New West Column
Bison Slaughter A Smoke Screen for Livestock Industry
The on-going slaughter of Yellowstone National Park bison is justified on the basis of disease control—namely trying to prevent transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle. While the potential economic impact brucellosis is real, the likelihood is extremely rare.
By George Wuerthner, Unfiltered 2-07-11
 |
|
 | |
| Bison killed this winter on Gallatin National Forest north of Gardiner, Montana | |
|
Deep snow in Yellowstone National Park is once again forcing bison to seek out winter range at lower elevation. In their search for exposed forage, bison naturally wander to snow-free lands outside of the park. Unfortunately for the bison, once they leave the park, they are killed by the Montana Dept. of Livestock ostensibly in the name of controlling brucellosis, even if they are grazing on national forests and other public lands.
Even worse, the National Park Service is participating in this slaughter of native wildlife. Just this past week hundreds of bison were herded into corrals INSIDE Yellowstone National Park where it is anticipated that at least some of them were be killed.
The bison slaughter is done to appease the intractable and unreasonable demands of Montana’s livestock industry to zero tolerance for native bison on Montana soil. All of this is justified in the name of controlling brucellosis, a disease that can cause domestic livestock to abort their first calf.
Such a slaughter would be bad enough if Montana’s stockgrowers were paying for it out of their own pockets, but both the state and federal agencies involved in this slaughter program are taxpayer funded. If the livestock industry had to pay for these machinations themselves, it is doubtful there would be a brucellosis eradication program, much less an active harass, capture and slaughter program.
Thus far this winter more than 100 bison have been killed, and more are likely to die unless policies are changed. In the winter of 2006/2007 more than 1600 bison were killed. And since the first bison was killed in 1985, nearly 6800 wild bison have been slaughtered outside of the park.
No reasonable solution is possible as long as the livestock industry is in charge, in part, because disease control is not the real issue—rather the slaughter of bison is as much about keeping wildlife bottled up in Yellowstone Park and off other public lands as anything to do with protecting Montana’s livestock from disease.
REASONS FOR BRUCELLOSIS CONTROL
The on-going slaughter of Yellowstone National Park bison is justified on the basis of disease control—namely trying to prevent transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle. While the potential economic impact brucellosis is real, the likelihood is extremely rare.
There are two major reasons for eliminating brucellosis from livestock. The first is that the bacteria, Brucella abortus, can cause cattle to abort their calves.
Beyond this obvious loss of a calf to the rancher, current government policy also requires any herd found to contain infected animals to be quarantined and eventually slaughtered, representing another loss to any ranching operation which has invested in building a reputation based on a quality herd.
Also livestock producers in states that are brucellosis-free can avoid mandatory testing of animals shipped across state lines. However, both of these last regulations could be altered.
For instance, there is no reason why an entire state should lose its brucellosis-free status simply because one cow or even a few herds in the state test positive for brucellosis. This is a self-created problem that could easily be solved by modest modification in regulations. The problem isn’t with bison and brucellosis, rather the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the government agency in charge of brucellosis control has been largely inflexible in its approach to dealing with brucellosis. APHIS has used the threat of a loss of state-wide brucellosis-free status as a club to maintain management control over public wildlife like bison. APHIS is a tax funded arm of industrial agriculture whose main constituency is the livestock industry, not the public interest.
BACKGROUND ON BRUCELLOSIS
Though mandatory vaccination would help to reduce the brucellosis transmission fears, there are a host of reasons why the brucellosis scare is likely a smoke screen for motives other than a genuine concern about disease. A little background on the disease is worth discussing.
Recall from above that the main concern of livestock producers is that brucellosis can cause a cow to abort its fetus. That would represent an economic loss to the rancher. That’s an understandable concern to any rancher who might lose a few calves, but why is the federal government involved in brucellosis control? The answer has to do with history.
Back in the 1930s the federal government launched its brucellosis containment program to control Bang’s Disease, the name given to the ailment in livestock. Tax payer support was justified on the basis of public health because Bang’s Disease can cause what is known as Undulant Fever in humans for the undulating fever it causes, along with muscular pain.
