WYOMING ELK FEEDLOTS THE REAL PROBLEM
Debunking Brucellosis Myths
Montana just lost its brucellosis-free status, just as Idaho and Wyoming have in recent years, and stockgrowers and politicians blame the bison and elk herds living in Yellowstone National Park. But who's really at fault?
By Bill Schneider, 6-12-08
 |
|
 | |
| Caption: The cause or the victim? Photo by Benjamin Earwicker. | |
|
Montana just lost its brucellosis-free status, just as Idaho and Wyoming have in recent years. Whenever this happens, stockgrowers and politicians rush to blame the bison and elk herds living in Yellowstone National Park and the government for not doing enough to eradicate the disease.
When they should be blaming themselves.
Ranchers, especially in Wyoming but not only in Wyoming, have done more than anybody, even the federal government, to keep the brucellosis threat alive. And you could even argue that they want to keep it alive.
When Wyoming lost its brucellosis-free status in 2004, it was proved scientifically that elk caused the infection--not wild, free-roaming elk, but elk fed hay on state-sanctioned feedgrounds. Ditto for Idaho when the Gem State lost its status in 2006 because of transfers from elk. (Both states have since regained their brucellosis-free status.)
In Montana, the livestock industry blamed elk for the first brucellosis transfer last year and imply it was elk again that caused the second incidence of the disease revealed last week. Even though it’s technically possible to determine if elk caused an infection, these tests have not been done in Montana. At this point, counter to what we’ve been told, it’s merely a theory that elk transferred the disease. It’s more likely that it was a cattle-to-cattle transfer that caused it, but you aren’t reading that in the newspapers. Not yet.
To be clear, I don’t know what caused the outbreaks, but neither does the livestock industry or government agencies--or else they aren’t telling us what they know. All we know is that elk were seen grazing the same fields as the infected cow. But is that science? So, let’s stop assuming elk are to blame until we know the facts.
Here’s why the Montana outbreaks are more likely to be a cattle-to-cattle transfers.
Wyoming is a permanent brucellosis hot zone because the livestock industry wants it that way. Ranchers, the most powerful lobby in the Cowboy State, have forced the state Game and Fish Department to operate 22 elk feedgrounds to keep the animals off winter range intended for cattle. The high concentration of elk on the feedlots causes the prevalence of brucellosis to run as high as 30 percent. In free-roaming elk in the Greater Yellowstone Area, (GYA) prevalence runs from zero up to about 2 percent. And even that 2 percent is likely elk infected by “hot elk” from the rancher-endorsed, government-managed elk feedlots.
Many people believe all elk herds have some prevalence of brucellosis, but the truth is, the disease is distinctly a GYA problem. Only elk in and around the park have a measurable prevalence of the disease. Brucellosis in elk herds remains a GYA phenomenon because of the Wyoming feedlots where high elk concentrations create ideal conditions for the disease. The real problem is that we allow elk to be fed in close proximity to cattle.
It is remotely possible but extremely unlikely that one of those “hot elk” from the Wyoming feedlots (or a free-roaming elk infected by it) made it up to the Paradise Valley in Montana and transferred brucellosis to a cow. And in this case, it was physically impossible for bison to have caused the transfer. So, if it wasn’t a wildlife-related transfer, the infection had to come from other cattle, such as herds of Corriente cattle recently shipped into the area, rumored to be from Texas or Mexico, where brucellosis has been prevalent for many decades.
In reality, the brucellosis scare is not about controlling a disease. It’s about controlling elk (bison, too, but that’s another story for another time) and keeping them from eating grass meant for cows. You wouldn’t have to be too deep into conspiracy theory to argue that the livestock industry wants the brucellosis boogieman out there to hammer state wildlife agencies with its political will and to keep elk and bison away from their grass.
And the economic impact of losing our brucellosis-free status is much overstated. Please refer to a NewWest.Net guest column written by Robert Hoskins called The True Cost of Brucellosis. Hoskins exposes the misconception that losing brucellosis-free status devastates a state’s livestock industry. It might increase production costs as much as 1 percent, but that’s the maximum.
So, it’s another myth that brucellosis is anything close to the economic catastrophe ranchers make it out to be. The real catastrophe is stockgrowers, elk hunters and wildlife agencies allowing the elk feedlot folly to continue when everybody knows that the big brother of brucellosis, chronic wasting disease (CWD), is on the horizon. CWD has been documented 90 miles from the nearest Wyoming feedground and is guaranteed to reach the winter-fed herds soon. When (not if) it does, state agencies might have to wipe out entire elk herds in an attempt to keep the disease from spreading into Idaho and Montana. If agencies don’t gun down the elk herds in designated “total kill zones” (actions called for in state CWD action plans), the disease will do it for them, infecting and killing 40 to 80 percent of the animals.
(If you want to know more about this dire threat I’ve called the CWD Time Bomb, click here.)
In conclusion, the entire brucellosis issue seems like a fraud. At the very least, it’s dramatically misplaced priorities.
