NEED A GOOD LAUGH THAT ISN'T FUNNY?

The Elk Vaccination Follies

Thanks to the Montana Stockgrowers Association and Montana Farm Bureau I had a great laugh this week when I read about their proposal to capture, test, vaccinate and release all the elk from coming out of Yellowstone National Park.

By Bill Schneider, 7-30-08

It has been depressing lately, don't you think? At the ORG (Old Retired Guys) table at the coffee shop morning after morning, it has been nothing but despair -- the war, the economy, the cost of gas, the steadily shrinking IRAs, the smoke, the aches and pains and health care crisis that makes them worse, and our political leaders unable to do anything about these and most other issues that really matter, at least to the ORGs. Nowadays, it's so hard to lighten up and wear a smiley face.

But alas, thanks to the Montana Stockgrowers Association and Montana Farm Bureau I had a great laugh this week when I read about their proposal to capture, test, vaccinate and release all the elk from coming out of Yellowstone National Park.

Are they serious? Or just trying to brighten our day?

The livestock lobby has concluded that Montana lost its brucellosis-free status because elk transferred the disease to cattle. There is no proof of this, mind you, only rabid denial that it couldn't be a cattle-to-cattle transfer and since bison were nowhere near the affected animals, by the process of elimination, it had to be elk. After all, they were seen in the same pasture, so they must be guilty, right?

To me, that's hardly a smoking gun, but even if elk have transferred the disease, does it really matter?

	Earth to Montana ranchers, this isn't remotely realistic, even with the Pentagon's budget.

The true cost of brucellosis is exaggerated, albeit still significant for a struggling industry like ranching, but imagine how much it might cost to develop a vaccine (millions of dollars and years off into the future), and then attempt to live trap, hold while testing, inoculate and release all elk crossing the invisible boundary between the park and Montana. Rest assured that nobody has the slightest clue how expensive this might be or how, practically, it could even be done, if it is possible, which I doubt.

So, it must be a joke, right?

If not, shame on anybody--especially any politician--who supports the idea. Ironically, most western ranchers are among the most fiscally conservative people we know. Yet, they're serious about wasting many millions on a plan that's guaranteed to fail. And even if it worked for one year, those hard-to-train elk will keep coming out of the park, year after year, so we'll have to be out there 24/7 forever, guarding our borders from elk trying to slip into Montana in the dark of night.

And who pays for it? You don't see the ranchers passing around the Stetson at the Stockman's Bar. No, they'll want hunters to pay for the fiscal folly through the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Park (FWP), just like Wyoming stockgrowers have politically forced the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to spend huge chunks of its budget, hunter's license money, on operating elk feedgrounds, the root of the brucellosis problem for the entire Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA), not to mention compensating ranchers for "losses" suffered when public wildlife wanders onto private land and has a meal.

In announcing their "Hot Spot Brucellosis Management Plan," the stockgrowers and farm bureau at least had the cajoles to say it out loud, that the costs should be borne by the federal government or "the appropriate wildlife agency."

Craig Sharpe, executive director of the Montana Wildlife Federation, the state's largest conservation group with 7,000 members, isn't smiling. Nope, he thinks it's serious and calls it "the most ludicrous, intrusive assault" on wildlife ever. "This proposal demands an outcry not just from Montanans, but from people across the country!!!!"

That's a four-exclamation-point alert, folks. You don't see that every day.

"It's just unreasonable to try to vaccinate all the elk in the GYA," Glenn Hockett, president of the Gallatin Wildlife Association told NewWest.Net. "It boggles my mind how illogical this is. We don't try to capture and vaccinate all the skunks for rabies; we vaccinate our pets."

"You can't eradicate brucellosis from wildlife in the GYA," Hockett adds and noting that elk and bison were affected by cattle in the first place.

Sharpe and Hockett are worried, but I'm not. I'm amused. The thought that the livestock industry even thinks it's physically and financially feasible to capture every wild elk coming out of the park is the real laugher. As a hunter--and not an especially good one, I admit--I can spend all season trying to get close enough to shoot one elk. Now, we're going to live capture, test, vaccinate, and release thousands of elk and keep doing it all year long, every year, from now to eternity?

Earth to Montana ranchers, this isn't remotely realistic, even if you had the Pentagon's budget.

Instead, I suggest you turn your political guns on your brethren in Wyoming and convince them to close down the brucellosis concentrators otherwise known as elk feedgrounds. These elk feedlots, financed with hunter's license dollars, greatly increase the prevalence of brucellosis in wild elk throughout the GYA. Without the feedlots, perhaps the prevalence of brucellosis would plummet among elk, not just in Wyoming, but also in Idaho and Montana, and greatly reduce any chance of transfer to cattle.

This seems like a mighty inexpensive option compared to the vaccination follies.

And here is a case where the FWP needs to really stand up for hunters in Montana and against politicians who persist in thinking we could and should eradicate brucellosis. FWP shouldn't waste one more penny of license money on the brucellosis scam and resist pressure to become a rancher-controlled, Wyoming-style agency.

Already, we see signs of this happening. FWP has doubled the elk quota around Yellowstone with minimal public input and is now talking about capturing 350 elk in the Paradise Valley to test the prevalence of brucellosis, which is commonly believed to be very low. Forget this folly and focus on projects that benefit the people who pay FWP salaries. "Even if it's 10 percent," Hockett reminds us, "it just doesn't matter."

What does matters to me is ranchers forget the brucellosis vaccination follies, and even if they won't abandon this sure loser, FWP needs to stay clear of it and concentrate on real issues affecting wildlife management in Montana. [End of article]

Regardless of the merrits of the plan proposed by stockgrowers, I'm afraid the information relayed by Glenn Hocket misleading. In fact, we do vaccinate wild animals for diseases.

