the lack of evidence.

It took me two minutes of talking to the Montana State Vet at the IBMP Open House the other night to determine that not only is there no evidence for an elk source, there WILL BE no evidence. DOL is simply satisfied to tell a lie, since science really doesn't matter to the livestock industry. All that matters is to use big and little lies to justify the expansion of livestock industry control over wildlife in and out of the Park.

What I'm trying to get across is that this little issue--did elk infect the cattle herd--provides another opportunity for digging down deep into the true facts, since the surface facts are false.

Why is the press refusing to ask, "Why is there no evidence for an elk source? Why will there be no evidence for an elk source? Is there any evidence for a cattle source?"

Here's the rule: As with any great public policy issue, it comes down to finding out the answer to this question: who benefits, and who loses. Asking this question is the best way to enter the deep and tell the true story to the public.

I think this is called investigative journalism.

The brucellosis fraud is rife with deep facts that reveal who benefits and who loses. All that is necessary is to dig, dig, dig. Why is this so difficult to understand and do?

Here's another deep fact that the press has ignored. The agencies are making a big deal of their proposed bison vaccination program in the Park. It will be, ostensibly, a scientific experiment to see if vaccination reduces brucellosis seroprevalence in bison.

However, after about five minutes of talking with a biologist involved in developing the vaccination program, it became clear to me that they are missing some important baseline data that are absolutely necessary to determine whether in fact vaccination will reduce seroprevalence in bison.

What are these data? The key measurement in this vaccination "experiment" is what I call the "shed factor." That is, what the agencies say they are going to try to achieve materially is the reduction of the amount of Brucella abortus organisms "shed" into the environment by abortion events in bison.

However, to claim with any scientific confidence that the vaccine works, one has to know with good confidence what the current "shed factor" is inside the Park. That is, one must have good, extensive data on the number and distribution of abortion events in bison, as well as good data on the actual exposure of bison, to include the number of bison, to these abortion events BEFORE beginning to vaccinate.

Guess what. The Park doesn't have this data.

Consequently, there can be no valid comparison of data pre-and post-vaccine.

In other words, we don't have a scientific experiment.

If we don't have science, then what do we have? That, to paraphrase Hamlet, is the real question. The deep question.

The "brucellosis fraud" narrative I am suggesting tells us that what we have is livestock industry politics, with the goal of taking full control of wildlife both in and out of the Park for the benefit of the livestock oligarchy.

This is an easy narrative to understand. After all, the entire history of the western livestock industry has been one of murder, theft, intimidation, and retaliation to control land and wildlife for its pecuniary benefit. There's a good short discussion of this history in the chapter on violence The Oxford History of the American West.

In short, that is what journalists should be doing--finding out what in fact we do have, both on the surface and in the deep.

Who benefits, who loses. It's a simple question, but even the simplest things are difficult.

RH

Comment By Robert Hoskins, 12-09-07

Bob

I wonder if I could make a simple request. Your comments, based upon your extensive knowledge of both how Yellowstone National Park works, or more accurately how it doesn't work, and of bison biology and behavior, are singularly valuable additions to the public debate.

However, I wonder if you could break your comments into shorter paragraphs. Much shorter. My eyes aren't what they used to be and it's hard to read a mass of words on the computer screen.

Best wishes,
RH

Comment By Glenn Hockett, 12-09-07

Robert: Excellent comment/question about why the press often does not get at the deeper facts. Perhaps this is a topic for another more indepth story, but I would like to hear from other writers/reporters why this is often the case. Or, if they believe this is not the case then please explain why. The beauty of the New West model/technology is that the public can at least bring up some of the "depth" that is missed for discussion in the comment section.

Another example of this at the IBMP Open House was the hunt booth where FWP rather than DOL representatives were "manning" the table. DOL, not FWP is the only agency that can authorize a "hunt" for wild bison in Montana under current law (MCA 87-2-730). Please read the law at: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/87/2/87-2-730.htm if you don't believe me. So why aren't DOL representatives manning the "hunt" booth? Asked about how the hunt is going, things seem fine, 10 bison harvested so far. However, are there any bison in the State of Montana now - no. Essentially we are killing them all as soon as they step into Montana. Thus, what is the status of wild bison in Montana - essentially extinct except for some high fenced bison kept in captivity at the National Bison Range in Moiese. If bison management is about brucellosis management then why are the brucellosis-free bison at Moiese kept behind a high fence - why can't they just roam? Oh yea, they are a big animal that eats grass. This hunt has been reduced to a shoot 'em at the border "tool" administered by the DOL to eliminate bison, not brucellosis from the state of Montana. Bison may be tough to manage, but they are wildlife not livestock and the FWP should be given the responsibility to manage them as valued native wildlife in the State of Montana.

Comment By Craig Moore, 12-09-07

Glenn, I asked you a couple of questions above. Perhaps you don't know the answers. If you do I would appreciate your response. Thank you.

Comment By Robert Hoskins, 12-09-07

Glenn and others

As to why the press is doing such a poor job of reporting the facts about bison, not to mention about a whole host of other important issues, perhaps I can start the discussion, having done a bit of free-lance writing--unsuccessfully--in my day. There are economic, political, and social reasons.

Economically, there rarely is a market for truth or true facts, which often are not as interesting as false facts. True facts have to have a grounding in reality as we experience it. False facts just need to be made up. As we know, marketing is largely a sophisticated form of rhetoric, which, if you are philosophically inclined, came under much criticism from the Greek philosopher Plato as simply the sophisticated lie that is more interesting than the truth and diverts human beings from their proper functions in life, however those functions are defined. We might call the sophisticated lie "propaganda," of which Madison Avenue is a master. The Nazis weren't bad at it either.

Politically, newspapers have come under the control of heavily capitalized corporations more interested in profit than journalism. The family owned newspaper, the community newspaper, the muckraking newspaper, have all but disappeared. With that disappearance, we have virtually lost the public, civic space in which democratic debate about true facts and false facts must take place. There is no room for truth in our society, so journalism has degenerated into the tabloid. The web has mitigated this tendency to a degree, in that people like you and me have an opportunity to speak out. On the other hand, it also gives the unworthy, the ignorant, and the bullies an opportunity as well.

Socially, in the West people are still enamored of the cowboy myth, a myth that never existed except in the minds of Owen Wister and his literary successors in Hollywood. No one wants to know the truth about the livestock industry in the West--that it was a brutal, lawless, destructive force, despised, hated, and feared by the people as a malignant force. We see the truth of the nature of the livestock industry every day in the gross mismanagement of bison in Montana. The livestock industry still is brutal, lawless, and destructive.

It's quite clear that brucellosis in both bison and elk is a fraud, that what we're really observing is the workings of a police state intending to keep the cowboys in charge of land use and wildlife. It's just difficult to get that true fact before the public.

RH

Comment By Glenn Hockett, 12-09-07

Craig Moore: Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore you. I don't know the carrying capacity for the area in question, but I do know
the habitat could certainly support more than zero bison on a year round basis in southwest Montana, which is what we currently mandate today in the "Plan". We could sure figure it out.

I am a hunter and I support public hunting as the preferred method of what I will call conserving wildlife populations. What we are doing to bison, including the current "hunt" is not sound wildlfie conservation in my opinion. We are treating them worse than livestock, instead of valued native Montana wildlife.