Wyoming keeps feeding the elk while stockgrowers keep feeding the fear of brucellosis to the public despite its minor economic impact. Ranchers insist on keeping the Wyoming elk feedlots open, even though this more or less guarantees brucellosis won’t be eradicated, and therefore becomes their self-fulfilling prophecy--and, of course, brings ever closer the day when CWD reaches them and devastates our elk populations.
[End of article]Dave Skinner recently wrote:
"Fact is, the brucellosis situation is not a natural disease event. And while it it not an easy situation, clear eyed reasoning would indicate that an intense cycle of test and slaughter for both elk and bison would eventually remove brucellosis from the pool."
Perhaps this will work; and couldn't we reason that the same solution should also include "an intense cycle of test and slaughter for" cattle too (they aren't native to this area). Seems like it's the cattle that brought the disease here. Or, even better, in order to save the feds money and make the process a whole lot cheaper, let's let the wolves do the killing for us! (I know there will be someone that hates me for that comment).
Bill
Thanks for addressing this issue. You've hit the nail on the head; the brucellosis problem is actually the brucellosis fraud, a massive propaganda scheme about the alleged threats to the livestock industry from brucellosis in wildlife, accompanied by millions of dollars of handouts to the livestock industry and academics for what I call "tech-vet" solutions (e.g. vaccination of wildlife), all so the livestock oligarchy can sustain its obsolete powers and privileges that it gave itself over a century ago when it controlled state government. These powers and privileges of course include control of the range for the benefit of their cattle. The livestock industry isn't so much interested in disease control as it is interested in control of wild, free-ranging wildlife.
From those old days when the Stockgrowers put in place the political and economic institutions through which it even now maintains its powers and privileges, we now have the spectacle of the so-called brucellosis problem in wildlife becoming the cattle industry's REAL brucellosis problem. Even though the politicoes and bureaucrats in Montana, from Governor Brian Schweitzer on down, are attempting to pin the two brucellosis incidents in Montana cattle on elk, which have now cost the State loss of brucellosis free status, they've provided no scientific evidence for it. As you note, one can get the evidence if one bothers to take careful biological samples and the samples positively indicate elk. But amazingly, neither APHIS nor the MT DOL bothered to do so with the Morgan incident a year ago. We'll see what they do with the Burns' incident. But the similarities of the two incidents argue against an elk source.
In any case, the implications of both incidents involving Corriente cattle up from Mexico or Texas, where brucellosis is still an issue, has the potential to blow a big hole in cattle markets, as it is clear that "hot," brucellosis-infected cattle are slipping through some pretty big cracks in the market surveillance system. That the livestock industry apologists are so quick to blame elk for the problem indicates to me that they already know the real problem is with cattle and cattle markets, not wildlife. They're scrambling to come up with a Karl Rove-like solution to their own incompetence, their own lies, and their own arrogance. I don't think they can do it this time.
We still have the problem with the elk feedgrounds here in Wyoming that you've described so completely, but perhaps an implosion of the Montana livestock industry over its undeniable role in causing these brucellosis incidents will help us down here to get rid of the damn things. Also, the lawsuit over feeding elk and bison on the National Elk Refuge that's been filed in DC may help break the hold the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association has over elk and bison management in Wyoming.
Irony is sometimes sweet.
Thanks again. These things needed saying.
RH
Continuous complaints about too many taxes guarantee there will not be enough federal controls in parks--while states respond they will not stand for more unfunded liabilities.
Citizens bemoan the failure of their governments for inadequately protecting their interests.
The Great Communicator always said government is not the solution but the problem; so we see what a tragedy Alzheimer's can be for so many of us.
But I don't hear anybody hollering for more taxes to combat Alzheimer's, either...
Yes, the elk feedlots are a disease concentrator, but guess what...they're also a whacking good spot to
1. Test and slaughter (no euphemisms from me, nope)
And lets not forget why the feedlots exist. They allow lots more elk to survive the winter, meaning more elk to enjoy in the summer when the grass grows and more elk to hunt, and more hunters to buy licenses with a decent chance of success.
Get away from all the hidden social-manipulation agendas, such as running the ranchers out, or taking game control away from those who have paid into Pittman Robertson all these years, and what remains? A disease, exotic to the hemisphere, that needs gone.
And no, let's not get off into tangents about feral piggies in the Southeast.
And lets not mention the wolf factor and how it has mobilized elk, or trophy buyers and their role in elk movements.
I have to wonder, why isn't anyone tossing out the idea of feedgrounds in all three states precisely because of their utility as a bait for getting to, and eradicating, the disease? Guess I just did.
Well Dave, I'm glad to hear that your knowledge of elk, elk ecology, and elk management has improved since you wrote that Range magazine article about the Morgan brucellosis incident. I looked at it recently to see if you mentioned the obvious, that the Corrientes were the problem, but alas, you left that out. You were too busy blaming elk, just like everyone else, even though there's not a shred of scientific evidence of an elk source for the brucellosis in Morgan's Corrientes.
Let's see, yes, you acknowledge elk feedgrounds cause disease, but they are also the key to curing disease.