There is an aggressive baiting/vaccinnation campaign on the east coast and the midwest that has had signfiicant success in limiting the spread of rabid wildlife - targetting mostly racoons (but cerrtainly including skunks).

Evidenced here in Ohio: http://www.odh.ohio.gov/ASSETS/FD77307EB3E64D83ADCE49F79527E3A6/NR042808.pdf

Or here in Pennsylvania: http://www.alleghenycounty.us/news.aspx?id=19296

Or here in North Carolina:
http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/rabies/orv1.html

Here, here Bill. Standing up for taxpayers and wildlife.

I don't understand how Hocket is being misleading, usfree. He's saying that we can't vaccinate ***all*** wild animals, not that we don't vaccinate any. Even the examples you site can't reasonably claim that they are getting every single wild animal, right?

And whose standards are you using to determine "significant success"?

Additionally, it seems like brucellosis and rabies have very different modes of transmission, life cycles, etc., not to mention that there is actually a fairly good vaccination currently available for one and not the other.

this is just the natural culmination of the profound sense of entitlement the Livestock Industry browbeats the rest of the country into believing they have right to.

Did you see what they're looking for in Utah ? :
http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_10037067

In Idaho they've got the bighorn situation on public lands clamped down pretty good.

the list of wildlife displaced, denuded, or otherwise destroyed on behalf of these few people is extensive - unfortunately we read balanced coverage of every last one in the particular rather than taking a look at the scale with the cost to wildlife considered in the aggregate.

It's time to put these folks' sense of self-importance to rest ~ give 'em some perspective about how the rest of our world works ~ boot them the hell off of public lands, and divert every last dime of the millions in subsidies wasted on combatting the impending condition of the natural world into our kids' schools or other some endeavor that has a half a shot at paying off.

I think this proposal is the funniest thing I have heard this week! If the Stockgrowers want to follow through on this; fine-make them pay for it! This is not my problem; I eat lots of meat but cattle is not part of my menu and, until things change with the industry, will not be on my menu. These people have a sense of entitlement like a 16 year old only child and I bet they can throw a temper tantrum like one too!

Bill....I am amazed you really believe it when you say that Brucellosis is "not the danger that ranchers say it is". Have you actually looked up the disease? Try Wikipedia. It is highly contageous to HUMANS as well as cattle. We ranchers must test all breeding cattle for BANGs (which is Brucellosis)..by law. This is to prevent the spread of this disease...to you, if you eat beef. If it is being carried in by either Buffalo or Elk or whatever...we need to prevent it. Please do educate yourself.

Joan Please dear don't EVER believe ANYTHING in Wikepedia Any one can change what's in there to say anything. That is the absolute LAST place to get any information PERIOD!!!! Now to the actual seriousness of the disease, there is absolutely NO RISK to humans as per JRankin ex State Vet of Montana when you COOK your meat and Pasteurize the milk. There is a MORE serious disease in hantavirus. It KILLS Brucellosis does NOT. So you expect us to go out and eradicate every mouse out there? I think not. BUT you would probably have better luck doing that than you would eradicating Brucellosis. For the fact that most all mammals are or can be infected with Brucellosis as they have found it in the Whales. Osteoporosis is a more debilitating than Brucellosis for the most part and it is EASY to not get 'bangs'. EVERY infected herd of cattle that has been found and slaughtered has hit the human food chain so tell me what IS the big deal? The wildlife that has it is killed and eaten. There hasn't been a human infection of Brucellosis in decades. We know more about it now than when APHIS wrote the 'rules' It's time to CHANGE those rules.
Bill Excellent Article.
By the way Ted Turner's ranch has had an outbreak of Anthrax, and our illustrious State Vet is recommending that the surrounding ranchers do NOT vaccinate. Seems to me Anthrax is more of a concern than Brucellosis. There are some very strange people in our 'powers that be' circle. I'm beginning to wonder if maybe they haven't contracted 'mad' cow.

As to the setting bate for rabies, I have to agree with Elcid, you are definitely hitting and mostly missing with that procedure, and no way to tell who or what has been 'vaccinated' Again it is much easier and more economical to vaccinate that which you have under your control the domestic. I don't believe there has been ANY disease that has been completely eradicated, and to think they can do that to Brucellosis in the Park is absurd. You have feral pigs carrying both the Brucella Suis (of which was tested for bio-warfare, and the Brucella Abort (which was NOT) How are you going to eradicate it, without eliminating EVERY living breathing thing on the Planet. So Get real. They have two herds of cattle they can use to 'test' their vaccines and study the 'growth' of Brucellosis in the cattle and figure out if cattle can thrive with it like the Elk and the Bison are obviously doing.

Not to get into the middle of the testing-and-vaccination debate--- because I know that ranchers are caught between a fiscal rock and a governmentally-imposed hard spot--- but I have to agree that Wikipedia is the LAST source you want to cite if you really want your arguments to be taken seriously.

