Bison Management
Bison Slaughter, Funding Woes and Landowner Demands at Horse Butte
By David Nolt, 3-19-08
 |
|
 | |
| Above: Yellowstone National Park and Department of Livestock staff corral bison at the Stephens Creek capture facility north of Gardiner. Below: A sign at the entrance to the Galanis ranch. Photos by David Nolt. | |
|
Yellowstone Park and the Montana Department of Livestock sent this winter’s 991st bison to slaughter on Tuesday morning, and as the Billings Gazette reported, that number paired with the 166 killed in state and tribal hunts means nearly one quarter of the park’s 4,700 bison have been killed this winter. This year’s tally is the largest number of bison killed in a single winter, but not the highest percentage, which occurred in the 1996-97 winter when nearly one-third of the park’s 3,500 bison were killed. Park spokesman Al Nash said the park’s bison management strategies ensure genetic diversity and described the park’s bison population as “robust.”
Meanwhile, 69 landowners in the Horse Butte area filed a letter with Earthjustice addressed to four Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP) signatories demanding all haze and slaughter operations in the Horse Butte area cease until an Environmental Impact Statement addresses the changing nature of the now cattle-free peninsula.
And if bison weren’t in the news enough, the Bozeman Daily Chronicle is reporting the Animal Health and Inspection Service (APHIS) doesn’t have the federal funds to complete a grazing lease on the Royal Teton Ranch, which would allow bison to access about 7,500 acres of winter habitat north of Gardiner.
The 2000 Interagency Bison Management Plan provided $2.8 million for the 30-year grazing lease on the Church Universal and Triumphant’s (CUT) Royal Teton Ranch, but APHIS Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Bruce Knight says his agency will not be able to provide the $1.5 million needed to meet state and private funds. APHIS currently has a $9 million budget to manage the disease brucellosis. The lease was intended to allow increased bison tolerance by allowing animals exiting the park to access winter forage on the CUT’s property.
Department of Livestock Executive Director Christian Mackay told NewWest.Net the budget shortfall “wouldn’t really change [bison management operations] day to day right now.”
The goal of the IBMP is to “preserve a viable, wild population of Yellowstone bison” while preventing the spread of the disease brucellosis from bison to cattle, though no such transmission has ever been documented. Elk and other mammals also carry the disease, which can cause female ungulates to abort their young.
As bison migrate out of the deep snows of Yellowstone National Park in the winter looking for forage in the Madison and Yellowstone River drainages, the signatory IBMP agencies, led by the Department of Livestock, haze bison back into the park or capture them at the north and west ends of the park. The majority of captured bison are then sent to slaughter.
In June, APHIS discovered the disease in Jim and Sandy Morgan’s herd near Bridger, Montana. Nearly 600 of their cattle were sent to slaughter as a result. The transmission is believed to have come from elk in Paradise Valley, but no official report has been released determining exactly how the cattle were exposed to the disease. If one more cattle herd in Montana tests positive for the disease, Montana could lose its brucellosis-free status, requiring producers to test cattle before slaughter. The Department of Livestock says this is a costly risk the state can’t afford to take, but bison advocates say the agency has created a double-standard for elk and bison and spends far more on bison management operations than it would cost to test cattle.
On the West side of Yellowstone, tensions are rising on Horse Butte peninsula where landowners are asserting the DOL and three other IBMP signatories must adapt their management plan due to the lack of cattle on the peninsula. Utah residents Rob and Janae Galanis purchased 711 acres on the peninsula last year and subsequently removed all cattle from the property in order to manage it as a “wildlife preserve.” The Galanis’ are asserting the DOL no longer has a reason to haze bison on their property, but the agency is maintaining its right to do so because bison cross the lake over ice or by swimming from the peninsula to areas where cattle graze in the summer.
Cattle from three Montana ranches are typically brought into this area in late spring and early summer when the grass is ready to be grazed. There are also cattle currently in the Red Canyon area and around the South Fork of the Madison River. The potential for transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle is increased in the spring when bison are calving, but, according to Montana FWP research, the brucella organism does not persist beyond June 15. Affected aborted fetuses are also typically devoured by scavengers, and the disease does not last long in warmer temperatures.