Can you not see the sheer irrationality of such a statement?
I seem to remember a parallel from Vietnam, "we had to destroy the village to save it." Yes, that sort of thing made sense back then; it made for a great sound bite, and that's how we ended up with My Lai.
Of course, because the Wyoming Game & Fish Department says the same thing, that we have to foster disease to cure disease, that makes it rational.
Interesting, because "hot" feedground elk caused Wyoming to lose its brucellosis free status in 2004--which no one can deny because the necessary conditions, what I call the "threshold of infectiousness," existed for interspecies transmission--that no one saw reason to take the elk by the horns and run them out onto winter range so that brucellosis could burn itself out over time, a longer but surefire way of getting rid of brucellosis in elk. But of course, the ranchers claim that winter range for their own, which is the real reason for the feedgrounds, to keep elk off grass reserved for cattle, and brucellosis doesn't really count. Didn't cost much either when Wyoming went to Class A status, and what cost there was, the Wyoming taxpayer picked up the tab. That's all in my New West column from March, the True Cost of Brucellosis.
By the way, the threshold of infectiousness--hot elk fed in close and continuous contact with cattle--didn't exist with the Morgan incident and no one has demonstrated that it existed on the Burns ranch with this latest incident. Everything points to the Corrientes. Two discoveries leading to Montana losing brucellosis free status involving Corrientes. Surely, you don't think that's a coincidence?
For someone who doesn't trust government, you seem awful trusting of G&F;and its claim that its necessary to infect elk with brucellosis to cure them of brucellosis. Hell, I live here, and I wouldn't trust G&F;to irrigate a hayfield properly, which it can't do by the way. G&F;does do a pretty good job of buying new F350s with my hunting and fishing license fees instead of funding habitat, but I guess that's not germane to the discussion.
RH
P. S. I've been paying into Pittman Robertson and other wildlife funds for years as a hunter and angler, and I object to those funds going to subsidize ranchers with feedgrounds to the tune of $2 million a year. As an elk hunter, I don't need elk feedgrounds to boost elk numbers so that I can find an elk in the fall. I find my elk the old fashioned way: I hunt for it. Of late, I must confess that my lead horse, a mustang, assists me in finding elk. His nose is better than mine.
Ok. "They" said half of the Bison population was infected with the Brucella. "They" said the IBMP Plan stated that 'they' would test and slaughter only the positive Bison. Had they followed "Their" own plan, 'they' should have tested every Bison that was 'exterminated' this year, and then "they" could have patted 'themselves' on the back for having 'eradicated' it in the Bison. So Why didn't "THEY"? Since thanks to "THEM" over half of the herd is no longer with us. They have no desire to get rid of the disease, for one thing they know it is not the disease they try to make JQ Public think it is. Look at all the land, grass, and Politicians the Stock Growers Association has in "their" pockets.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 6-12-08Robert,
Feedgrounds in and of themselves do not CAUSE infection, however they do present an OPPORTUNITY for infection. I'll concede that, after all it was the mule deer in the scrapie pen in the 1960s that gave us the gift of CWD.
All that conceded, you are not being very straightforward when you deny that having an elk magnet like a feedground is an excellent opportunity for testing, vaccination and capture for slaughter. Furthermore, the elk infection rates in herds such as the Firehole are higher than the one to two percent you state.
As for the Corriente issue, it is definitely there. Fine. Perhaps the state MSGA and MCA should look at a "hold" or some kind of agreement to keep Corrientes out of the region until Tex/NMex has been Class Free for a period of years.
On the other hand, there are Corrientes in other states and other non-Yellowstone areas of the three states that are not infected or have not been detected. So it's kind of hard to point the finger at the breed with any certainty.
In my mind, the blame here lies with the Park Service's failure to face biological reality as well as with those harboring sociological objectives along the lines of creating a new and rather strange "West."
Just keep trusting the lowest bidders to solve your problems--and help them out by insisting on even lower bids.
Comment By flounder, 6-12-08Maybe more corporate welfare can help solve the problems caused by the corporate welfare that is known as feedlots.
Comment By Robert Hoskins, 6-12-08Dave
For all intents and purpose, the artificially high density nature of feedgrounds does cause disease. It's the human management system of artificial that causes the disease. This is an established principle of epidemiology.
Test & slaughter is bad management and bad science. Your assertion that the feedgrounds provide an opportunity for disease control violates ecological principles; the extraordinarily densities obviate any possibility of eradicating or controlling disease; they extend disease transmission.
Vaccination has been proven not to work. Test & slaughter has not proven to work. What will work is to reduce densities by spreading elk across the landscape to take advantage of those lower densities as well as elk birthing behavior to allow brucellosis to burn itself out. Even G&F;admits this. However, the livestock industry won't permit it.
RH
Violating "ecological" principles? I propose an experiment. Test and slaughter and vaccinate one year. Record infection rate. Test, slaughter, vaccinate next year. If decline, continue. If stable or increase, close feedgrounds for one or two years. Reopen feedground, test slaughter vaccinate, check infection rate.