"These people have a sense of entitlement like a 16 year old only child." Nice phrasing, Matt R. All seriousness aside, both the wolf issue and the bangs issue are looking more and more like self-correcting problems. In both cases, the rightwingers can't seem to control themselves; they can't seem to restrain themselves from overplaying their hand and overreaching the pace of the situation; and, in the end, their approaches simply look too outlandish to stand the "ho-ho" test. On the bangs issue, I can't imagine, once they start after the elk and not just the bison, they could possibly have enough political skill or propaganda control to keep the hunters in line and their rightwing solution set will begin to unravel from that end long before the elk are irreparably hurt. On the wolf issue, the issue was always going to be decided on the side of moderate conservation; but, they couldn't be satisfied with a process that sustained anything either moderate or conservationist. So, off they went and the very image of a governor (Butchy Boy Otter) being so stupidly and childishly crass as to wave a rifle over his head and start locker room cheering that he was going after the first wolf he could was enough to conclusively brand his side of the argument as dangerously "immoderate." Rightwingers just never learn, not about wildlife, not about Iraq, not about the economy, not about education or healthcare or energy; I guess they have trouble learning because they "have a sense of entitlement like a 16 year old only child."

Very well put Mike.

cooler heads and more sensible approaches will be possible after november 12. i'm guessing there is a political cartel behind this little scenario. does my sensitive nose smell a marlenee out there somewhere?

Right. Vaccinating elk really is a loser of an option. A much better option WOULD have been to get after the bison when bangs became endemic in the herd, in order to avoid transmission to elk. But noooo, NPS avoided the issue, let brucelloisis, an exotic to the continent, get out of hand in their "natural" population.
I want to ask, what happens if brucellosis runs unchecked in YNP region elk and starts popping up in the Breaks, out by Vida, west of Dillon, north of Bozeman? Then how do you suspect ranchers are going to react. How are they going to react to hunters who insist on taking a passive approach to a ranch-wrecking disease?
They'll sell. To developers. To rich candy and television tycoons who will NEVER let plain old citizen riffraff hunt on their new spreads. You people thinking ranchers are the enemy don't have a clue. You are your own enemy.

Dear Bill........thank you for your wonderful insight..that Wikipedia is untrustworthy. Ok..here
it is from the CDC: Humans are infected one of 3 ways; eating or drinking something that is contaminated with the organism, breathing in the organism, or having the bacteria enter the body thru skin wounds. Ok...hope you do not eat rare steak, touch an infected elk or other hunted animal and then eat or drink something without washing, do not eat cheese when in Italy or Spain; do not come in contact with the organism while you have an open wound..or have sex with someone who is infected.
This is not just a 'rancher disease'... altho for every cow that comes in contact with an infected animal (wild or domestic) she will at the very least lose the calf she is carrying, and then be sold thru the market..so do cook your steak to a frazzle. How naive of you to think it is not a big problem..and can be laughed at.

I'm sorry cattleman that now you lose the status of "Brucellosis Free", which simply means you can't ship your cattle out of state anymore.....So now you want FWP to raise the elk limits for hunter's to kill more elk.......The simple solution is that along with the other vaccines you give your cattle, for and extra buck or so include a brucellosis vaccine and your problem is solved....A no-brainer huh????

I only know that WE do vaccinate any cow that we keep in our herd..and other local ranchers do the same. The calves are sold to buyers who ship them out of state...to where most of the feedlots are. Problem solved?? No brainer?? Do you ever think of the whole process? If we cannot sell to out of state feedlots, we as an industry in Montana, will go out of business. Big DEAL I hear you saying. It is when there are no small ( or big) ranches seriously raising beef that you will wake up! You have just boosted Cargill into a bigger monopoly..and all the other big conglomerates that raise our food. Goodbye to the small farmer/ranchers....and good riddence you say, right?

Wyoming's experience with bait, test and slaughter makes the Yellowstone brucellosis eradication gambit totally absurd -- no way to affordably do it.
Brucellosis is primarily a threat to people who work with cattle (vets, ranchers) but no impediment to popping a steak on the barbie.
A more viable approach is to innoculate cattle, than elk and bison, or buy out enough surrounding ranchers to create a buffer zone between Yellowstone herds and cattle country.
I'd encourage ranchers, restauranteurs, grocery stores and consumers to investigate the benefits of grass-fed beef and stop moving cattle into feedlots where they get pumped full of corn and antibiotics, simply to grow some tasty fat (which by the way, ain't good for us!).
Oh, and a tip for Wikipedia users -- these sites are ultimately self correcting (you too can be an editor), but their primary value is in providing links to original studies, academic and governmental.

If we vaccinate elk and it works, then maybe we can do it to bison. Then, the ranchers won't have anything to complain about when the bison migrate out of Yellowstone. But wait, the bison still eat the grass that grows on our public lands but really belongs to the ranchers and their cattle.

Joan B. Mason: If brucellosis (undulant fever) is so dangerous to humans then why do they donate meat from the bison they slaughter to food banks and Native Americans WITHOUT TESTING IT OR THE ANIMAL? Apparently it is not a concern, or they are trying to make people sick. Which is it?
Brucellosis was a serious health risk before pasteurization. The federal governments rules regarding brucellosis are outdated and need to be changed. They unnecessarily hurt ranchers AND wildlife.

I think that if ranches are in danger of going under due to brucellosis, they have no one to blame but themselves. The disease is non-native and was brought here by cattle. All these rugged, individualistic ranchers who don't want government interference in any way now want the feds to step in and do something?!?!? Why don't they "cowboy-up" and fix a problem that they (or their predecessors began) when they brought infected cattle over here in the first place! They should be the first to pony up some cold hadr cash to fix this debacle if they are so terrified by it.

Joan,
You won't ever convince them. Like the title of the website indicates, this is the NEW West. Its inhabitants are self-righteous and disdainful of the OLD West, despite the fact that it is the back-breaking labor and sacrifice of Old Westerners that made this region so attractive to them in the first place. It doesn't matter what the issue is, between the government and the newcomers, I'm afraid the Old West Montanans are fighting a losing battle.
Depressing, isn't it?