The main source for human infection was consumption of unpasteurized milk and/or having contact with infected meat. But with the widespread adoption of pasteurization, the disease has not been a public health threat since WW11. But once the program was started, and had benefits for the livestock industry, it was impossible to eliminate the public funding of the program. Since the 1930s the government has spent millions of taxpayer funds to eradicate the disease—largely to benefit the pocketbook of cattle producers.
BISON NOT THE ONLY ANIMAL WITH BRUCELLOSIS
A glaring inconsistency in the treatment of Yellowstone’s bison herd is the fact that elk also carry brucellosis. There are far more elk in the ecosystem than bison, and furthermore, they are more widespread and difficult to control than bison. Indeed, all the known cases of wildlife to livestock brucellosis transmission in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem have involved elk, not bison. And even if it were possible to remove brucellosis from bison, as long as elk remain active carriers of the disease, reinfection of wild bison is likely.
There are approximately 100,000 elk in the ecosystem that wander freely among livestock operations without being harassed, captured, and slaughtered. One may reasonably ask why bison are singled out for slaughter, while elk are permitted to move freely throughout the ecosystem.
There are two reasons. One is that elk have a big constituency comprised of hunters and outfitters. The livestock industry has; so far, avoided antagonizing these people by going after elk. However, there are some in the livestock industry that believe elk should be captured, tested, and those with positive reactors, slaughtered as well.
The second reason is perhaps less obvious. But if disease were the primary motivation for killing bison, it would make sense to capture and slaughter elk. However, I believe a good deal of the motivation for killing bison is to prevent bison recolonization of public lands. The livestock industry recognizes bison restoration as a direct threat. If bison became widespread on public lands, competition for forage would arise, and likely lead to reductions in public lands grazing by private livestock.
CURRENT BISON POLICY AMPLIFIES GENETIC MUTATIONS
New research suggests that on-going slaughter is amplifying the presence of deleterious genes in bison created by past genetic bottlenecks. The original wild herd of bison in Yellowstone had a limited founding population, (as have all herds in the West) and unnatural selection over the years that have compounded the occurrence of these mutations.
Symptoms of the disease can include fatigue while running, lactic acid buildup in the blood and ragged red muscle fibers. The bison do not die at birth but may get tired while running, succumb to prolonged winter cold, get fatigued brushing snow aside for feeding, lose out in breeding competition or fall to predators. In fossil evidence, only 5% of the bison had the mutation, while 81% of bison today are found to have these mutations. Continued culling by the Montana Dept of Livestock amplifies these genetic problems further.
VACCINATION
Several vaccines that offer some resistant to brucellosis infection have been developed. Although not 100% effective, they do reduce the likelihood of infection considerably and provide quite a bit of protection against brucellosis transmission-- 65-75% in field tests. They cost $4 a shot to administer. But Montana does not require mandatory brucellosis vaccination. At present approximately 70% of the state’s cattle are voluntarily vaccinated against brucellosis.
In 2010 members of two of Montana’s largest livestock groups, the Montana Stockgrowers Association and Montana Farm Bureau Federation, have adopted policies officially opposing the vaccination of all sexually intact female calves because they think it’s unnecessary.
While vaccination is not a silver bullet offering complete protection against infection, it would go a long ways towards reducing exposure in any cattle herd, and reduce the presumed rationale for killing bison.
WHY BRUCELLOSIS TRANSMISSION IS RARE
Even without a mandatory vaccination of all livestock, brucellosis transmission between bison and cattle is rare in practice for a host of reasons.
An important point is that many bison do not carry the active disease. One of the distortions perpetuated by the livestock industry and amplified by the media are reports of field tests of bison showing a significant number test “sero positive” for brucellosis. Field tests for brucellosis only demonstrate the presence of anti bodies which are produced upon exposure to brucellosis; however the presence of anti bodies does not necessarily represent active cases. Thus, due to the limitations of the field test, something less than the number testing positive for brucellosis actually have an active infection and represent a potential source of infection for domestic animals.
To put this into perspective, I would test positive for polio because I was “exposed” to polio by vaccination as a youth, but I cannot transmit polio to anyone today. In the rare instances where more complete lab testing for active brucellosis has been done, the percentage of infected bison is always lower than the number reported as sero-positive in field tests.