Seems that doing some sort of experiments over time with changes in the "control" would give a rather rapid feedback cycle on what is or is not effective. And I would HOPE that an effective SOLUTION is the intent here. Is it?
In all cases, however, by all means, disperse around birthing time.
Dave
Actually, several years ago, before things became so bad and before we had thought the moral issues through, we proposed exactly that. The response from the ranchers and G&F;? No dice. More evidence that no one's interested in disease, but grass. Test and slaughter on the feedgrounds as it is now has zero scientific validity as a control/eradication mechanism, the same as vaccination. It's about control of wildlife, not disease control. It's about politics, not science.
RH
"Range Magazine" = filth, lies and deceit. I have never seen such a blatant attempt to spread misinformation.
Comment By moos, 6-13-08I received this an hour ago:
http://www.northernbroadcasting.com/stories_detail.asp?ID=934
elfman,
Perhaps if you would take off your blinders you might get a clue as to the real life story of the West, while reading The Range Magazine. I guess the truth hurts! The Range Magazine debunks the eco-socialist agenda and has a very close connection to the heartbeat of the real West, not the imaginary and idealistic utopia yearned by you and yours.
At least people like Dave Skinner and Robert Hoskins seem to be fairly apprised as to some of the onerous problems of the West i.e. brucellosis, and how it is affecting us, and are making a positive contribution to the true Western society.
Klum:
How would I know about Range Magazine if I had "blinders" on? I would have never heard of it. I have read many, many issues and each and every one made me more sick to my stomach than the last. I love your fightin' words though... "...the truth hurts!" Bwaahahahahahaha!! That is a good one. Been watching some Jack Nicholson? Oh no... wait... that one is "...You can't handle the truth!"
By the way, in case you didn't read the article it appears debatable whether Brucellosis is affecting "us" as much as some would have us believe.
First of all let's look at what has changed over the past few years that we have this sudden rash of brucellosis showing up....and all in vaccinated cattle! Are there more infected elk, more infected buffalo, or is something else carrying the disease or diseased tissue? What is common in all of the areas where brucellosis has broken out? What can carry diseased tissue around at any time?
Predators. How much of the tissue a predator is carrying to it's young is infected?
We know predators are infected, but they are supposed to be unable to pass it on. Is that actually true? Whether or not that is the case they can certainly carry infected tissue from place to place.
Do you have reason to believe that the cattle you mentioned were not tested and vaccinated before being brought into Montana?
There are no untested cattle brought into Wyoming, but all of the areas that have had outbreaks in vaccinated cattle have one thing in common....lots of wolves. Add that to increased bears and predatory birds and the chance of infection are greatly increased. I do like Dave's idea of test, slaughter and vaccinate, and close feedgrounds, then test again.
Remember the Elk Refuge is nearing 100 years old, and the brucellosis outbreaks have started withing the last few years. It is true that the Refuge did not have buffalo in the numbers they do until the last few years too.
Marion,
You maybe right on on the wolf factor in the spread of brucellosis. Down here in New Mexico brucellosis is pretty much confined to a dairy herd or two in the eastern part of the state. We don't have feed grounds for our elk and I don't know of any cases of corriente cattle coming from Mexico having brucellosis.
One thing we are seeing here is a tremendous outbreak of rabies and and alarming rise in scarcocystosis in our elk here in the wolf recovery area. That is a kind of a slow wasting disease and is spread by canine feces. We had never heard of it before.
Elfman, keep on reading the Range Magazine, maybe someday you will be enlightened, although I doubt it.
The parasitic disease is spelled sarcocystosis. It kills elk and causes cattle to abort. The last study on canine droppings in 1984 says it was not in the coyotes or house dogs in AZ, NM or TX.
Comment By Marion, 6-14-08I don't expect any studies to be done on whether the wolves carry brucellosis from one are to another or whether they spread other diseases. It just wouldn't be acceptable to have to admit that the environmentally correct saviors are actually harming it. Everyone could benefit from reading Range Magazine, but they could not bear to deal with the truth.
Comment By JetMech, 6-14-08Its called quarintine, idiot, (the feedlots in Wyoming) and its a federal law not just a Wyoming state law. Where do you get off writing such drivel? Are you a biologist, Mr. Schneider? Do you know exactly whats going on in the battle of this disease? You paint these ranchers as some sick twisted individuals that want to perpetuate the disease. How does that benefit them? By losing their income when an outbreak occurs? Think before you react. It's always the human condition that is the source of all our ills, isn't it Mr. Schneider? Do the people of the West a favor and take your conspiracy theories elsewhere.
Comment By Ann, 6-14-08Bottom line on all this is it didn't come from Bison. So all the time money and effort has been wasted on Bison when it could have been better spent in fencing etc. for the Ranchers. The Corriente cattle need to be investigated further, The Elk feedlots need to be closed down. Montana should have gone to split state status to save the rest of the state from these few 'Risky' Ranchers. And they SHOULD have tested and slaughtered only the positive testing Bison, since they knew they were going to do an all out reduction of numbers this year, after the GAO chewed their behinds. Over half of the herd is gone now, and they would have had one hell of a big leg up on the Bison brucellosis issue, (according to how 'they' say it needs to be eradicated) had they done what they had agreed to in the IBMP plan. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it either.