The situation on Horse Butte is currently at a stalemate. The DOL has requested meetings with the Galanis’ to discuss “some type of increased tolerance,” though Mackay said the agency has not produced any specific alternatives.
“Without communication, it’s difficult to put any specifics on that,” Mackay explained.
The Galanis’ have not agreed to a meeting because the DOL has not produced specific proposals on how it will adapt bison management practices on the peninsula, according to the Galanis’. The Galanis’ were also signatories to the March 3, 2008 Earthjustice letter.
The letter, addressed to Yellowstone National Park, the Gallatin National Forest Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Montana Department of Livestock, asserts the lack of cattle on the peninsula creates an “opportunity for a greater tolerance of bison” migrating out of the park into the Horse Butte area. The letter urges the agencies to conduct a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to “re-assess the appropriate geographic scope of bison management to address the alleged threat of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle in the west boundary area.”
In the letter, Northern Rockies Earthjustice Attorney Timothy Preso writes, “Given the changed factual circumstances at Horse Butte and your agencies’ explicit authority and ability to modify IBMP practices in response to new conditions, the governing federal and state law requires your agencies to prepare a supplemental environmental impacts analysis before inflicting any further adverse environmental impacts, such as bison hazing, capture and slaughter, at Horse Butte.”
“It [the IBMP] is an adaptive management plan and it’s asking them to adapt their plan, which they seem reluctant to do,” Preso told NewWest.Net.
Department of Livestock Executive Director Christian Mackay would not comment about the specifics of the letter because the DOL legal team is reviewing it. The four addressed agencies plan to release a joint response.
Also at issue, though separately, is the potential renewal of the Gallatin National Forest Special Use Permit for the Horse Butte bison capture facility. In 1998 the Forest Service issued the DOL the special permit to operate a portable bison capture facility on Gallatin National Forest Service lands about 9 miles northwest of West Yellowstone. The Forest Service is currently offering a public scoping comment on their proposal to renew the permit for 10 years.
Gallatin National Forest Hebgen Lake District Ranger Bill Queen said the Forest Service will consider the lack of cattle on the peninsula, but emphasized his agency is bound by the IBMP. Queen also said the Horse Butte site is the most humane place to capture bison because it limits the distance the animals are hazed.
Click here to learn more about the Horse Butte capture facility permit, and stay tuned for further developments on all things bison.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
It's about time the DOL et.al. quits trying to blame the Galanis' for the continuing hazing. We all know the DOL only wants to use the Galanis property as their staging ground, just like when the Munns family had it. They had the Munns family by the short hairs ever since they threatened them with quarantine those many years ago.
Every day more of the IBMP member's untruths are uncovered.
Soon the public will see the lengths these agencies have gone to fool the public.
Over 22,000 acres on the Horse Butte peninsula needs to be grazed off, Bison could do that, it would help the handful of residents in their fire reduction, and allow the humans to focus on the timber.
We had a good snow fall this season, but it won't help lower the drought conditions of years before. The Bison could be a big help, and not cost anyone anything if they were allowed to reduce the grass and weeds that are overrunning the Butte.
Before anyone jumps on the NO COST issue, DON'T forget there are NO cattle within MILES of the Horse Butte Peninsula, thus NO risk of any transmission of disease. By the time cattle are brought into the area, there is no afterbirth, hence no ability to contract the disease.
Again I will mention that Yellowstone park is NOT the only place Brucellosis is alive and well, for the mere fact there are feral pigs running around the southeastern U.S. that are infected with Brucellosis. They are an even bigger threat for transmission than the elk or Bison.
I'd like to know, just where is all this peace and tranquility, people are talking about, when referring to living in the west ??
ML..