Speaking of control and entitlement, I was listening to the news tonight and the congress with a whopping 9% approval rating went on vacation without voting on any type of energy bill. Something like 70% of people want some drilling restrictions eased, but as the commentator said, the Dems are so beholden to the environmental movement that they do not dare allow drilling. They feel this may be a gift to Republicans this year. Thank you enviros....and after all of my arguing with you guys too.

You are right..RKR. And it is depressing. Soon if the NEW westerners have their way the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem..will range from LA to DC. And the world is looney tunes. Makes me want to move to someplace remote and not subject myself to people with steel trap minds..closed shut!

Yes, Ruggster, it is depressing.
The other day I ran into a classmate of mine, farm girl who went to cowledge, got her masters and is now an urban planner in Minnesota. We had a chat, it became increasingly uncivil as it progressed. I got the impression that she feels those of us still in Montana are unwashed troglodytes for not being, um, enlightened as she is, shocked at the growth, et cetera ad liberalauseum.
She's in town for our Flathead High class reunion. I think I'm going to pass. The memories are sure to be better than the reality.

Marion,

Sure,let's drill.Because what we need is to become even more dependent on oil, make people think that oil is unlimited like they forgot it wasn't in 79, and make them all think it's okay to run out and by more Hummers. The air quality os so good in the USA, why worry?

Dave,

Groeth is great. Growth, growth, growth! More growth.Let's turn the country into one big strip mall from coast to coast. Wal Mart, tract housing, and taco bell for all. Forget about quality of life, growth is the messiah.

Matt, if you are able to manage your life without fossil fuels, please, please tell us how. We are sending the money for all of the fuel we use to our enemies, and that is for the fuel used by enviros too. If you have rigged up a sail to run your car on wind power, please share with us how you have managed to do that. The really strange thing about the insistance of enviros somehow feeling that fossil fuel from other countries doesn't pollute is the lack of environmental controls in those countries, plus the pollution caused by shipping.
As for growth, I'm not into telling others how big of families they may have, if you wish to try fine. Regardless, folks have to have homes and all that goes with it.

A couple of decades ago, when people counted more than animals, before CITES, the World Health Organization was able to vaccinate the world population against smallpox, and then eradicate the disease to a point where the only smallpox left was in frozen vessels in Russian and U.S. government laboratories. The fear of the Russian stores getting into terrorist hands existed, and it appears the U.S. had internal security problems that perhaps a recent suicide might have solved. So it is not now known if smallpox is still contained in Russian and U.S. laboratories.

Eradicating a disease is not beyond the pale of human endeavor. We have done it. However, in these times in the U.S., where human hating NGOs have wormed their way onto U.S. policy making agency committees, I suppose that they have enough lawyers to stop anyone from trying to eradicate another disease that kills humans.

If you carefully read the Russian science regarding wolves, it will become apparent they believe wolves spread disease and parasites far and wide due to their exposure to sick and healthy animals alike, all carrying something to spread to other animals, or to leave in scat far away.

So it is not much of a stretch to wonder why wolves would be introduced into a known reservoir of brucellosis by the very same advocates who would like the West rid of livestock. What a convenient way to spread a cattle debilitating disease. And from a world protected refuge, at that. Good ole Jellystone.

I was impressed by how toxic wolf scat is, and how easily some diseases can be spread by contact with the substance. The airborne warnings were particularly heartwarming. Of course, there is nothing in the EIS about any of the disease possibilities. The only possible good things Dr. Wolf will bring to the neighborhood are all related to who gets killed and how often, and the benefits thereof. That has been documented and discussed. Diseases spread by wolves has not, even though academics in Europe and Asia believe wolves to be a vector.

it seems to me the livestock producers not in the immediate vicinity of Yellowstone / Wyoming elk feedlots have an interest in clearing that area - a buffer - of livestock operations, so that they are not unduly punished for the inability of those surrounding yellowstone to manage their own herds. These producers/Stockmen Association are in effect holding the entire Montana industry hostage to the whims of their wishes with regard to wildlife "management" .

Dave Skinner, rkr, and Marion are right - the "New" West, and younger generations are becoming more and more aware of the folly of livestock production in the arid west, especially on public lands where livestock competes with wildlife, and those invested in aggressive wildlife management have much to fear and be frustrated about in the coming decades.

It's true and with the subdividing to make homes for more people, these people turning that property into exactly what they were trying to get away from i.e. lawns invasive flowers and plants, The wildlife looses, the Rancher looses, and APHIS is right on top of it with sticking to their OLD policies, and threats, it becomes a vicious cycle. The start and end at this point is APHIS. Not the Rancher, and not the wildlife. Everyone and thing in between are just 'flunkies'. The individual mom and pop Ranchers are being used and screwed by the Stock Growers and that is because of APHIS. The Bison and now the Elk are getting it from the Department of Livestock and the FW&P;all on the orders of APHIS. So don't you think it's about time we all get on the same side of the fence and hit APHIS? No matter who or what you want to blame or say is the reason for what has happened as to who brought the disease in the first place. Just like the Wolves it's here now lets deal with it. All the shudda cudda wudda's won't change that fact. But updating the policies behind the disease would make one heck-of-a big difference to all concerned.
Update the policies to fit the disease, THEN look at how it would be best to go after it. Fixing it IN the cattle makes more sense than trying to come up with a vaccine that will work on many different species,(elk, Bison, {deer? coyotes? gophers?} they have it too) instead of ONE as in BOVINE domestic.