Wolves carrying the bacteria BULL S. The bacteria can't survive in the open air long enough for it to be 'active' for some dumb cow to 'ingest'.
This entire past year has been nothing but a fiasco, the one thing it has shown is the wasting of money time and effort, for no good reason. Heck they can't even decide if they need to reduce the numbers because of too many Bison or because of disease. All they do know is they must KILL BISON. And I will still ask WHY?
Okay, Mr. Schneider, I did some of the leg work that you should have done and have brought back some tidings to your alter of Left-wing hypocracy.
You've provided a link to an article by Robert Hoskins that relates to the economic impact of Brucellosis. According to that article, Hoskins states that the impact is only 1% of the market. Reading the article, that 1% is only the testing of Brucellosis....which is already incurred in the present market. Hoskins mentions the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, a division of the USDA, so I went to APHIS and found this in their writings on Brucellosis:
"Reintroduction of the disease into a brucellosis-free
State could have a serious economic impact on domestic livestock markets and potentially threaten export markets."
Serious Economic Impact.
Do some leg work before going spouting your theories.
I'm finding way too many holes in this article and even some contradictions:
"Many people believe all elk herds have some prevalence of brucellosis, but the truth is, the disease is distinctly a GYA problem." GYA, as you mention, is the Greater Yellowstone Area. Then you go on to state:
"...such as herds of Corriente cattle recently shipped into the area, rumored to be from Texas or Mexico, where brucellosis has been prevalent for many decades."
So, which is it? Just related to the park are is it prevalent in other places?
The truth of the matter is you are vilifing ranchers, the very people that work hard to keep the nation and the world fed, in an attempt to paint yourself as a good steward of the environment..."oh the poor elk & bison" There are agencies out there working on this disease and, fortunately, they are not as biased as you are. They are taking the threats to the wildlife into account as well as the threats to our food markets.
Doesn't it seem strange that an organism that has such a short life as supposedly brucellosis does can be transmitted so readily and so virulently that it can override immunizations against it? Strangely enough it seems to pass from species to species with a great deal of ease.
Comment By Melisande R., 6-15-08Great article, and some great comments too.
The ranchers are not bad people - just very poorly informed. I find that many otherwise smart people are not that educated on microbiology - I teach human biology, and I'm no expert - but the ranchers where I live know way less than I do.
Expert advice - not killing bison - is needed here.
Agreed Melisande!
That is one thing I've been trying to do is wake the Rancher up to the way they, as individual ranchers, are being treated, making the tax-payer aware of where their money is being thrown away. and that the Bison are NOT the enemy. We need to get APHIS to figure out why Brucellosis is such a THREAT. I can't see that it is necessary to kill an entire herd for only a few. A closer scrutiny of that herd (maybe), positives being slaughtered (maybe), But until they learn more about how it can be eradicated IN domestic cattle first and foremost, they are fighting a losing battle. And that Battle is being fought at the Rancher, and the Tax-payer expense with NO progress. Fence those pastures to keep the wildlife OUT, and start keeping a closer eye on the cattle that are brought IN. That would be an immediate first step. A closer look and more work on the Split State Status at least saves the rest of the Montana Cattle Ranchers. And to say it divides the Ranchers is a scare tactic, Al Sharpton would use.
Don't forget, folks, brucellosis hit the science radar after the Crimean War when British sojers came down with a strange fever. Whatever you say, it's clear to me in the transmission vectors that the pasteurization of milk was at least partly in response to Bangs. Never mind the Hebrew and Arab prohibitions against eating certain meats (pigs carry brucellosis in the US Southeast) are based at least partly on observed sicknesses caught by doing things you aren't supposed to do with brucellosis.
Now, the human form of this, undulant fever, was widespread at the turn of the century, when drinking homebrew milk from Bossie was still common. Not a coincidence.
Finally, brucellosis is not often fatal, but it is debilitating, a tactician's wet dream in military terms. So Uncle Sam successfully WEAPONIZED brucella abortus in the Fifties. Those stocks are gone...but the fact remains that brucellosis is a serious human disease. That's why, Ann, it's such a threat.
And that's why the threat has been pounded down to near-nothing nationwide, after 80 some years and a whacking bunch of money, with the exception of YNP...where the disease was pretty much limited to some of the small YNP herd at the time the "natural regulation" scheme became cool.
I would think and hope that given the difficulty of going after CWD and the icky result of our failure there would have everyone with a brain just hammering to eradicate the disease in the YNP area while it is still possible.
But there are those blind to the prize. Too bad.