First, we must restore bison on a year round basis to southwest Montana and the best place to do this is in the Upper Gallatin, where the land is almost entirely publicly owned. The main private landowners in the area operate dude ranchers, that I would like to think would benefit from the presence of wild bison in the area. I have talked to some of these folks and heard positive responses to the idea of bison recovery and conservation. What the ultimate populatin level will/should be is debateable and dependent on many factors. Basically though, private landowners and their tolerance for bison just like their tolerance for elk will likely lead and limit the recovery and conservation of bison in southwest Montana overall, not carrying capacity.

The Madison Valley offers an excellent opportunity to develop a private/public partnership in this regard. I suggest we could do this to the Wall Creek Wildlife Management Area west of the Madison and to about Indian Creek on the east side of the Madison River. What do you think? There is also lots of publicly owned habitat in the Dome Mountain area south to the Park that is suitable and currently unoccuppied by bison in the Upper Yellowstone Basin.

What is really interesting and more than a little disturbing about this is that there are 3 major Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs)that were purchased with sportsmen's dollars and bison can't use them (Wall, Gallatin and Dome Mountain WMAs). Connecting and protecting wildlife migration corridors to these WMAs is largely in place for elk and other wildlife. Why not bison? As well, believe it or not cattle actually get to use one of these WMAs - Wall Creek. Is this right, especially if it is done at the exclusion of a native big game species that is virtually extinct in Montana?

As well, wild bison on private lands and the WMAs can not be randomly taken by native Americans without regulation by the State of Montana. Allowing bison access to these areas would help address some of the uncertainty associated with native American take. This is a great opportunity to solve this percieved problem in a respectful and sustainable manner.

Comment By Marion, 12-09-07

Let's see, the guy protecting his home and property is the bad guy, those who want to use it at no cost to themselves with no responsibility and nothing to lose are the good guys. Interesting.
Groups like TNC with over a billion in assets are the little guys, the rancher hoping to make a living for his family and be able to send his kids to college who has invested everything he owns into his ranch is the "big rich powerful" rancher.
If ranchers had any power or influence beyond the local area we wouldn't be having these discussions. No one would even consider that they had the right to control someone else's property.
Even if the enviro groups lose one battle they jsut go beg more money via taxpayer funded grants, or "donations" to file another lawsuit.
Please use an example of a state that is able to manage free roaming buffalo whether infected or not.
As for bluetongue, Ralph blames it on sheep, you guys blame it on cows, most blame it on a gnat that shows up once every few years.
Buffalo are a roaming herd animal, and if not controlled as the dreamers wish, they would roam from border to border again. That shoudl be interesting.

Comment By Craig Moore, 12-09-07

Glenn, I believe we may share the opinion that hunting is the best way to conserve a species. Turn it into a renewable resource and the species tends to thrive. At least that is what was behind TR's thinking. That approach is proven in Africa. Where hunting is disallowed poachers and hostile locals endanger the species.

As to Bison, I believe many of your points have merit. Like African villagers, I don't believe ranchers care whether raising cows or bisons are important when the $$$$ flow to protect their way of life and property. A cashflow profit analysis may go a long way to sell your ideas to the doubtful.

Comment By Craig Moore, 12-09-07

Glenn, as to my suggestion perhaps a call over to MSU and you might find a candidate willing to do a masters thesis on the economics of switching from a cattle ranch to a for profit bison management operation with all of the bells and whistles that invove a mix of commercial harvest, wild hunting, and tourist experience.

Comment By Glenn Hockett, 12-09-07

Craig Moore: We have shared our ideas with the MSU Extension Beef Specialist, the former MSU Extension Wildlife/Agricultural person, MSU Animal and Range Staff as well as FWP personnel. However, they are still all largely controlled by the organized livesock groups that don't seem to want a cost effective, respectful and sustainable solution for bison in Montana. I would like to hear from the Montana Outfitters and Guides and the Montana Wildlife Federation to see what they think of this idea and I am working on that.

Comment By Robert Hoskins, 12-09-07

Except for the fact that the profit motive has the tendency over time to destroy the very wildness of the wildlife we want to hunt, primarily by making wildlife private property to be managed for maximum benefits of the landowner--few or no benefits accrue to the public.

After all, the hunting management system that Theodore Roosevelt helped put into place in North America--actually, we have Aldo Leopold to thank for actually designing it and putting it into place beginning in 1930--recognized wildlife as a public trust, the common property of us all--private rights are severely circumscribed for the common good. We call this the North American Model of Wildlife Management, and it is intentionally distinct from the European and now South African models, which treat game animals as private property.

Any model that makes wildlife a private good rather than a public good do nothing for conservation of wildlife.

Further, I wouldn't put too much faith in the reports that commercialized hunting in Africa has reduced the threat to wildlife, or even put money into the hands of African locals. Big game hunting is still in the hands of whites.

Canadian wildlife biologist Valerius Geist has written widely on the value and superiority of the North American Model to the European Model of game management. Jim Posewitz of Orion The Hunters Institute has written widely on the public trust. I've also addressed some of these issues in my essay on Aldo Leopold that I posted on NewWest a couple of years ago.

Look it up.

Comment By Craig Moore, 12-09-07

Rober, you always present an important and unique perspective on a variety of issues. I appreciate you taking the opportunity to add your opinions.

See: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4444/is_200604/ai_n17184537/pg_2

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Glenn, try the business school and see if there is a masters candidate that might take it on. Stgructure a comparison with Turner's Flying D operation.

Black Rhinoceros Conservation and Trophy Hunting in Southern Africa: Implications of Recent Policy Changes
Endangered Species Update, Apr-Jun 2006 by Nelson, Fred

The success of these southern African nations in managing black rhinos has been a result of strong protected area management agencies, law enforcement, monitoring, and to a lesser degree the involvement of private landholders and rural communities. An important component of the overall wildlife management policies of Namibia and South Africa has been promoting locally managed commercial use of wildlife, and thereby encouraging the adoption of wildlife a form of private land use. Since the late 1960's, southern African countries have emphasized sustainable wildlife utilization, including commercial trade, as a conservation strategy (Child 2004). Namibia granted private landholders the right to manage and utilize the wildlife on their land, subject to certain regulatory restrictions, in 1967 (Jones 2001). By devolving responsibility and authority for wildlife in this way, government policies enabled landholders to capitalize on wildlife's competitive economic advantage over alternative agricultural land uses in semi-arid areas. The result was a broad expansion of wildlife populations; game numbers increased by an estimated 80% on private lands in Namibia from 1972 to 1992 (Barnes and de Jagr 1996). South Africa also developed a policy of private ownership of wildlife, and has witnessed a similar expansion of the land devoted to game species during the past thirty years. While these policy changes applied only to freehold lands, which were held primarily by white minority landowners, Namibia and Zimbabwe later spread the approach to their communal land areas as well. Namibia's community conservancies, whereby rural communities are granted the right to manage and capture the benefits from wildlife on communal lands after they have formed registered conservancies, have been particularly successful in generating local revenues and leading to wildlife population recoveries since 1998 (Jones 2001; NACSO 2004). Among other successes, the Kunene Region of northwest Namibia, where many of the community conservancies are located, is now home to the largest free-ranging black rhino population in Africa, with about 140 animals ranging across the semi-desert environment of this area's communal lands (Barnard 1998; Child 2005; CITES (nd)c).