B Eartz,

I realize your full time job is evidently propagandizing for very radical Jon Marvel and his Western Watersheds Alliance and your continual babble of hate for public lands grazers, which you try to limit to the so called "arid west" ranchers, is short sited at best and slanted to suit you and your eco groups goals.

You never mention the majority of ranchers who proudly provide critical water sources on the range for wildlife and especially winter and spring habitat down on their private lands. You never mention the huge comeback of wildlife numbers from nearly nothing in the late 1800's and early 1900's to their near historic levels today. You continually harp on subsidization of these ranchers and how vile they are. Quite to the contrary Brian, no matter how you are always trying to spin it. Of course that is what you get paid for.

I do however agree with Bill Schneider that it would be nigh on impossible to vaccinate the elk to make any difference in the big B problem.

I just checked back on this thread and, although there are a lot of good comments here, there are a few things that really ought to be clarified or at least re-emphasized to keep the discussion as valuable as it can be.

First, bangs came, as far as the scientists can tell, from English cattle and nobody with any scientific credibility thinks it was here before we were blessed with the influx from England and before those fat, waddling, English cattle gave it the native wildlife. It spread to the rest of Europe the same way and they got bangs from the same source that gave them mad cow. So, it isn't the fault of our native wildlife that it is here.

Second, bangs is in the wildlife in every state, with much more of it in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona than they will admit. When APHIS declares a state to be free of it, that designation means that they haven't recently detected it in a livestock herd and had a political reason to release the information. APHIS has never done anything that went against its political turf and the problem has gotten steadily worse over the past thirty years or so. Most infected livestock just goes to the salebarn in the next shipment and so much for that. So, it is disingenuous (surprise, surprise, given the source) to try to characterize Yellowstone as a particular repository for the disease beyond the facts 1) that it happens to be (thank God) a repository for a rich store of large migratory wildlife and 2) that the migration of these animals is a political point to be argued using APHIS as a overtly passive, but covertly willing, ally.

Third, undulant fever is nasty; but, meat from an infected animal is not 1) necessarily contaminated or 2) necessarily going to result in disease transmission. Frank N. is correct; hunters are always eating infected meat. It is butchering certain parts of the animal while letting fluids come into contact with an open wound that carries the most risk.

Fourth, although I am a public lands rancher and expend a lot of time, money, and energy to keep wildlife on my own places, I can't accept that "the huge comeback of wildlife numbers from nearly nothing in the late 1800's and early 1900's to their near historic levels today" is truly due to the good deeds of ranchers. Yes, most ranchers are more responsible today and much of the range, not all but much of it, is in a bit better shape today than at some times in the historic past; but, conditions of "the late 1800's and early 1900's" reflected the infancy of game management and regulation and the fresh legacy of slaughter left by the last of the markethunters. Ironically, the good folks of Catron County were perhaps the most ferocious in the country in their defiance of those early forest and game regulations in "the late 1800's and early 1900's" and that tradition continues today. So, having that particular commenter write about any "comeback of wildlife numbers" in that context is... ell, he just needs to review local history and current events more carefully.

I do believe that ranching in the West and even public lands ranching have a place, just not everywhere or anywhere under conditions dictated by the rancher. Ranching, like every other activity needs to be balanced against other factors, including the propriety of saving what bison and other flora and fauna need, and the balancing needs to be done objectively and without conflict of interest. Some number of cows, managed with care, won't ruin our wildlands; a different number of cows, managed with a selfish focus on the operator's interests, will.

Smallpox isn't really a good example to use to advance the idea that Brucellosis can be eradicated through an effective and comprehensive vaccination program. The micro-organism that causes the disease required human hosts. It couldn't remain latent in non-human animal populations. This was a very unique characteristic that turned out to be the disease's Achilles' heel. Brucellosis presents a very different biology, whence the problems with controlling it. Also, the suggestion that wolves were reintroduced as some sort of biological warfare agent seems far fetched to me , but perhaps an expert on wolf-to-bovine transmission of Brucellosis could shed light on this issue.

mike,

I stand corrected, it was not totally due to the ranchers, and like you said when the agencies starting managing for wildlife things started getting better. Just look at the US Fish & Wildlife Service and how they helped remove grizzlies and wolves from the southwest, and now are doing the opposite. It was a combination of things that brought wildlife numbers back and water development by ranchers was one of these happenings.

Catron County is always taking a hit from the uninformed and I guess if you call the people here and our county commissioners defiant for developing a land use plan that benefits the people and the landscape, well I guess we are just that. We are fighting back against the Federal Government for their intrusion and usurpation of power from our elected county officials. This all the while being reinforced by the radical NGO's who keep pushing the Feds into the onerous decisions affecting the citizen's rights and livlihoods here. We have been in the forefront of a never ending stream of so called endangered species, that have had tremendous impacts into the health and well being of our citizens, the Mexican spotted owl, the Spike Dace and Loach minnow, the Willow Fly Catcher, the Leopard Spotted frog, the Goshawk, now the Mexican gray wolf and next the jaguar and the final nail will probably be the grizzlies. The people here are hard working folks and will keep up the good fight to keep Catron County a place where we can live and raise our families. Not so unlike where you live mike. We are fighting for this great place to live but the opposition doesn't want the nasty old humans living here screwing up their "Mother Earth". Catron County is a proud county and I guess the envious or the jealous can't stand it. I guess they feel the people here should lay down and take it from the likes of the Biological Diversity Center, Wildearth, Defenders of Wildlife and etc. and etc. who are supplied with big money from the Turner Foundation, Pew Charitable Trust and on and on. All of these people want control of the natural resource here, and they either want everyone here to just disappear or shut up and be quiet.