Never have I said it is NOT a disease. I've been saying all along, we know how to NOT get it, we know how to keep the livestock from getting it i.e. separation fencing. There are only a handful of cattle ranches in the immediate 'hot' zone, Why have the entire state 'suffer' because of those handful? The feral pigs in the south have it, Bison have never transmitted to domestic animals, (without help from human intervention) The focus as far as I'm concerned should be on the cattle, not on the wildlife. Perfect the vaccine for the cattle. Concentrate on keeping cattle from getting it OR bringing it in. IF it is so dangerous, then treat it as such and not as a selective reason for exterminating Bison and letting everything else run rampant. (As in why didn't they test and slaughter only positive testing Bison this winter instead of just killing them all? Half the herd is gone they would have quite a leg up on eradicating it in the Bison had they followed their own plan, according to them) Get consistent, concentrate on the disease IN cattle. If that's dangerous, so be it. Like I've said before, if I see the neighbor's dog kill my chickens, I'm not going out and eliminate every coyote in the area. Just as Bison have done, NOTHING!
Comment By Marion, 6-15-08It should be quite clear by now that one cannot get rid of a disease by only targetting part of the carriers. That is why schools require ALL kids to be immunized. No one has even investigated the part that predators would and have played in this spread of the disease. Now we have a first class mess, that no one wants to take any responsiblity for, especially NPS or FWS. The wholething has become a political football and various species specific advocates are adamant that their species cannot be at fault. The rancher is left holding the bag.
Like it or not, we better do some serious studies on the roll of predators in spreading disease. It is popular to say that predators will prevent the spread, but to the best of my knowledge NO one is checking the tissue they carry around, the disease effect on them, whether bites can pass it on or anything. In fact no one has seen a lessening of the spread by predators. Increasing lions are not stopping the spread of CWD, in fact it is spreading further and further and in widely seperated areas. What besides birds could be carrying it?
We most certainly have not seen a decrease in the presence of brucellosis with the increasing predators, it too has increased and spread.
When I first read Bill's article, I knew he was stirring up a hornets nest.
Consider the word "Myth." Let's take a more macro view of things. We have rapid population growth across the globe and in this country. We also have prices going out of sight. Now we have food producing regions here in the US and Asia stressed by floods, and in other world regions by drought. Push is beginning to handshake with shove. This can't go on. How does that relate to this column? Cattle and other stock raising in the "hot zone" is under attack. Gov. Schweitzer the other day sent a letter wagging his finger about how his 2 zone approach should have been implemented. All that would have done was slice off those stock raisers in the "hot zone" and offered them up for sacrifice. Keep in mind if the pie can be cut once, then it can be many times over. The "B" problem needs real solutions. However, how many food producers can we run out of business and still support a growing population? What are our priorities to support a growing, healthy society?
The reason for the "Myth" is it's not an 'unknown' disease anymore, and is easily kept from contracting when necessary precautions are taken. The meat is edible the milk is drinkable, all you have to do is 'cook' it. As to it's effects on animals, slaughtering only those that test positive is a start. But why not study a domestic cow herd, that is already infected and use them as your 'test/study' group. It obviously is not affecting the Bison nor the elk in the ways 'they' say it does domestic, so fix the domestic.
The horrid 'dread' of the disease is the 'Myth'
Wow. Lots of inaccurate hyperbole. It was NOT "proven" that feedground elk transmitted brucellosis to cattle in Wyoming - the test used (HOOF-PRINTS) is not that good. It's suggestive, and nothing more. The brucellosis prevalence in northern range elk can be (and often is) much higher than 0-2%, including elk that use YNP. These are not winter fed elk. Explain that some herd units have seroprevalences >10%, please. There are no scientific data to support your claim that 40-80% of the elk in the GYA (even feedground elk) will contract and die from CWD. This is not consistent with the disease in elk, even elk concentrated part of the year. For goodness sake, get off the high horse and read some scientific literature and talk to some folks that have these data or are working to get them.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 6-16-08Ann,
I dare you to be the first to snarf either milk or meat from a brucellosis-infected animal. You first.
And I'm tired of the "never transmitted to cattle from bison" crock. Researchers in Texas proved transmission goes both ways. Bison calves in the teens first got the disease from cow milk, so where's the logic in assuming the transmission won't go the other direction. Never mind that elk are ungulates, too.
All it takes is any of these animals to dip their snotty snout in the wet afterbirth of one of the others. Doesn't happen every time, but it happens often enough that the disease DID spread between species, IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.
Thanks for coming in here, Doc. Right on.
Dave Don't you comprehend what you read? I said it's easy enough NOT to get it. I'll drink pasteurized milk all day long, and I'll eat infected Beef Elk Or Bison, because I COOK my meat. Anyone can IF your CAREFUL. They eat the wild infected animals, they send the slaughtered animals to food banks. So doesn't that mean it's edible? After all Tomatoes now a days are more dangerous than Brucellosis infected anything. Take precautions.
USDA is the one that says their 'hoof-print' is what it is. I read their page etc. on it. They are the ones that brag that they can determine the exact host of the disease. I never said it I just read it off their web page. You guys can scream all you want to, Bison have NEVER transmitted to Domestic cattle in the wild EVER that they can prove. So I never said it the 'authorities' said it. As to the Elk in Wyoming Robert is better qualified to answer those arguments. To put all the focus on the Bison is ludicrous.