The 30-year lease is a sham, an attempt to make these entities look like they are finally "doing something" for buffalo. In truth, they are exacerbating current mismanagement actions and would continue to block a significant wildlife migration corridor. Only 25 wild bison would be allowed to temporarily occupy a portion of CUT and Gallatin National Forest land. But first, the "lucky" 25 buffalo will be captured, tested, tagged, vaccinated, collared, vaginally implanted and otherwise run through the typical bison torture gauntlet.
U.S. taxpayers have already paid CUT $13,000,000 for wild bison to access these lands. CUT has completely failed to fulfill their end of the bargain, the U.S. Forest Service has neglected their responsibilities, and this year Yellowstone has slaughtered nearly 1,000 (and counting) wild bison as a result. Why should more millions be given to CUT so they can add more insult to injury by letting a handful of mistreated bison be given temporary access to a fraction of their historic habitat?
CUT and the Forest Service still have an obligation to ensure that bison benefit from the 1999 land deal by providing a "safe haven for the bison" as detailed in that agreement. It is their failure to do this that is impeding the infamous Interagency Bison misManagement Plan from moving into Step Two. The NGOs and FWP who are blindly pushing this most recent extortion effort as the saving grace for buffalo should be ashamed for misleading the public into believing that bison would benefit in any way. Only by forcing CUT and the USFS to fulfill their end of the bargain struck in 1999 can we begin to stop the slaughter of what's left of the northern range buffalo herds.
Finally, some real journalism on the issue.
And, it's balanced. Just the facts...
Unlike the article in today's Comical, perpetuating the "brucellosis has been eradicated everywhere but Yellowstone" lie.
I'm told they will print a "clarification" tomorrow.
David doesn't seem to need those.
Adaptive management for the agencies means that "we're going to do bad things to bison now because the politics demands it, but we promise to do good things for bison later, IF the politics changes." Well, since bison aren't welcome in Montana, and as far as the livestock industry is concerned, never will be, the politics won't change. Therefore, the status quo mismanagement and abuse of bison will continue as long as the livestock industry has veto authority over any decision to move bison onto winter range in Montana.
It's so simple. It's up to the public to change the politics and ensure that bison management serves the public interest, not the special interests of ranchers and the livestock industry.
By the way, the inability of APHIS and DOL to pin the brucellosis tail on elk for the Morgan cattle herd outbreak should suggest to the public that it's not possible to pin the tail on elk because elk didn't cause the outbreak. There is no doubt in my mind that the outbreak had a cattle source. Of course, neither APHIS nor DOL can admit that. The press needs to really start digging into the false claim that elk are responsible. They aren't.
I agree with LetBuffaloRoam. The CUT deal is troubling on numerous fronts and is not supported by the Gallatin Wildlife Association. Thank you LBR for pointing out the failings of that potentially expensive boone-doggle.
Regarding the overall “Plan”, I don’t care how much lipstick Al Nash, Bill Queen, Christian McKay and others put on this pig it is still a pig, and an expensive one at that. Bailing the Titanic with a thimble is another analogy that comes to mind. Gentlemen, governor, it is time to abandon ship.
Excellent coverage of this issue. You got many of the technical details correct, and I'm so pleased that some of this information is finally getting out through the media.
So I have to disagree with you about cattle being the source. BUT I also understood that the samples were destroyed so there could not have been an in depth test to verify exactly what was the source. (Sounds like a cover-up to me) USDA can find that source in what they call the 'HOOF-Print'.(on their web site)
Had APHIS stopped these hazes, a couple years ago, especially on this side of the Park, there would have been enough money to complete the deal with CUT. If not have completed it had a heck of a big hole punched in it. And been a lot closer to finalizing the deal. So more proof of tax dollars having been misused.
I don't agree with this 'killing field' but again Hunters could have been allowed to hunt. There were plenty of tag holders that didn't get 'the' call. MORE proof of our tax dollars being wasted. (Could have been put into the CUT fund or a fund FOR the cattle). By these actions Robert's example of them NOT ever wanting to allow range is more solid. Wonder what their response to that would be. Wonder if they would try to blame the Galanis' for that too.