Good grief, Tom, you really spun that one. There are three main reasons why Catron is a center for conflict over conservation issues.

First, God, Mother Earth, geology, evolution, fate, whatever you want to call it, put that country at the confluence of several very diverse ecosystems and it has great environmental significance for that reason, which is why "enviros," as some call them, are drawn to be involved down there. It is also one of the reasons why so much of that land was reserved for the public by the federal government in the first place.

Second, beginning right after the Civil War, an influx of unreconstructed rebels resulted in 1) the establishment of a defiantly rightwing, insular, and codependent quasi-southern culture with little or no ability to compromise or work with the environment or anyone else and 2) a long history of singlemindedly selfish and excessive resource exploitation that is the hallmark of those kinds of cultures. That tradition of excessive exploitation continues today moderated only by federal restraints and outside restraining influences and the people of Catron resent and resist such restraints and influences and conflict results.

Third, because of its insular history and culture and the resulting conflict, Catron has become a magnet for the weirdest and most perverse of the rightwingers and the grifters that come along with them. Conflict and conflict politics is now a cottage industry in Catron, as you of all people should know, and that is where all that carnival atmosphere conflict comes from. Catron has the resources and the opportunity to be much more; but, unfortunately, Catron has decided that it is more comfortable just wallowing in its own codependency and that is not the fault of the Biological Diversity Center, Wildearth, Defenders of Wildlife, the Turner Foundation, Pew Charitable Trust, or anybody else.

First of all there are too many issues that were never dealt with prior to bringing the wolves in. The ability to spread disease is only one of them.
First of all the "experimental, non essential" classification specifically says it may not be done if native species can be harmed. The wolves were trapped, and ready to load when positive proof of existence of wolves in Yellowstone was found. That should have stopped the whole thing right there until much more careful studies of the animals proven to be in the park could be studied and their genetics studied. We have no idea if those were wolves migrated from Montana, or Great Lakes wolves migrated from the Great Lakes, or remnants of the wolves native to Yellowstone. We have no idea if that remnant was killed by the introduced wolves or if they bred with them.
No one bothered to find out the effect of wolves on spreading infected tissue form the one known reservoir of brucellosis. They were written off as an end host, but I do not believe there is a study documenting this, certainly the impact of tons of raw tissue from diseased animals being killed and tissue taken by all kinds of predators and scavengers versus an occasional dead fetus on the surrounding area was ignored. Tissue taken from these carcasses can and probably are carried by winged scavengers many miles from the kill. When you have an organism that can survive up to 180 days this can be significant in the spread of disease.
Keeping the disease alive and spreading in the area is not sensible, what about other wildlife? Studies on the effect of brucellosis on moose are very limited, but those done show it is a fatal disease to them. They evidently do not live long enough for it to affect calf production. Could that be the cause of the declining moose population? Certainly the do not seem to get the disease as easily as elk and buffalo, why? Do you know of a single study on any of these things? Why not, they don't want to know? What about other wildlife? what about the diseases that wolves themselves carry? No one studied this before the introduction and they are not studying it now so far as I can tell.
Why not?
As for who had brucellosis first, that can never be answered becasue by the time the disease was identified both cattle and brucellosis were present. Teh only information I can suggest si the fact that it really does not seem to affect buffalo liek it does elk and cattle, which could indicate it is endemic in buffalo, in other words they have evolved to live with it over many generations.

Thus Marion since Bison have (if they have) why couldn't the Cattle? and why not study the cattle to see IF they could. Why waste the money on vaccinating a bunch of WILD animals (with an ineffective vaccine) when you could perfect (as best as is perfectable) the cattle vaccine for the domestic. There are already two infected herds to use as study herds and figure it out with. Why keep throwing this money away on the wildlife???????????

P.S. Pay these Ranchers like you would a University Herd or buy them out and put the University's to studying these cattle. Trying to vaccinate different species is a waste of time energy and effort until you can perfect it in one. Work on the CATTLE.

Ann, I like your idea of paying the rancher to use his herd as test herd and giving permission to study them. He does not want to sell out. Each rancher has his own special breeding program that he feels is superior, and they do not want a lifetime of work and study wiped out.
That still does not address the huge reservoir of brucellosis being kept alive and spreading in the GYE, and the effect on other wildlife. That cannot be ignored. The longer the disease is kept going the more virulent it seems to get. Some of the infected cattle have been vaccinated twice, but the disease seems to get stronger.

Exactly Marion and you start vaccinating the wildlife and THAT strain will get stronger then you have to recapture and vaccinate the wildlife again. (you can't tell me you want to pay for 2 or 3 times of Wildlife vaccinations, when you KNOW you can't get rid of it) ***STUPID*** You know that happens in the domestic, (you just said so) you would NEVER get everything that has it vaccinated, before the stronger strain would come out and you would have to start ALL OVER AGAIN.
I understand that the cattle are generations of work, and that is again why it is so dumb to kill the non positive testing ones. Like someone said before. Who's to say those negative ones don't carry a resistance or whatever you want to call it, and that is why they aren't positive. Let the Rancher continue the way he is. Heck they have to test them anyway. We eat the infected ones, So Why NOT let the Rancher continue? Make him an offer. If he would prefer the slaughter method like the Morgans HAD to do, then they would buy them out and put them at MSU or Laramie University (Were ever they do that down there) Give them something to research for improving the CATTLE vaccine. Quit wasting all this money and time on the wildlife. Let APHIS relax the laws on Brucellosis, there is plenty of room for flexibility, for research to benefit all Ranchers everywhere. It is NOT a life threatening disease when precautions are taken, and it's time they realize that.