<<<<<<<<<<<<

I do not favor private wildlife ownership and have spoken out against the Cabelaization of the West's wildlife. That being said I believe if a comprehensive solution can be crafted to put landownes, public interests, field sportsman, and species conservation on the same side I think those options deserve a closer look.

Comment By Craig Moore, 12-09-07

I found what I was looking for in my saved list. There was an article by the BBC which argued the symbiotic relationship between hunting and species conservation in Africa. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6091334.stm

>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hunting for conservation solutions

VIEWPOINT
Eugene Lapointe

Hunting bans could do more harm than good when it comes to the long-term survival of vulnerable species such as African elephants, argues Eugene Lapointe. In this week's Green Room, the former head of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) makes the case for hunting and why it can be a part of wildlife management policies.

Elephant tusks (ivory) are used in artefacts around the world and, whether we like it or not, they command a market value similar to many precious metals

Are bans on hunting and trade the best way to conserve species?
It is natural for people to jump to the conclusion that they are. After all, if no one is allowed to kill an animal, the thinking goes, surely its population will grow.

But the problem is that many more species are becoming endangered each year and very few are recovering.

The World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List of threatened species worldwide now stands at 16,119 for all flora and fauna and includes a quarter of all mammals. Is it not time we found a better approach?

Market value

To understand why hunting and trade bans are not as effective as they are supposed to be, it is worth considering elephant conservation programmes in Africa, where countries have adopted two diverse strategies.

Elephant tusks (ivory) are used in artefacts around the world and, whether we like it or not, they command a market value similar to many precious metals. As a result, there is a constant international demand for ivory.

Unfortunately, most African economies are poor and wildlife conservation has to compete with many pressing demands for public money, such as the provision of public housing, sanitation projects, health care (particularly related to Aids) and education.


So conservation projects are going to be most successful if they can be self-supporting; in other words, if they can generate income and provide local jobs.

In southern Africa, countries have followed the philosophy of sustainable use. They have issued permits to sport hunters to kill a limited number of elephants that are pre-selected according to factors like age and sex. They cannot shoot breeding animals, for example.

Sport hunting produces significant income through hunting fees, safari costs (guides, accommodation, trophy fees, etc.) and this is reinvested into conservation programmes. Local people support it because it provides secure employment.

The result is that in Namibia, South Africa and Botswana, elephant populations are well-stocked and healthy, while incidences of poaching have been kept to low levels.

By contrast, Kenya takes a protectionist approach. Killing elephants is prohibited and the country steadfastly argues against international trade in ivory.

Conservation in Kenya has become largely a law enforcement operation and, inevitably, this is a drain on limited local resources

An unintended consequence is that poaching is encouraged because local people receive little added value from the elephants and, instead, see a local resource going to waste.

In some areas people suffer when elephants destroy crops and homes. Habitat damage from dense populations also negatively impacts many other species.

Conservation in Kenya has become largely a law enforcement operation and, inevitably, this is a drain on limited local resources.

While elephant populations have recovered, poaching remains a problem and, in stark contrast to southern Africa, people have to be paid to shoot problem animals...

Bigger picture

It is to be expected that people will question how conservation can be aided by allowing animals to be killed and utilised.

Sustainable use still seems counterintuitive to some. But the conservation results with species like African elephants and the fully recovered and abundant Florida crocodile prove otherwise.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency for nations to practise sustainable use at home while prescribing protectionism abroad

Sustainable use is enshrined in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and is used as the basic wildlife management philosophy in countries such as the United States.
And there are signs that "sensible conservation" may be creeping into vogue as realities hit home and wildlife officials begin to critically assess realities. Recently, the BBC reported that authorities in Malaysia have decided that the best way to protect turtles is to license, rather than ban, the collection of their eggs.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency for nations to practise sustainable use at home while prescribing protectionism abroad.

This is true for African elephants, seals, sturgeon, whales, tigers, rhinos and many of the so-called "charismatic" species.

In the future, the fate of many animals may well depend on the extent to which the public around the world starts to accept the idea of utilising wildlife in a sustainable way.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Have people noticed how some politicos, Jay Inslee for one, in the US are seeking to have polar bear hunting 'banned' in Canada rather than managed as a renewable and sustaining resource?

Comment By Glenn Hockett, 12-09-07

Craig Moore: I agree that bison need to be treated and managed as a valuable native asset in Montana, because they are. I also believe the majority of private landowners in the area of question I have outlined here in southwest Montana, especially the big landowners but also the small landowners, do see the wild bison as a magnificent and important native species. The problem with the current hunt, as well as the current mis-management paradigm (haze, capture, vaccinate and/or slaughter) is it is driven by government agents from the Department of Livestock, lead by the Board of Livestock and their political cronies. They are happy to mis-manage wild bison as "diseased livestock" and they would like to confine the bison to the Park or a reservation or a high fence like Moiese.

Even the American Prairie Foundation (APF) in South Phillips county Montana had to take ownership of previously publicly owned wild bison from Wind Cave National Park and legally, or perhaps illegally I'm not sure, turn them into privately owned alternative livestock in order to "release" them on their private and surrounding public BLM lands. My guess is this was due to the intolerance of livestock oriented bureaucracies and special interest groups who are afraid of even attempting to manage bison as a valuable native asset.

I believe APF's intentions are honorable and I support their work, but their situation is telling. If it were just about brucellosis, why weren't the bison from Wind Cave National Park transferred directly to the Charles M. Russell National (CMR) National Wildlife Refuge, which is also administered by the Department of Interior. They were and are "brucellosis-free", so why weren't they released as public wildlife free to roam, including on adjacent APF wildlife friendly property? The problem I have been told lies with the intolerance of the BLM, livestock permittees on the CMR National Wildlife Refuge, surrounding landowners with livestock, and again their political cronies.

Calling for the eradication of brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area will have significant adverse impacts to tax payers’ wallets, a yet undetermined variety and number of wildlife species, and the integrity of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The effort will also drag on forever, the perfect non-solution. It will also not change the fact that North American Bison are big animals that eat grass.

Comment By Robert Hoskins, 12-09-07

Craig

You seem to think I don't keep up with African conservation and don't read the articles. I do. I have traveled widely in Africa and have quite a few friends there.

I am very familiar with the "sustainable use" argument, especially as it is used in Africa and Asia, as well as in Canada. We hear the argument primarily from those organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund that are pushing the concept. They certainly have a vested interest in it.

Thus, we hear that we have to turn tigers as well as elephants and other rare animals into market commodities to save them.

I'd point out that the aurochs is extinct in Eurasia, and what we have remaining are domestic cows.

There is a difference.

What you've quoted above from the BBC is the general opinion of those who think that what is essentially game ranching, or the commercialization of wildlife, primarily through the commodification of game animals through trophy hunting, or game farming, which is the production and export of game parts (e.g., ivory), will serve to conserve wildlife.

Any examination of the application of market principles to wildlife conservation, whether on this continent or any other, points to a history of UNSUSTAINABLE USE in the long run, with the added tragedy of animal domestication to provide one product abstracted from the entire animal in an ecological setting. In other words, the WILD animal we are trying to conserve is transformed from a biological and ecological being to a domesticated product the sale of which depends upon the ebb and flow of human whims in the market.