Ann, I know exactly what you meant. But perceptions are something else, especially when one considers how "food scares" are often jumped on by crusadeniks with a cause -- Alar being the first of a long line. Seems like just about every ingredient causes cancer or baldness.
I just felt it wasn't very fair of you to declare that brucellosis somehow should not be controlled because it can be cooked or boiled away, as a means of minimizing the problem.
My position remains, eradicate the disease, and THEN we can argue about bison roaming, elk roaming, wolves roaming, on the merits -- not using an untreated, unmanaged exotic disease in surrogacy.
I agree it is a Disease, But I also think that APHIS needs to rethink the seriousness of it. Such as killing everything that has been in the same pasture. I don't think it's necessary to kill every cow on the 'farm' because one tested Positive. I don't agree with those policies, when they still eat the infected animal, and this is the 21st Century, and there are better ways to investigate it, if not there should be, and they are wasting an awful lot of time money and lives. (both human and animal)
Most dairies pasteurize, so that ends the problem in the milk. Bison are what I'm trying to 'protect' you might say. Why are the Bison being singled out (not as much since Wyoming is doing what they are to the elk now too) But to be selective about the disease, such as, Bison being hazed and slaughtered, Elk are NOT. The Wyoming herds were (According to the reports I read) infected by Elk.
The Cattle in Montana, as Karen has been saying have not been proven where the source is, as of yet. But Bison, for the most part, were excluded from the cause, yet they are slaughtering Bison at will. Even their own plan said test and slaughter positive animals, so why didn't they? Why just kill every Bison they get their hands on? There are an awful lot of diseases out there, that when first 'found' were considered 'life-threatening' but with education, scientific study, etc. they were found to not be the 'dreaded' disease they thought. That is what I feel is the story with Brucellosis.
I don't think there is any disease that is COMPLETELY eradicated. But controllable is another story.
Thank you Dave, you summed it up very well. Manage the disease then manage the animals.
I am old enough to remember when people got this disease from unpastuerized milk. It can be a chronic debilitating disease to humans. Does anyone KNOW (as in proof) if goats can get the disease? A lot of families have goats for their own milk. Another potential source of infection if we insist on keeping it alive?
Well Marion, then why aren't you advocating an all out war against the Elk, the same way you are against the Bison? And have it be done as haphazardly, unorganized, and chaotic as they do the Bison, with no semblance of order nor any scientific or any other type method.
If you are going to use disease for the reason, then by gawd stick to it and follow through don't change reasons in the middle of the operation. Too many/disease? Let's see it's Monday so we'll say there are too many Bison, but on Tuesday, it will be disease. That is basically what they have been telling the public. I know I deal with it everyday they are in operation. I can't fathom the possibility that Brucellosis can be eradicated in the wild (lest we forget the feral pigs in the South). And that is why I feel they need to study the disease in the cattle and perfect their vaccine, along with keeping the animals separate such as fencing. You start Vaccinating the Wildlife, and the next thing is a stronger strain of the disease, then you have to go through and revaccinate all the Wildlife again, BUT if you perfect your vaccine for the cattle, then you can update the cattle vaccinations, much cheaper. Fencing pastures to keep Bison and elk out, would be an immediate 'quick-fix'. Saving the Rancher even more from the threat of his cattle getting infected. That along with Vaccinations, and you have a good start at keeping your livestock clean.
I'm also beginning to think the Cattle market inspecting for these types of things is ending up like the 'downer' cow fiasco, and the airlines, Too many being let through without the proper inspections. And like Dave so eloquently put it, it only takes one.
Too much attention is on the Bison and not enough looking other places. Elk?, Corriente Cattle? Who knows but until they complete the tests, and hoping they report the Facts no one does.
Ann,
I love your tenacity and your unwavering support of the iconic bison. You've said what I would have liked to say and then some. Go give them hell, girl!!
Brucellosis is such a fraud. This article is so refreshing - finally, someone willing to take a chance and tell the TRUTH. Thank you Bill!
And as to eating brucellosis-infected meat, people do it all the time. If you hunt in the GYA, chances are, you've eaten it. Plus, all the slaughtered bison meat gets donated as food - so what's the big deal with brucellosis? Your cow gets it, she gets over it and doesn't get it again. Big deal. Maybe the industry should start blaming APHIS for such ridiculous rules, rather than blame the wildlife that the INDUSTRY infected with the damned disease to begin with. Such a fraud. It's just all about grass, plain and simple.
To hell with cattle - hunt, fish, go vegan - do anything but support that industry.
The real "fraud" is minimizing its effects and how it is transmitted.
From the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/Brucellosis_g.htm#istreatment
>>>>>>>>>
What is brucellosis?
Brucellosis is an infectious disease caused by the bacteria of the genus Brucella. These bacteria are primarily passed among animals, and they cause disease in many different vertebrates. Various Brucella species affect sheep, goats, cattle, deer, elk, pigs, dogs, and several other animals. Humans become infected by coming in contact with animals or animal products that are contaminated with these bacteria. In humans brucellosis can cause a range of symptoms that are similar to the flu and may include fever, sweats, headaches, back pains, and physical weakness. Severe infections of the central nervous systems or lining of the heart may occur. Brucellosis can also cause long-lasting or chronic symptoms that include recurrent fevers, joint pain, and fatigue.