The livestock industry often notes that 50% of all bison tested are positive for brucellosis without noting that only sexually mature female bison (usually two years or older) can transfer the disease to domestic livestock. This is a much smaller subset of a bison herd—i.e. much less than 50% of a herd. Bison calves, bull bison, and young female bison are for all intents and purposes unable to infect domestic livestock. Thus the vast majority of bison which test positive and are subsequently slaughtered, including all bison calves and bulls that are killed, can in no way pass on the disease to domestic animals.
The primary route for disease transmission results when a bison or any other animal (elk also carry the disease), aborts its fetus and the dead fetus and/or birthing fluids are licked, nosed, or otherwise touched by another animal. The likelihood that this would occur between domestic cattle and wild bison is possible, but exceedingly rare for a host of reasons.
Timing is critical. Brucellosis bacteria are very sensitive to temperature and moisture, and die rapidly when expelled from a body. And any aborted fetus is a tempting meal for a passing coyote, raven and other scavengers. Thus, unless cattle and bison are actively mixing together, it is unlikely that any livestock will come upon an aborted bison fetus with live brucella bacteria.
GEOGRAPHICAL OVERLAP
Bison abortions, if they occur (and they are exceedingly rare under wild conditions), tend to happen in the spring when most cattle are on the home ranch, and long before any cattle are moved to summer pastures on public lands where they might encounter an aborted bison fetus.
Furthermore, few cattle are present over most of the area outside of Yellowstone where bison are currently being harassed and slaughtered. Nearly all public lands grazing allotments near West Yellowstone and north of Gardiner have been closed. Cattle on private lands in the West Yellowstone area are only there in summer. North of Yellowstone beyond Gardiner, there are some small cattle operations on private lands, however, most of these operations involve fenced livestock where mixing of bison and cattle is unlikely. And they are set within a much larger matrix of public land including the Gallatin National Forest and several state wildlife management areas are cattle-free year round.
Thus there is no legitimate reason why bison should not be permitted to wander out of Yellowstone in these areas and to occupy these public lands. Suitable habitat exists on Gallatin National Forest lands in the Eagle Creek drainage and Dome Mountain areas north of Gardiner, as well as west around Horse Butte and north of Yellowstone Park on Gallatin National Forest lands in the Madison and Gallatin Ranges between Big Sky and West Yellowstone. This amounts to hundreds of thousands of acres of potential bison habitat outside of the park.
DISEASE CONTROL A SMOKESCREEN
The disease is really a smoke screen for control of wildlife, and to prevent the restoration of bison to public lands in the West. What the livestock industry really fears is a widespread demand by the public to have its public wildlife like bison given priority on public rangelands. Since bison eat essentially the same forage as domestic livestock, if bison herds were to reestablished there would have to be a dramatic reduction in forage allotment for the private livestock grazing public lands. That, far more than the exceedingly small risk of brucellosis transmission, is what has been driving bison brucellosis politics for decades and has resulted in the death of thousands of America’s wildlife heritage wild bison and the wasted expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars.
I got a hint of the real reason for brucellosis politics decades ago when the first bison were killed when they wandered from Yellowstone NP. I was living in Livingston, Montana just north of the park at the time and doing research for a magazine article on the bison-brucellosis issue. I had put a call into the Montana State Veterinarian. For some reason when he got on the phone with me he automatically assumed that I was a rancher.
He said to me, “where do you live?” I said “Livingston.” And he immediately said to me, “Hey you don’t have to worry about brucellosis because you live far enough from Yellowstone that it’s unlikely your animals will get the disease. Beside, the state would won’t lose its brucellosis-free status even if a few herds got brucellosis.”
I was surprised by this last statement because he had repeatedly told the media that the biggest fear for Montana’s livestock industry was losing its brucellosis-free status. So I asked him to clarify.
“Why won’t the state lose its brucellosis free status?” I asked.
He replied, “Oh,” he said candidly, “If any limitations are imposed due to brucellosis status APHIS will restrict that to a few herds around Yellowstone.”
I said thanks for the reassurances, and hung up.