Commercialization inherently leads to privatization. We see that here in North America with the growth of game ranches.

In short, what we save may look like an elephant, but is it truly an elephant?

An elephant is what its habitat is. If it exists in wild habitat, it is a wild animal. If it exists on a game ranch, it is an agricultural product.

There is a difference.

Both logically and practically, there is no reason to believe that what comes out of this is conservation. It is merely a form of agriculture--game agriculture--and there can be no doubt that there is a fundamental contradiction between agriculture and wildlife conservation wherever agriculture exists.

Travel sometime through Africa, or the Middle East, or southwest Asia and look at what thousands of years of agriculture have wrought.

Conservation may be impossible there--there is hardly any wildlands. But it can still be successful here, if we preserve enough wild habitat for the wild animals that depend upon it.

RH

Comment By Craig Moore, 12-09-07

Glenn, if Montana ranchers were convinced of the economics of bison over cows and switched, wouldn't the DOL likely evolve its position to being bison friendly?

Comment By Robert Hoskins, 12-09-07

I can't speak for Glenn, but my answer to the above question is that bison would still be livestock and continue to be (mis) treated as livestock.

What needs to happen is to get the cowboys completely out of wildlife management.

RH

Comment By David Nolt, 12-10-07

You're right Robert, I have heard of Ernest Hemingway. You got me pegged.

As for the investigation on the cause of transmission in the Morgan herd, I knew that and definitely should have included it in the story. Don't know why I didn't. Thanks for catching that.

This has probably been discussed before, but it seems to me the argument could be made that the IBMP (whatever you think of the plan) is not being met in one major regard: It states, "Preserve a viable, wild population of Yellowstone bison."

Since any wild bison are basically hazed or corralled or shot once they cross the line, wouldn't it be fair to say that is not preserving a wild herd? Bob Jackson, if you're still reading, any thoughts?

As per Pat Flowers' comments at the meeting, it will be interesting to see if the MFWP role changes at all in the coming months/years. I'll be sure to follow this.

Thanks again for reading everybody.

Comment By Marion, 12-10-07

This whole issue is moot until brucellosis is eliminated. If the buffalo groups would work to eliminate that, then the discussion could begin on how many buffalo could be allowed total freedom to roam where they will.
What is the difference from a wildlife standpoint between an elk ranch and a buffalo ranch?

Comment By Robert Hoskins, 12-10-07

David

If one pursues "the brucellosis fraud" narrative, for which there is abundant evidence, it is clear that there is no intent on the part of the agencies to ever allow wild, free-roaming bison in the State of Montana. There never has been. The true goal of the IBMP is to ensure the political viability of the livestock industry, that is, the goal is to maintain and extend the political power of the livestock industry over land use and wildlife management policy for its own benefit.

As the livestock industry becomes more and more economically nonviable--something for which there is also abundant evidence--it is lashing out ever more violently to maintain its illegitimate oligarchical status.

No one with the least intelligence actually believes brucellosis can be eradicated in the wildlife of the Greater Yellowstone. That's the point. With the stated intent of brucellosis eradication, knowing that it can never be eradicated, that means these intensive, obstrusive, brutal, and despicable wildlife control measures (test, slaughter, quarantine, vaccination) can remain in place indefinitely.

That's what it is all about.

RH

Comment By J.D. Kotrla-Chipps, 12-10-07

OK, one final attempt to get a point across.

Beef cattle that have been vaccinated will test positive for brucellosis because of the anti-bodies that give them immunity.

A buffalo will test positive for the same reason. It has been exposed, and has developed antibodies.

Both are immune, one by injection, the other naturally.

BUFFALO DO NOT HAVE BRUCELLOSIS! The are immune to this disease.

But they will continue to test positive to a card test, (negative to a tissue test).

In the park, they are classified as "wildlife", but when they cross that imaginary, invisible line into Montana, they suddenly become "livestock" according to "cowboy logic", and come under the conrol of MDOL.

If anyone cares to research the history of this whole brucellosis myth, it stems from a Montana vet that jabbed himself in the thumb with an infected needle and got "bangs", the human version ov brucellosis. Clarence Siroky was his name, and he became obsessive about anything that even hinted at infection. It was his influence that created the present "zero" tolerence Montana has now.

Comment By Craig Moore, 12-10-07

David, part of the problem is definitional. What is 'wild' in the context of the IBMP? Genetic purity? Free roaming without ever encountering fixtures of human habitation? Free roaming within a minimum of X amount of acreage?

Robert, in my opinion, on issues like this economics lead the politics. When bison economics outshine cattle, then the politics and the agencies which are the enforcing arms of those politics will follow. This battle between cattle and bison will continue with predictable results until such times as ranchers are not threatened.

Let's have some free thinking, tabula raza. Look at what Turner is doing. He has very large spreads where bison roam 'wild,' the herd is culled and commercially harvested, and there is some hunting. What if adjacent ranchers in the bison areas could be convinced to join a Bison Inc. that would follow Turner's model to some degree? The ranchers would receive payments, similar to CRP payments, from the profits to replace their cattle profits? The Bison Inc. animals would have free roaming within Bison Inc. territory clear back to Yellowstone. The hunting public would be bought into the process through Block Management that had specific access times and harvest regulations. Just some thoughts. It is not a matter of being ideologically pure or right. A solution has to be effective and have stakeholders on the same side.

Comment By Robert Hoskins, 12-10-07

I think it would be a mistake to posit the plight of bison in Montana to the revenge of one man, Clarence Siroky. APHIS and the livestock industry have been targeting wildlife--elk and bison--in the Greater Yellowstone for nearly 30 years. Don't forget that Wyoming has been vaccinating elk on the feedgrounds since 1981 with APHIS funding. It hasn't worked, but then, that's not the point. It's just another excuse to keep elk locked up on the feedgrounds to keep elk away from forage ranchers assert is "theirs."

Comment By J.D. Kotrla-Chipps, 12-10-07

Siroky poked himself 35 years ago.

Comment By Robert Hoskins, 12-10-07

Craig

The IBMP has no definition of wild bison; it is assumed that bison inside the Park are "wild," whereas bison outside the Park are livestock--by state law, by the way. There is no expression in the IBMP of any understanding of wild bison as animals that have an evolutionary history that requires extensive habitat for survival.

It makes no biological or ecological sense to base the wildness of an animal on what side of the boundary it happens to be on at the time. This is nothing but legal legerdemain.

If you want to continue to push the "sustainable use" scenario a la Ted Turner and African game ranching, go ahead, but it is not acceptable--what Turner is doing is not conservation, but commercial use. He is raising livestock, period. He is game ranching, and by game ranching, he is domesticating bison.

Practically, that leaves bison under the jurisdiction of DOL, not FWP. Yellowstone bison wouold still be treated as threat to domestic bison under your scenario.

Turner's bison are not, and never will be, wildlife. They are private property, livestock, not a public trust.

What you are suggesting is that Yellowstone bison continue to be treated as livestock on a game ranch. This is simply unacceptable.