Polio has not gotten stronger since the vaccine came out, nor any other disease that I know of. The disease is what is gaining resistance because we are only vaccinating part of the potential victims of the disease. Once more what about moose and any other wildlife that may be susceptible to the disease? Let 'em die?
Every other place that buffalo are being raised they eliminated brucellosis, why not here, why do you want it kept alive? what about the family living out in the country drinking their own milk, do the deserve to be forced to take the risk of brucellosis if infected animals come thru? Is keeping the disease alive that important?

Klumker,

the marked benefit to wildlife that came about since the late 1800 and early 1900s came about as a result of range reform enabling the relative rationalization and legally enforced collection and application of scientific data informing the new regulation of the activity of grazing on public lands. the livestock industry - i.e. those livestock associations that USE mom and pops operations as a front to shrowd their agenda of privatization, have been fighting these reforms and the conservation values that the public has increasingly demanded. the benefit to wildlife we've seen relative to the past has been despite livestock associations' influence, it is sort of funny that you would site the achievement of rationalists and conservationists that parallel "enviros" like WWP's efforts in the same comment as condemning the effort. the land is by no means healed to the extent that it needs to be if the public is to enjoy the full potential of its Western heritage.

the project is not over. our ecosystems provide many more valuable services to the public than livestock grazing - and livestock grazing in many instances precludes the public's benefit. those include carbon sequestration - a condition denuded by livestock grazing, purification and abundance of water, a condition denuded by livestock grazing. bountiful wildlife - including big game, a condition precluded/offset by livestock. the list continues on and on.

this article is a remarkable example of the tendency of livestock to over-reach and is only one of many examples of such. livestock associations' agenda to 'control' wildlife in the belligerent attempt to sidestep responsibility for its own private enterprise is not surprising - government agencies have been enabling this behavior. but the public is waking up klumker - and the tighter livestock associations grip for control in a West rubbing the sleep off of its eyes the more the absurdity of this political extortion will be made evident to more and more interests and the more the 'control' will be lost through their fingers. feed is going up, fuel is going up, the good ol' boys names are more and more spotted in the obituaries - Simplot among them - whose political lobby and aggregated political capital via Craig (tip-tap) his children have little care to extend to public lands grazing now that he's gone, producers' children more and more don't want the same rugged fight against the natural world, their political lifeline at the federal level is fading fast, the science describes the fragility of the arid natural world more and more, the real-estate boom is fading - i.e. the urgency/viability of your 'cows vs condos' argument will fade, WWP expands to yet another state - willing, unlike most, to enforce the rule of law and the application of the best available science without paying any heed to folk like you who have little understanding of the law nor science but whose biggest contribution is an attempt to sling mud - sling it klumker, it doesn't change anything - the natural world is an inspirational thing, more and more are valuing it, and that means public resource to capture/vaccinate/slaughter/subsidize the destruction of elk, bison, bighorn, sage grouse, pygmy rabbit, pygmy owl, desert tortoise, steelhead, chinook, bull trout, white fish, fluvial grayling, etc. etc. etc. will wane as time ticks on.

brucellosis is a cheap livestock fear-mongering technique - it's worked alright for livestock associations in the past, but they're overplaying their cards and that makes my job a whole lot easier.

Marion how many animals especially wildlife have or had polio. They are updating vaccines all the time and you know it. Especially if you were really in the 'health field' Measles is back on scene. Anthrax too. You have to booster for most diseases the first time you are vaccinated. You want your money going out to recapture all the 'new'-borns? Why do you want all the money that could go to help these Ranchers thrown away on wildlife? you sound like you want the small rancher to get run out of business so the 'Big' Rancher can come in. You know there is no chance of a snowball in a hot place that they can eradicate Brucellosis. The Whales in the ocean have it it's all over the dam place. Start working to protect the cattle improve the cattle vaccine. Talk about running someone out of Business Marion you are leading the way.

"IF" I am an R.N. CNM and have worked health care my entire adult life????
The reason we have measles and other diseases coming back is because some parents refuse to get theri kids immunized, they cannot go to p[ublic school, but they can be home schooled. Keeping a reservoir of disease alive and well just doesn't work.
Whales got brucellosis from cows too????? I didn't know that.
You still are not dealing with the fact that moose die from the disease.

Well Marion, I'm sure glad you were never my nurse because you would probably clean the bathroom instead of clean the wound and change the dressing. And as to the rest of your blather I'm not going to waste my time.

OR stop the war before you help the wounded.

why is it that ranching seems to be the only (well, one of the only) businesses in this capitalist economy of ours that insists the rest of the public pay all its cost of doing business? subsidized grazing fees, predator control and eradication, now elk quarranteen. I wish i could start a business and get the government to pay my rent and eliminate my competition.
Earth to ranchers: Vaccinate your cows. Problem solved.

Derek, if I were you and knew how someone else was receiving all of that money ranching, I'd run right out and get a cattle ranch and let the money flow. The government is so good about give aways to ranchers, they will be more than willing to provide wyou with all of the wolves you want to keep your cows excercised and slim and trim, they may eat a few but what the heck, they are paying the costs.

mike,

Boy, I'm sure glad to know that the people of Catron County are such a collection of maggots. My God man what have you been smoking? I don't think the culture here is much or any different than most anywhere else in the West. The people who settled the west have always been accused by the Eastern establishment Blue Bloods, of being a bunch of thieves and scoundrels. My ancestors on both sides of the family were hard working homesteaders and I don't think they were ever anything but good stewards of the land and did not bring any compromise of the land or the environment with them, from the south or from anywhere else. They had to treat the land with respect or they wouldn't have been able to stay in business. The same is true today.