Despite this assertion, the state continued to argue that loss of brucellosis status was a real threat. And APHIS has used the brucellosis card as a club to silence and detract the media and others from following the money. And the big money for many ranchers is the potential loss of subsidized grazing on public rangelands if bison were permitted to reoccupy those lands and grazing allotments are closed and/or forage for domestic cattle reduced to accommodate bison herds.
SLAUGHTER AFFECTS MORE THAN GENETIC DIVERSITY
Lest we forget, bison are herd animals that have complex social organization based upon familial ties. The testing and slaughtering of animals continuously reshuffles and breaks these family ties. Cultural knowledge about migration routes, how to defend against predators, and other information critical to the long term health of the herd are lost and/disrupted by present management. The most important thing to remember about bison—they are not domestic livestock—and we should treat them for what they are wild creatures that deserve respect rather than the contempt shown by Montana’s government agencies.
REAL SOLUTIONS
So to summarize, in order for disease transmission to occur, a whole litany of events must transpire. First, the bison has to have the disease. It has to be a sexually mature female bison who then aborts her fetus. The aborted fetus has to be undetected by coyotes, ravens and other scavengers which would quickly consume it. All during this time, the bacteria must remain alive. Finally, a domestic animal has to physically lick or otherwise come in contact with the aborted fetus before the bacteria dies.
The fact that less than a thousand and perhaps as few as 200 cattle occupy the zone of current overlap between bison and livestock makes it easy to establish a buffer zone around the park where all cattle should be vaccinated, and tested regularly for brucellosis. Isolating the test requirements to those animals immediately in the zone of overlap would not create an undue burden on the rest of the livestock industry. This would be far less expensive solution for taxpayers—who are after all footing the bill-- than the current test and slaughter of wildlife.
SAVING BISON FROM GENETIC DISEASES
Bison have suffered tremendously from the artificial management that has afflicted the species for more than a hundred years. All founding populations, including the bison in Yellowstone which at one time numbered less than 100 animals, have suffered genetic bottlenecks that have amplified the occurrence of deleterious gene mutations. The first step in overcoming these harmful genetic loads is to permit natural selection to weed out the bison that are less fit. This can be accomplished in two ways. One by allowing natural selection in the form of winter starvation, predators like wolves , and other natural selective processes to continue to whittle away at less fit bison, removing them from the herds.
Beyond that, we need to greatly expand, not reduce, wild bison numbers across the West. One way to enlarge bison herds and avoid future bottlenecks is to expand the public lands available to bison. As previously mentioned, there are significant acreages of land immediately surrounding Yellowstone where bison could recolonize in the Gallatin and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests without significant conflict with private livestock operations if reasonable preventative precautions are followed.
Bison could also find suitable habitat in the Union Gap/Upper Green River country north of Pinedale Wyoming as well as in the Green River Valley/Salt River, and Commissonary Ridge areas of the Bridger Teton NF and BLM lands between Daniel and Kemmerer Wyoming.
In addition, to ensure maximum genetic diversity bison should be reintroduced on to other suitable public lands where extensive public holdings would minimize conflicts with private lands. Among these sites are the Charles M. Russell Wildlife Refuge and Missouri River Breaks National Monument in central Montana, the Red Desert and Big Horn Basin, and the Thunder Basin National Grassland areas of Wyoming, the Snake River Plain surrounding Craters of the Moon National Monument and the drier valleys between the Lost River, Lemhi and Beaverhead Mountains in Idaho, the Book Cliffs/Roan Cliffs region of Utah-Colorado, the Vermillion Basin and Brown Park NWR of NW Colorado and Dinosaur NM on the Colorado-Utah border, the Little Missouri National Grasslands and Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota, the Buffalo Gap National Grassland and Badlands National Park in South Dakota and the extensive parcels of BLM lands in southern New Mexico.
Brucellosis is a smokescreen. It’s time for citizens to challenge the livestock control of our public wildlife, and to demand that bison be given a bright future by ensuring the widespread restoration of these magnificent animals. Bison are part of America’s wildlife heritage that deserve better than the slaughterhouse.