Who said anything about ideology? This is a practical matter of the survival of wild animals in their wild habitat. As soon as agricultural principles and techniques are applied, you no longer have wildlife animals, but livestock. This is not hard to understand.

As for stakeholders, there are none. I will point out that for nearly 15 years, conservationists have been suggesting common sense, rational means to ensure separation of cattle and wildlife during the time window for transmission of brucellosis. The livestock industry has refused categorically to consider any of these recommendations, and has instead applied the big hammer when a scalpel would have worked.

Of course, since the actual goal of the IBMP is to extend livestock industry control over bison (and elk here in Wyoming), not prevent the transmission of disease--which is a red herring, because biologically, brucellosis is not a serious disease in either wildlife or cattle--there is no reason for the cowboys to consider the recommendations of conservationists. We are not considered stakeholders, or partners; we don't count.

RH

Comment By Marion, 12-10-07

I tried to find out if and when they first tested the Pelican Valley buffs for brucellosis since they did not have contact with either cattle nor the imported domestic animals. I cannot find that information.
I did find this study of the new vaccine they plan to use for bison as well as elk.
JD, you need to read about the situation more, approximately 25-50% of the positive testers they slaughter and check do have the active disease.
The reason they changed the vaccine used for cattle is because the old vaccine did give a positive test when the animal was immunized.
This should not be a political issue, it is a health issue, and it needs to be dealt with as such. I cannot imagine that any official, politician or otherwise is ever going to risk a mass outbreak of undulant fever in this country.

Comment By Marion, 12-10-07

Darn it, here is the link

http://www.gyibc.com/Meetings/techiemin102505.pdf

Comment By Robert Hoskins, 12-10-07

JD

It doesn't make much difference when the damn fool poked himself. Vets are still poking themselves and getting it. It's an occupational hazard, and they have no reason to complain.

What I'm trying to get across that we are not dealing with issues of personal revenge or individual psychological problems because someone got a disease that is an occupational hazard. We are dealing with very broad issues of agricultural politics and culture. Everywhere you find agriculture, you find an assault on wildlife and wildlands, because both are a threat to agriculture. Anything that is wild is a threat to ordered societies with complex political and economic systems. This problem is deeply engrained in civilization, whether Western, Eastern, or American.

In the broadest sense, our task as conservationists is to carve out places where land and animals can function beyond the reaches of agriculture. That's difficult, very difficult, but it is the task with which we are faced.

RH

Comment By Craig Moore, 12-10-07

Robert, all I'm saying is that the inertia impasse over bison will continue until more stakeholders find themselves on the same side. Again, politics will follow the economics. How best to replace cattle driven politics with the economics of bison? Creative solutions are needed in my opinion. Creating momemtum towards a desired outcome might minimize some of the obstacles. Again, Robert I deplore the commercialization of wild game as I have stated on other discussions. However, perfect and pure answers ofter remain on the shelf when they do not meet the needs of the many.

Comment By Marion, 12-10-07

Robert, you have to be kidding, how long do you think mankind, including yourself can survive without agriculture? Surely you realize agriculture produces the food we eat. Frankly I wouldn't want to starve to death while gloating that I'd put a agriculture producers out of business.

Comment By J.D. Kotrla-Chipps, 12-10-07

Marion, your 25-50% figure is blatently wrong. For one thing, slaughtered animals aren't being tested anymore. Years ago, when they did tissue test them, the results were negative, so they stopped. Didn't support their claims.

Another way I can "prove" it is that no other animal has ever contracted brucellosis from a buffalo. And finally, heifers that have brucellosis usually abort their first calf. Buffalo heifers aren't aborting.

I have been raising buffalo for almost 20 years now. The words of Sir Isaac Newton come to mind when he was being derided by Edmond Halley, about his views on astrology:

"I suggest to you, sir, that I have studied the matter, and you have not".

Comment By Marion, 12-10-07

JD, please read the link I provided above. Here it is again

http://www.gyibc.com/Meetings/techiemin102505.pdf

And yes cows have been infected in laboratory settings by buffalo, much harder to confirm in the wild. I would not expect your buffalo heifers to abort because I would assume that you have a disease free herd.
What is the difference between an elk ranch and a buffalo ranch when we are discussing wildlife?

Comment By J.D. Kotrla-Chipps, 12-10-07

I'm not talking about my herd, I'm referring to Yellowstone, where it is clained 50% are infected. There are no abortions however,......strange, don't you think?

When you say "cows", I presume you mean beef cows. (female bu ffalo are cows too, elk too). But this never happened either. For one thing it's too hard to control a buffalo in a laboratory, They break things up pretty bad.......and second, the A&M;incident you refer to was totally bogus. A buffalo was "injected" with massive doses of brucella, then this was transferred back to a beef cow and after several attempts, was finally infected.

Believe it, or not, there are many places in the US where buffalo and beef co-mingle, eat, sleep, give birth together, and there has never been a case of brucellosis being transmitted from a buffalo to a beef cow, or even a buffalo being infected.....documented, or even rumored. It's a myth, buffalo don't have brucellosis.

Comment By Marion, 12-10-07

JD, wanna make a bet that neither of the herds sleeping together are infected? That is the clue, and it is the basis for the whole discussion. The buffs ARE infected and ranchers prefer to keep them away form their cows.
You were there when they did the tests or you want to believe they were bogus? They do not keep large animals they are working with inside of labs, they keep them in pens.

Comment By mike, 12-10-07

By golly, this J.D. Kotrla-Chipps has brought up an incredibly pivotal and important point. If the very-heavily-observed bison in Yellowstone truly are infected with bangs, brucellosis to those who are not in the cattle business, and not just carrying exposure antibodies, then there should be ample reports of the heifers suffering a large number of first calf abortions. Why do we not have those reports being waved about by the DOL and its supporters? Those Park bison have biologists and tourists and BFC activists all over them at practically all times of the year. In fact, a lot of them, including heifers, start moving very early to calve out on Horse Butte with national coverage of their every grunt along the way. Has anybody been reporting first calf abortions? Is there any scientific basis to suppose that they could carry active infections and not abort?

Comment By J.D. Kotrla-Chipps, 12-10-07

By Golly! Someone is paying attention.

Bless you for having an open mind,....and eyes and ears.

Remember, you heard it first here, BUFFALO DO NOT HAVE, nor carry, BRUELLOSIS!!!

Comment By J.D. Kotrla-Chipps, 12-10-07

P.S. There have been no reports because there have been no abortions. How about that?

Comment By Craig Moore, 12-10-07

Here's some science on the problem: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no2/corbel.htm

I've read of a bison raiser using an animal psychic to treat calves for blackleg. I believe he goes be the name 'Buffalo Man.' Perhaps that person would share their thoughts on such healing efforts for bangs.

Comment By Marion, 12-10-07

I hate to be the one to break it to you mike and JD, but they would abort in the winter in remote places and the wolves woudl clean it up post haste. In the spring when they deliver it is not called aborting. The other point you make about brucellosis affecting them less than cattle and elk indicates an endemic infection that they have adapted to, which would sort of go along with them being the original source of the infection.