Now you and Ertz and the "johnny come lately's" want a total change of the landscape and total control of the natural resource.

The people of Catron County are standing up for our custom, culture and economy and you call that "wallowing in our codependency" aided by the "weirdest and most perverse of the rightwingers and the grifters" who have made our "cottage industries" the pinnacle of land and wildlife destruction. What a totally twisted rationalization of the real world here! Not even close mike. Maybe you need to come down and meet some of the good folks here.

I do however agree on much of the arguments on the brucellosis problem and that to try to institute a wildlife (elk) vaccination program is pretty much out of the question. So much of it is political and the APHIS and the livestock associations have a lot of problems that need to be ironed out. But then I suppose all members of the livestock associations are just maggots too. mike, with your and Ertz's collective superiority complex's, there is no room on the public land except for carbon sequestration and all of those feely good non consumptive uses that will bring your mother earth back into some heaven like utopia.

Well said, Tom. They cannot argue the facts so they resort to name calling and snotty remarks. Can you imagine if we went to their home and decided they had to redo everything, make room for wildlife that WE want there etc? They are going to control people....all of the people if they possibly can.
Czech President Klaus described the militant environmentalism as communism. No matter what the cause, the result is the same control people and forcibly change their behavior.
They have so much control, the Dems slunk off on vacation without touching offshore drilling despite the fact 70% of the country is in favor of it. they were afraid to even let it be debated for fear of reprucussions from enviros.
If NPS/FWS had taken care of it, or at a minimum considered it before hauling wolves the situation could have been taken care of much easier. They didn't and now it is going to be much harder. Does anyone think any environmental group is going to put up a bond to cover anyone who develops undulent fever becaue their milk cow or goat gets the disease from infected wildlife?

Bottom line Marioin you are spinning it to the fullest. There is no one trying to run anyone of of their Private Land except the Stock Growers and APHIS. The public land is not privately owned and everyone has a right to what happens on it. not just the cattle rancher. And wasting Livestock money on wildlife is stupid and wasteful and not helping the rancher one iota.

So, does anyone think this plan proposed by the Montana Stockgrowers and the Montana Farm Bureau is a good idea?

It's better than what you propose, Glenn.

Wow, this is quite a comment list you have going here Bill. They go from Brucellosis to measles to Russia to fat cattle from England. Capturing, testing and vaccinateing elk and buffalo are not the answer nor is destroying the cattle industry in Montana the answer. Ranchers will need to update their vaccination programs and do what they have always done, work their butts off and get it done. I would like to know if anyone knows where Brucellosis started, I am willing to bet that it did not start with domestic cattle from England or anywhere else but from wildlife at sometime.The majority of farmers and ranchers in the state do not want government programs but due to agreements like NAFTA and GATT which have adversely affected a multitude of businesses in the US our government decided to develope a new Farm Bill that would help offset these two idiotic agreements and take care of the rest of the world at the same time by allowing them to export their products into the US for free and after all at least 40% of the US population is supported by the government. I am wandering off course so back to wildlife versus the rancher, bottom line the wildlife in MT did not build this state agriculture did. A long time ago a wise man said that if big business takes control of the farming and ranching in the US the grass will grow in the streets of our cities. We have the cheapest food in the world and if we keep beating up agriculture most of the people in the US will not be able to buy food. Remember one other thing, the majority of Montanas fiscal budget comes from property taxes and the farmers and ranchers of Montana pay the lions share of these taxes. I have one last comment, for those of you that do not come from Montana but wish to change it, if where you came from is such a great place, why don't you take your ideals and go back there and turn that into your own little garden of eden. Montana does not need a bunch of radical enviromental groups and their out of state money to continue to destroy our way of life.

We don't need a bunch of fools running around thinking they can eradicate a disease that is carried by more than just bison or Elk. We need the Livestock money spent ON the livestock and not out chasing a bunch of 'rainbows' by vaccinating a bunch of wildlife.

But first and foremost I think they need to figure out why 'they' are still so afraid of a disease that isn't near what they thought when it was first 'discovered'. Besides being a non life-threatening disease, it's very EASY to not get.

Before anyone says about the people that slaughter skin etc. You know the 'hazards' before you take that job, and if it scares you then quit that profession, and move on. Quit making Brucellosis into a disease that really IS life-threatening like Mad Cow or Anthrax.

You know it seems to me that what 'they' should do, is Build fences around the 3 or 4 cattle pastures on the West side of the Park. (There are fewer than 800 head of cattle on this side of the Park when they ARE here) Eliminating the possibility of transmission of Brucellosis from Bison or Elk to cattle. The West Yellowstone Airport is bragging of having built just that type of fence, so it can be done. (No migration corridors involved at all)
Then they could stop all hazing operations on the West side of the park and Concentrate all that money from NOT hazing etc. on their CUT Folly. And improving a Vaccine for the Cattle.
Most people are looking at the disease as a whole, and not looking at what needs to be fixed because of that disease. The Cattle are what need fixing. If Brucellosis was found to be 100% preventable, OR Curable, do you REALLY think they would be giving a rat's behind about whether or not the Bison, Elk, Whales et.al. have it or not? Of course they wouldn't. So why concentrate on the entire disease? Work just with what you want to keep it out of the CATTLE.

What about the moose, are they disposable in orderr to keep brucellosis?

Ok Marion what about RABIES? That KILLS. You worry about diseases there is one to REALLY worry about. Go out there and eradicate that THEN come back and work on the less serious ones like brucellosis.