How is brucellosis transmitted to humans, and who is likely to become infected?
Humans are generally infected in one of three ways: eating or drinking something that is contaminated with Brucella, breathing in the organism (inhalation), or having the bacteria enter the body through skin wounds. The most common way to be infected is by eating or drinking contaminated milk products. When sheep, goats, cows, or camels are infected, their milk is contaminated with the bacteria. If the milk is not pasteurized, these bacteria can be transmitted to persons who drink the milk or eat cheeses made it. Inhalation of Brucella organisms is not a common route of infection, but it can be a significant hazard for people in certain occupations, such as those working in laboratories where the organism is cultured. Inhalation is often responsible for a significant percentage of cases in abattoir employees. Contamination of skin wounds may be a problem for persons working in slaughterhouses or meat packing plants or for veterinarians. Hunters may be infected through skin wounds or by accidentally ingesting the bacteria after cleaning deer, elk, moose, or wild pigs that they have killed.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Unpasteurized milk has a growing cult following these days. "That industry" makes cheese that is a major source of calcium for many people.
I get the impression that LetBuffalo is more concerned with controlling other people's behavior to fit his ideas. Are you planning to make the back to nature folks get rid of their goats too so you can dictate who eats and drinks what?
Brucellosis is not a myth, it is real and the sooner everyone starts operating on that premise the better.
Are you saying that the DOL, APHIS etc. aren't doing just that? The selective 'disease' control they are doing now, by only singling out the Bison. The Corriente Cattle as possible carriers, the Elk having transmitted (according to authorities) yet it's still kill only Bison.
Comment By Marion, 6-17-08Are you saying the Corrientes have never been tested? Or vaccinated? Wyoming does test/slaughter elk.
It is the idea that cattle ranching must go and people must sotp eating beef, (and drinking milk?) that I have a big problem with. The whole thing was able to be swept under the rug until the disease suddenly started popping up in certain areas of the two states in the last 5 years. It should have been dealt with years ago, but waiting solves nothing, nor does putting folks out fo business.
We can have disease free free ranging buffs or we can have limited infected animals kept within the confines of YNP. As for the elk, if we don't get the disease obliterated they too may have to be confined to Yellowstone.
Great piece, Bill! You have it figured out exactly.
Comment By Ann, 6-18-08Well Brucellosis for the most part doesn't kill. Hantavirus does. Shouldn't there be an all out war against all rodents then? Eradicating hantavirus seems more important than Brucellosis for the fact it kills. BUT eradicating either is an impossibility in the eco system, so work on the cattle. People are aware of the health risk involved with Brucellosis, and the precautions necessary to not get it. What is more important? livelihoods? or LIVES?
Comment By Marion, 6-18-08Ann, you are right Hantavirus does kill, and rodents are the carriers. However some rodents in southern Wyoming and northern Colorado are listed as endangered, so if people die.... To the best of my knowledge the Preble's have never been tested in any way for disease, I guess they figure if they do cause a problem, oh well. I think those farmers impacted by the protected mice would be very happy to have them eradicated or even be able to control them, but they have their supporters just like buffalo have theirs, wolves have theirs, IBWs have theirs, and so on. And anything that will control other people is going to be fully supported by the greens, and they have the money and the clout to make it stick.
Comment By JetMech, 6-19-08Hah.
Debunking the Fraud Behind this Activist's (Bill Schneider) Article.
Printing a Pro-bison article before all of the facts are in. It has to be the Mexican cattle, huh, Bill? Maybe you should have waited for the results of the tests. Go ahead, I'm sure you'll find something else to blame, because after all it simply cannot be the wildlife. Isn't that right, Activist Biased Bill?
From the Billings Gazette, as of early Thrusday June 19th:
"The U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) also did a genetic analysis of tissue from one of the cattle infected in 2007. They concluded the disease did not come from fellow cattle, said Rachel Iadicco, an APHIS spokeswoman, a finding that runs counter to the Mexican theory."
Yes and that was the Morgan herd, and they stated back then that it definitely was NOT from a Bovine Source. Well Bison are Bovine. so that kicks them off the list too.
As to the latest outbreak, IF they can definitely say it was NOT the cattle, then they should know exactly what was the host. Why are they holding back on THAT little fact? Bottom line, There has NEVER been a documented case of Bison transmitting to cattle. Where as Cattle have transmitted to cattle, and ELK have (according to the 'authorities).
P.S. Had they put even half the effort they put into Bison eradication into the Elk would there still be outbreaks? They need to rethink their procedures, and APHIS still needs to rethink their policies. What they are doing is NOT working.
Comment By Ann, 6-19-08P.S.S. Do they 'pick' on the Bison only because they are easier to harass? It's obvious they (Bison) have done NOTHING wrong.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/debunking_brucellosis_myths/C41/L41/