Comment By Craig Moore, 12-10-07

Regarding claims that bison do not have, nor carry, brucellosis perhaps Canadian data might be helpful:

http://www.montana.edu/wwwcbs/brucbib.html

>>>>>>>>>>

4. Anon. 1987. The increasing significance of brucellosis and tuberculosis in bison in the Wood Buffalo National Park Region. Can. Vet. J. 28: 102.
In 1985, Canada's national cattle herd was declared free of bovine brucellosis, and bovine tuberculosis is expected to be eliminated in the future. The veterinary and public health benefits, and the resulting economic gains, have increasingly offset the high cost and effort needed to achieve the eradication of these major diseases. Extraneous sources of brucellosis and tuberculosis have become correspondingly more important because of the risk of reintroducing the disease back into cattle. The free-ranging bison population in and around Wood Buffalo National Park is considered the final reservoir of both diseases in Canada. Tuberculosis and brucellosis were introduced into the park between 1925 and 1928 when 6,672 plains bison were shipped there from an infected herd near Wainwright, Alberta. Cumulative data from commercial bison slaughters in the park during the 1950's and 1960's show positive Brucella titres in 714 (36%) of 1,999 bison tested, and report TB lesions in 1,079 (34%) of 3,181 bison. At this date, there are ca. 5,000 bison in the Wood Buffalo National Park and 400 in the Slave River Lowlands. A recent survey found evidence of brucellosis in 18 (25%), and TB in 15 (21%), of 72 bison killed in and around the park. The potential for spread of brucellosis and TB is discussed.


7. Broughton, E. 1987. Diseases affecting bison. Bison ecology relation to agricultural development in the Slave River lowlands, N.W.T.: Can. Wildl. Ser. pp. 34-38. (Used with the permission of the Minister of Supply & Services, Canada 1992).
Bison in the Slave River lowlands (SRL) and Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP) have shown high rates of disease infection, primarily with tuberculosis, brucellosis, and anthrax. Examinations and/or testing for tuberculosis and brucellosis in bison were conducted in WBNP between 1950 and 1974 and in the SRL between 1964 and 1974. Tuberculosis infection rates averaged 40% in WBNP (range 15-56%) and varied from 25 to 40% in the SRL. Field examination of bison shot by recreational hunters in 1974 in the SRL revealed a high level of tuberculosis-like lesions. Brucellosis infections rates averaged 30% in WBNP (range 6-62%) and 38% in the SRL. The first outbreak of anthrax killed 281 bison at Hook Lake, Northwest Territories, in July 1962. Attempts to control the disease included depopulation and vaccination. Anthrax and associated control measures have resulted in the death of approximately 1,600 bison in SRL and WBNP since 1962.
<<<<<<<<<<

Comment By Robert Hoskins, 12-10-07

As I pointed out above, one of the critical flaws in the upcoming bison vaccination program in the Park is that Park biologists do not have the necessary baseline data for what I called the "shed factor," which addresses the number of brucella abortus organisms shed into the environment in abortion events.

That is, they have little or no data regarding abortion events in the Park, either their location or distribution, nor of the number of bison exposed to abortion events.

Thus, the notion that one could do a scientific experiment on the effect of vaccination based upon a reduction of the shed factor is ludicrous, since there are no valid pre-vaccination baseline data on the shed factor to compare with post-vaccination data. But that is what we're getting. More bad--or perhaps "dishonest" would be more accurate--science.

As far as I'm concerned, it does not matter whether or not bison or elk in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem carry brucellosis. It does little biological harm to animals themselves, and it clearly has no impact on herd numbers.

(Brucellosis is clearly in Wyoming's feedground elk, just as it is clear that there is a certain level of immunity in Yellowstone bison to the disease. What degree of immunity is unclear, since virtually no one is doing independent scientific research on bison in the Park; all government science, as we see with vaccination, is suspect as politically driven).

What does matter is that brucellosis is being used as a cover for the imposition of greater political control over wildlife by the livestock industry, to the detriment of the common interest in wildlife.

What we should be focusing on is limiting and eventually eliminating the ability of the livestock industry to control wildlife and land use policy.

RH

P. S. Craig: the economic approach you advocate, which is commercialization, will inevitably lead--and is already doing so--to privatization, or, the creation of private property rights in wild animals.

We cannot rely upon economics to lead to a favorable political situation, which I would define as conservation and management of wildlife in the public interest.

I do not, and will not, support the "economic --> politics" approach. There is nothing creative is following this route. After all, it's the route the game ranchers and farmers have been following for decades; Aldo Leopold condemned it in the 1930s. That hasn't stopped it, of course, and it is getting worse. It is time to stop compromising with game ranchers.

Creative solutions will have to lie in pursuing the public trust and restrictions on private rights, and that is what I am doing. It is a "politics --> economics" strategy.

I have no intention of serving as a "stakeholder" in a process designed to further the process of commercialization/privatization while landowners make empty promises about conservation.

Comment By Craig Moore, 12-10-07

Robert, I respect your opinion. The discussions here at New West are far richer in both content and texture when you participate....But that doesn't mean i won't disagree. ;o)

Comment By Robert Hoskins, 12-10-07

Just for peoples' edification, bison in Wood Buffalo National Park still have brucellosis, anthrax, and tuberculosis. Every so often, under pressure from Canadian/Albertan livestock interests, the Canadian government floats a test & slaughter/depopulation proposal, which the public and First Nations shoot down. Unfortunately, with climate warming, livestock are pushing ever closer to the Park. The pressure to apply livestock management regimes on bison in the Park can only get worse.

Comment By Glenn Hockett, 12-10-07

Whether you buy into the idea that brucellosis is an important livestock/wildlife disease the only way brucellosis has ever been eradicated from any given livestock herd is to slaughter all the animals in the exposed herd.

Dr. Lennis Knight, the APHIS agent responsible for reviewing the Baker, Bridger, Ames Iowa brucellosis finding in cattle made that clear at the Open House roundtable discussion on brucellosis. When asked by a rancher why all the cattle in the Morgan herd at Bridger Montana (a long way from Yellowstone) had to be killed, Lennis stated that is the only way APHIS/State DOLs have ever successfully eradicated the disease in livestock - kill all the animals in the expsoed herd. Thus, slaughtering livestock not vaccinating them is how APHIS eradicated brucellosis from exposed livestock herds around the United States.

APHIS/DOL has to kill/take all the animals in the exposed herd and then they essentially fund the replacement of animals of similar value. Talk about the federal government imposing its will on private property rights, that is exactly what APHIS/DOL has been doing under the current brucellosis rule. I guess the cattlemen have accepted it, because they essentially get enough money to buy a new herd. The brucellosis rule is outdated and must be changed for the benefit of the livestock industry as well as the wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA). Many other livestock diseases can cause abortions, I mentioned Blue Tongue earlier. Why isn't APHIS concerned about eradicating that disease, which also significantly restricts international marketing options for cattlemen (see my earlier post with links for more scientific information on Blue Tongue)?

Furthermore, don't let APHIS/DOL fool you, in order to eradicate brucellosis from all the wildlife in the GYA they will have to slaughter all the wildlife in the GYA. This stinks of a federal takeover of State rights over wildlife management.

Vaccinating the wildlife won't work to eradicate the disease. It never did in cattle. That's why there is no eradication plan. APHIS/DOL won't admit the severe consequences, ecologically, economically and politically of such a plan. Instead, they want to continue wasting tax-payer money perpetuating their endless bureaucracies and maintaining the status quo of controlling bison in Montana and elk in Wyoming as livestock.