It's time everyone tries to hold these agencies accountable, and with their 'BIG' bosses looking at elections, I think I would be nervous were I them.
I can't believe the cattlemen (some of them) still feel that Bison are their enemy, when the Agencies have proven they waste money that could go FOR the rancher in covering all vaccination costs, testing costs, and supply fencing to keep Bison OUT of their pastures. I can only hope they all wake up soon and realize the war is against the WRONG species.
I just corresponded with some locals in the area and they told me the cattle do not typically show up on the 3 private land pastures until about June 15.
As you pointed out in the article, this is the date supported by the most current science (Aune et al. unpublished) beyond which the Brucella bacteria has never persisted in the Greater Yellowstone environment. This is good news for both those interested in leasing their land for livestock use in the summer and those interested in seeing wild bison managed as year round valued native free ranging wildlife in southwest Montana.
What was reported is that APHIS and DOL CLAIMED that they had proven there was no cattle source. In fact, they have proven no such thing. I note that we are still waiting for an epidemiological report that we can study and critique for errors. And there will be errors, omissions, and outright lies. That is our experience in Wyoming with APHIS.
The agencies made a big deal out of testing Morgan's neighboring cattle herds and declaring them all negative for brucellosis and using that fact to claim there was no cattle source, but they have had little to say about the issue of whether the Morgan herd was "open" or "closed." By open, I mean a herd that has received shipments of brucellosis vulnerable cattle and by closed, I mean a herd that has not received a shipment of brucellosis vulnerable cattle.
We know the Morgan herd had received Corriente cattle from Texas, meaning it was an open herd, but it's not clear where those cattle originally came from--many come from Mexico, which is most certainly not brucellosis free. Indeed, Texas only recently received its brucellosis-free status from APHIS, a designation that is highly suspect, given the highly charged brucellosis politics in Wyoming, Montana, and to a lessor extent, Idaho. Declaring Texas brucellosis free allows APHIS to focus its efforts on gaining control over bison and elk of the Greater Yellowstone, while at the same time ignoring brucellosis in southern feral swine and ignoring livestock diseases that threaten western wildlife, such as bluetongue.
Quite frankly, APHIS and DOL have been quite vague about the origins of those Corriente cattle. This makes me highly suspicious about claims that exonerate cattle as the source of the Morgan outbreak.
In the famous Parker case in Wyoming nearly 20 years ago, in which Parker's herd--by the way, Parker's LU ranch was just up the road a ways from where I live--Parker's manager at first claimed that the herd was closed, and immediately fingered wildlife as the source of his infected herd. The APHIS investigation proceeded by taking the manager at his word, and assembled an "epidemiological" report that "found" that elk or bison had infected Parker's cattle. The evidence APHIS presented was alleged geographical proximity of elk and bison from Jackson Hole, relying upon ranch hand assertions that "elk or bison were seen near our cattle" or "we found an elk fetus near our cattle" and other such unverifiable information.
Later, it was learned that the manager had lied to APHIS and that the herd was in fact open; it had recently received shipments of brucellosis vulnerable cattle from Montana. APHIS made a half-heated attempt to trace back those cattle, but found nothing, and continued to claim that elk or bison had infected Parker's herd.
Parker had to depopulate his herd, and sued both the State of Wyoming and the federal government for compensation. Scientific evidence presented in the legal hearings and trials indicated that Parker's vaccination regime was substandard and that the herd was in fact open, although APHIS had done little to trace back the cows that came from Montana. The scientific evidence presented also excoriated the APHIS epidemiological report for its amateurishness and lack of hard evidence that elk or bison were responsible for the Parker outbreak.
Parker lost his case because he couldn't provide scientific evidence that elk or bison had infected his herd with brucellosis.
In short, APHIS has lied, and lied repeatedly, about claims of elk causing brucellosis outbreaks in Wyoming cattle dating back to the mid-80s. APHIS only had a smoking gun for elk sources in the recent outbreaks in Wyoming, in 2004, because of willful landowner and Wyoming G&F;Department negligence in feeding "hot" elk in direct proximity to cattle feedlines, where cattle had direct contact with elk abortion events.