APHIS/DOL is taking our native wildlife assets and implying they are "diseased" liabilities. Not so. We need to put a stop to this insanity.

Comment By Robert Hoskins, 12-10-07

Glenn

You're on target. This is a message to hammer the public with continually.

Thanks for the copy of the Montana Code Section 87-1-323. For those who aren't familiar with it, it is an intolerable interference in the mechanics of game management by a state legislature.

The title of the section is "Viable elk, deer, and antelope populations based upon habitat acreage--reduction of populations as necessary."

In short, the purpose the section is to direct the Montana game commision to set herd objectives "consider[ing] the specific concerns of private landowners" and to reduce said populations to those objectives "by January 1, 2009."

This provides another example of the degree of control the livestock industry holds over wildlife management in Montana.

What about the specific concerns of elk, deer, and antelope hunters? What about the concerns of the public?

Well, according to the Montana legislature, hunters and the public don't count.

It is of course the same with bison.

The Wyoming game statutes do not have so explicit a directive to the game & fish commission to reduce herds according to the demands of landowners, but in fact, the same situation holds here as well. Herd objectives are much less a matter of ecological carrying capacity and much more a matter of landowner demands for fewer elk, deer, and antelope.

It's about grass, and the control of grass.

It is my hope that sooner or later the general public will realize what's going on.

RH

Comment By J.D. Kotrla-Chipps, 12-10-07

There are several problems with the bruellois program as it stands now. First of all there is not a definitive test for brucellosis. Whenever a herd is suspected of infection, there are a battery of tests that are done, and a "general" result is achieved from all of the tests. None of the tests, individually, are conclusive. The least reliable of them is the "card" test. It shows more false positives than any of the other tests. Of course this is the one they choose to use on the buffalo. And the "only" one. There are no follow ups, or post mortem tests after the initial card test.

If population reaches a MDOL conceived limit of 4,000, the card test is not even used, and the buffalo are just sent straight to slaughter. How they determined that 4,000 is the maximum number of buffalo that can be supported in a 2.5 million acre park is anyones guess.

Second major problem is there is no effective vaccine for cattle, and no vaccine, period, for buffalo. The disease isn't a reality in buffalo, so of course, it's impossible to create a vaccine for a disease that doesn't exist.

The animals that are testing positive aren't buffalo, they are cross bred "beefalo". But even they aren't being tested as a cattle herd is tested. One positive from an ineffective card test is a death warrant.

It's a stacked deck against anything that threatens the "cowboy welfare" program of cheap grazing on "public land".

Comment By Marion, 12-10-07

First let me clear up a couple of mistakes by Glenn, the cattle are vaccinated and are still getting brucellosis. Why is the question, the Bridger herd would be thought to be pretty far removed, and yet it got into them. There is talk about sabotage by those wanting to get rid of ranchers thrown around, but I wonder about birds or predators carrying infected tissue around. Of course there is the possibility of another middle man so to speak that is a carrier. The rancher would not have to kill all of the cows, but they would have to all be quarantined for a very prolonged period of time at a great expense.
The rancher has to sell his cattle to a packing plant that negotiates the price, which is far below what market price is. If I remember correctly at the meeting I went to there were two facilities in the country at the time of the Wyoming outbreaks, but now there is one.
Every state park that has buffalo has managed to get rid of the disease, YNP could too. Would it be hard, of course.
This whole thing should not be relevant to whether you like cowboys, cows, or not, it is a third world disease being kept alive for political reasons, and that is wrong.
Vaccinating all of the animals that can carry it until several years after it is eradicated is the only way to get rid of it.
Brucellosis is a health issue, not a political issue.

Comment By J.D. Kotrla-Chipps, 12-10-07

Before brucellosis can be eliminated, or prevented, by vaccinating. someone has to develop a vaccine that works. So far, they don't have one.

Comment By bob jackson, 12-11-07

I do have a lot of interest in the brucellosis program in Yellowstone because I lived with the Parks animals for 30 years. Plus I have my own bison herd, one I tried to develop in similar fashion as the ones I saw in the Park. Thus, I do not mind sharing a vested interest in what happens to these animals.

I was only one step removed from the biologists and their various studies for the Yellowstone Center for Resources. Since a lot of their studies meant field level technicians staying with me in back country cabins I would get a pretty good idea of what these people thought of study assignments or the administrative biologists from Mammoth headquarters (most of who I saw as pressured by politics from Washington either for specific results or who knew what was needed for job advances).

Some studies actually had merit but then again some of those folks trapping bears brought a lot of blueberry syrup and fresh cantaloupe 32 miles into the backcountry that never made it to the snaring locations as bait. Most of the supervisory PHD types coming down, I hate to say, either were on boondoggles or didn't have the foggiest idea of where to locate animals they were supposedly experts in. I would see folks in new govt. purchased Outback slickers and new White Packer boots scoping moose with new Leica's on slopes no moose would ever occupy. Or I would see them looking for and counting beaver houses but ending up with figures way higher because they didn't know the difference between a house and an old feed cache. Most wanting to get ahead fudged figures based on what the desired political finding was. As for what I considered legit biologists, the ones admired by their techs, they were always being hammered by politically oriented supervisors. If they didn’t tow the line they would be punished by being banned to the office (which meant ongoing studies were disrupted).

It didn't bother me too much because most of the flawed studies didn't end up with repercussions for the animals in Yellowstone. Less bears were screwed up emotionally or lost feet when we ate their bait.

I think everything would have stayed hunky dory and the animals would have gone on with their “business” if Yellowstone biologists had not been forced to eat their own children (trap and kill bison). This put a spot light on the way inept govt. folks were promoted through the system. Thus we end up in this comments section by lay people debunking with some very logical reasoning a proposal by Park biologists to vaccine for brucellosis. This Park proposal started with a biologist getting a free visit to Russia. Because one has to justify tax payers dollars for this trip the victory flags come out and the followers who know even less want to institute something by someone who is no longer around.

Behind it all I doubt any of these Yellowstone folks think vaccination can actually do the job but it does keep those breathing down their necks in Washington at bay for the time being. My guess is they hope the democrats get elected and they won’t have to be personally accountable for their proposal to vaccinate Yellowstone bison. If it is the Republicans in the White house I look for a lot of transfers so they can get away from what they proposed.

The real losers, of course, are the animals. No one in Yellowstone Administration chooses to stand up for them at risk of ruining their careers. Thus, we have perpetual disruption of bison and their ability or want to stay in Yellowstone. None of the folks running the inhumane trapping corrals wants to do the dirty work but are forced to from above. Their consolation prize for apathy in making corrals that work is more horses, dually pickups; horse trailers and front wheel assist JD green tractors. It is all part of administration getting more blood money to run the Park ($2 million / year, I believe). My Ala Mater, Yellowstone Nat Park, the jewel of the Park Service, has sold their soul.

So to answer David Nolts’ question, the only Yellowstone bison herd being preserved in a self determining and sustainable way is the Pelican-Mirror Mt. Bison herd. This is only because they do not leave the Park. But I fear mightily for them, these last of all the worlds Mt. Bison.
Yellowstone will be sending biologists in to study them and flush these wary animals out of their last corner of existence. At the same time they will not shut off outfitter use because they have to “prove” human contact adversely affects these bison first.

As for the Lamar herd most any studies will be tainted because they are all schooling together like scared fish. The Hayden herd has more structure left but its families are literally running scared when horse riders and hikers get anywhere near them in their back country homes in critical summer times.

I believe Yellowstone administration has the responsibility to give the animals of this countries public the protection and sanctuary they deserve while in the Park even if politics means death of these animals upon leaving its confines. The lack of caring and compassion for its bison and the mission they were directed, as part of the NPS, to carry out, I see as the as the greatest “sin” of Yellowstone. Someone there needs to stand up and say enough is enough and finally fight for this countries wild buffalo. If they lose their job at least they can go on with their lives with a clear conscious.

Comment By Marion, 12-11-07

Bob, what is the difference between you having a buffalo ranch and someone else having an elk ranch? Other than your bonding with the buffs of course.
By the way Bob, you described bureaucracy under any administration, I worked for several in IHS, including when they shut down the government, I was one of the necessary unpaid, who continued to work, while congress was obviously the unnecessary paid (they sure didn't do much except fight each other). I'm sure NPS is worse with all of the grant hungry people around.
JD if only beefalo test positive to brucellosis, then you have no problem with those animals being killed do you, so they won't further contaminate the herds? They are working on and testing vaccines if you read some of the articles I posted.

Comment By J.D. Kotrla-Chipps, 12-11-07

Marion, it's getting harder and harder to tolerate your inane comments and conclusions in this discussion. Such as buffalo being the source of brucellosis, wolves eliminating the remains of abortions that don't occur, and birds carrying infected tissue to other animals. Now you top it off with more of your asinine conclusions that I have no problem with an innocent animal being killed so they won't "further contaminate the herds"

Do us all a favor and go "contaminate" some other discussion.

JD aka "Buffalo Man"

Comment By Robert Hoskins, 12-11-07

Bob

Thanks for this cold-eyed look at the NPS/YNP bureaucracy that only an insider can give. Those of us on the outside know these things are going on, but it is vital to hear it from those who've been through it. I myself know that this is how government works from my long military service. No real difference, except that in the military people die, whereas here bison are dying, but no one in the bureaucracy cares about either. It's the cost of the power game.

And thanks for breaking up the paragraphs. My eyes thank you.

RH

Comment By Craig Moore, 12-11-07

JD Buffalo Man, I assume you are fessing up to being the Buffalo Man I referenced above. I would still like you to respond to my question whether your experience with a pet psychic for blackleg would work with brucellosis.

Instead of being a 'ladies ice skating judge' and pass out scores on the quality of remarks by others, perhaps you can address the issues and not the person. At the very least ignore those comments that upset you and spare us your ice skaking scores. Marion has her perspective built on a life-time of living in Wyoming and immersed in its wildlife. You have yours from raising buffs behind a fence in Texas, I believe. They are just different touches of the elephant.

Comment By J.D. Kotrla-Chipps, 12-11-07

Yes, I am called the buffalo man, and someday when you demonstrate a deeper understanding about such things, I may tell you more. That time isn't now, because clearly, you feel you need to tell me how to conduct myself, and what to think.

Should I address the issues, as you have done above? Or should I do as you say, not as you do?

My perspective comes from 70 years of living in a lot of places, and doing a lot of things.

btw- I happen to enjoy judging womans ice skating. Perhaps you can learn to follow your own advise before dish it out to others.

I've had abut as much fun as I can deal with here, the inmates are running the asylum, and it's time to water the elephant.

Comment By Glenn Hockett, 12-11-07

For David Nolt and others:

We have requested under the Freedom of Information Act a complete disclosure of the brucellosis investigation related to the incident at Baker and Bridger Montana because full public disclosure about what went on has not been forthcoming from either the DOL or APHIS. This is another very important aspect of this story on the interagency bison management planning open house and where this is all headed.

The continual public announcement from the various agencies that elk in Emigrant Montana are the suspected vector for brucellosis transfer to cattle in the Bridger/Baker incident is significant. As I understand it, the cattle in question were first tested from a “put together herd” of 51 Angus cattle in Baker Montana, some of which were headed for Ames Iowa to be surrogate mothers. Apparently, someone realized that a cow in the Baker put together herd had already aborted 2, not 1, but 2 calves during her lifetime. Actually, I’m not sure if this was known prior to the cattle being tested or after the test results came back. APHIS/DOL may have determined this only after finding out the cow was positive when they started tracing back what happened. Again, without full disclosure of the public record it is hard to know exactly what went on here.

Anyway, blood was drawn at Baker for testing but the cattle were shipped to Iowa anyway. The test of at least one cow came back positive and the cow was slaughtered later in Iowa. This cow was then traced back to the Morgan’s herd of 301 cattle at Bridger Montana. Some of the cattle in the Morgan herd were Corriente cattle that had apparently not been vaccinated and some of their cattle came from Wyoming. Eventually, 6 of 10 suspect cattle tested from the Morgan herd tested positive for brucellosis. Unfortunately, according to the outdated APHIS brucellosis rule the entire Morgan herd of 301 cattle were eventually slaughtered. This is where the story gets interesting.

At least some of the positive cattle in the Morgan herd apparently came from Emigrant Montana. When and how many is still unclear in the public record, because there is no public record yet, at least not one that has been shared with the public that has asked to see it. Apparently, cattle from Bruce Malcolm’s herd in Emigrant (a Republican Legislator by the way) shared a feed line with elk and thus the agencies have publicly concluded the likely source of infection is elk at Emigrant. At least this is how it has been explained to me.

Well, if elk infected cattle at Emigrant that would make 3 different cattle herds in Montana (Baker, Bridger and Emigrant). Isn’t that interesting? When did this transmission occur and how long were the cattle at Emigrant infected before they were shipped to Bridger? How many cattle herds does it take to be classified as a Class A state? I thought it was two. Problem is they can’t make a clear DNA tie to elk in Emigrant or cattle in Mexico/Texas (the Corriente cattle breed hails from that part of the country) or Wyoming or anywhere else for that matter because the chief investigator Dr. Lennis Knight with APHIS let 6 of the 7 infected cattle be slaughtered without collecting any DNA samples. Thus, critical evidence in this investigation was destroyed.

Collecting DNA samples was critical to finding the actual source of the infection, which is APHIS’ and/or DOL’s responsibility under the current rule/plan. Might have been elk, might have been cattle, but it sure wasn’t bison. Dogs, coyotes, deer and mice can carry brucellosis as well, so who knows. Brucellosis can be found in any mammal. Craig Moore’s link on brucellosis pointed this out (I think we can safely rule out the marine mammals in this case). Regardless, asserting the current bison management plan or even eradicating brucellosis in bison gets at a solution for the Greater Yellowstone Area is ludicrous.

However, the damage to wildlife is done because the agencies all implied elk publicly, with display maps and public announcements at the Open House. Only upon further questioning do they admit they have no “solid evidence” as to the actual source and that critical evidence was destroyed. Don Woerner a Veterinarian in Laurel understands the seriousness of this much better than I and he had some harsh words for the botched investigative process at the roundtable discussion on brucellosis at the Open House.

What I have lea