APHIS and DOL have not been able to demonstrate that elk were in such close, long-term proximity to the Morgan herd that a conclusion about an elk source is valid.
I conclude from the evidence, which includes the lack of evidence from APHIS and DOL, that there was a cattle source for the Morgan outbreak.
We should understand that to find and acknowledge a cattle source for the Morgan outbreak would require APHIS and DOL to admit that its market surveillance system is a house of cards with a lot of cracks for diseased cows to fall through (as evidenced most recently by the downer cow scandal in California) and it would also hinder their determination to further extend control over bison and elk in Montana for the benefit of the livestock industry, which intends to extend ever greater control over grass and land and deny it to migrating wildlife.
In other words, with the Morgan outbreak, there's scientific epidemiology at play, and there is bureaucratic power politics at play. What do you think will win out? What has always won out in the past?
Given the fundamental dishonesty of APHIS, DOL, and the livestock industry with brucellosis, I wouldn't believe that elk caused the Morgan outbreak if God Herself swore to it.
RH
http://wyagric.state.wy.us/news/brucellosiscoordteam/factsheet.pdf
As always, thanks for reading.
-David Nolt
number of buffalo captured since 02.08.08: 1,199
number of buffalo sent to slaughter: 1,026
died in capture pens: 3
number of buffalo calves placed in quarantine: 87
figures current as of 4pm on 03.21.08
No need to purchase the Property because It's already void of all cattle at all times. SAVE MONEY!!!!! Fence the Cattle pastures, vaccinate, test, at NO cost to the Rancher have the NO hazing fund pay for it. No STUDY needed just open your eyes, and LOOK.
Seems such a simple solution, at less cost to the TAXPAYERS!!!! and the CATTLE RANCHERS!!!!!!!! AND THE BISON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not really yelling at any ONE!!!!!
Steve Kelly and jedidiah Redman bring nothing to the table but the old tired song of how bad the ranchers are and how they (Steve & jedidiah) long to rest control of the natural resource away from the consumptive users on the Federal lands. The term "public lands" is such a misnomer and are not really public lands at all. Do the research. Yeah like those nasty old settlers stole the land at gunpoint. What a stretch!
The utopian dream of life in the west returning to some idealistic wildlife/wilderness panacea is a noble cause I guess, but The Wildlands Project is probably the only way it might happen i.e. removing all humans from the equation. Bad ole humans anyway! Especially them damned old ranchers!
Lastly, let us not forget the risk of the nasty disease, undulant fever, Brucellosis in humans. Diagnosis is difficult as symptoms greatly vary. There could be a human carrier as well to cattle populations. My review of the state of Montana health records does not show transmission to humans by bison but by elk and moose.
Better watch out Bullwinkle as you could be next in the "test and Kill" program.
It's also unfortunate that Forbes, who sold his ranch to CUT, did not have the conservation ethic of other weathly Americans. When one drives along the Paradise Valley & observes the dry, rocky, unproductive steep slopes, it is a joke to think this land is suitable for cattle.
They 'donate' the meat hides and heads, to various places. The Department of Livestock, is as I type this, hazing Bison off of a 24,000 acre NO cattle peninsula in snow that is over 3 -4 feet still. There will be NO cattle on the entire peninsula EVER. and No cattle in the entire area for 2 months. They are set on killing all the Bison until they reach the 2300 population. This is a waste of our tax dollars, as well as a waste of this American Icon. They are doing this right next to a Bald Eagle nesting site.
The 'authorities' say that Yellowstone is the only place that Brucellosis is still alive and well. BUT they forget to mention all the feral pigs in the south that are running rampant with the Brucella suis, and the Brucella Abort. It's a pork-barrel spending that is wasting many things. The whole operation is based on lies, and is continuing based on lies.
The Government Accountqability Office has already gotten involved. It's time people WAKE UP to the idiotic procedures that continue wasting our money and resources for NO GOOD REASON