Bio: George Wuerthner is an ecologist, writer and photographer who has written 35 books dealing with natural resource issues.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
I really appreciate the detail about brucellosis and it's history. This is an issue that the livestock industry really needs to be challenged on. A few added details on the disease as a human health concern are relevant here. First, there are less than 100 cases of brucellosis infections reported annually. Almost all of them were cases where the person contracted the disease overseas from unpasteurized milk. Second, the CDC is so unconcerned about brucellosis in humans that the disease does not have a mandatory reporting requirement. Third, just as there has never been a documented case of brucellosis transmission from wild buffalo to domestic cattle under natural conditions, there has never been a documented case of brucellosis being transmitted to humans from wild buffalo either.
One other important thing to add to your article is that APHIS has recently published an interim rule to revise the brucellosis program that changes both the requirement for whole herd depopulation if a positive animal is found and the downgrading of brucellosis free status after two cases. In effect, the new rule all but guarantees that a state will remain class free regardless of infections in domestic herds in the GYA. Here is link to the posting in the federal register. http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/12/27/2010-32371/brucellosis-class-free-states-and-certified-brucellosis-free-herds-revisions-to-testing-and
This change along with statements from the only two cattle operators in the northern boundary area that they are OK with buffalo on the landscape and are not concerned about brucellosis infection make it clear that the current management plan is irrelevant and unnecessary not to mention a significant waste of federal money. Wild buffalo should immediately be allowed to roam north of the Park with no additional efforts required by any agency.
Time is clearly running out on the livestock industry's stranglehold over wild buffalo repopulating the landscape. Current attempts by the Montana legislature are no more than the last ditch efforts of a dying industry to keep control over public lands and public wildlife. It also exposes the supposed "fiscal conservatives" for what they really are. They are not actually interested in reigning in government spending for programs that benefit their interests or constituents. See, for example, the federal grazing programs that subsidize the destruction of the west at a cost of up to a billion dollars annually. Here, we can't even get support from the staunchest tea partier to end this wasteful program.
The range wars of the 1800's are not over yet and if we are persistent, honest and passionate, we can end this madness once and for all. As Brock Evans has said many times, "Endless pressure, endlessly applied."
clearly stated in the 'followup' portion of the article;
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/213430-diagnosis?src=emed_whatnew_nl_0#WorkupLabStudies
Excellent article. I'd add only a correction in that in Wyoming elk west of the Continental Divide are indeed being "harassed, captured, and slaughtered" as a form of "brucellosis management." I speak of course of the elk feedgrounds, which exist for the same reason that bison are being mismanaged in YNP and in Montana: to prevent their (re)occupation of grazing lands. Each feedground in Wyoming is so situated to shortstop elk from migrating to traditional winter ranges that are now reserved for livestock.
Wyoming just completed in 2010 an expensive, scientifically fraudulent "test and slaughter" program to try to prove that slaughtering elk would reduce brucellosis seroprevalence in feedground elk, but since the program had an invalid experimental design--that is, no experimental design whatsoever--no proof could have been forthcoming no matter how many elk were shipped to slaughter. Of course, science doesn't matter; what counts, as the ranchers admit, is to keep elk away from grass and hay. In that, the feedgrounds have been enormously successful.
When Wyoming lost its brucellosis free status in 2004, which it regained in 2006, I looked for data proving that it was a serious economic burden to Wyoming's livestock industry. I couldn't find any such data because they didn't exist. Indeed, cattle prices rose in 2005 despite the State having lost its b-free status.
This is why "brucellosis management," whether for bison or elk, is truly the "brucellosis fraud." The fraud is compounded when one considers that Wyoming's elk feedgrounds are the continuing source of brucellosis in the GYE.
On top of that, a chronic wasting disease epidemic in elk is just around the corner because of the feedgrounds.
RH
It is my understanding that dairy cattle are vaccinated, in part because drinking milk is the main vector for human transmission of the disease. However, not all cattle are dairy so that may explain the difference.
However, I was relying on a vet who works on dairy cattle and he may have given me incorrect information about dairy vaccination rates. I will try to research this further. Thanks for the suggestion.
So what is your solution to the brucellosis "problem"? Don't keep it a secret.
RH
I have not been able to confirm whether all dairy are vaccinated. At least there is no single source I've yet found, so I will accept your assertion. However, the main point is that pasteurization has significantly reduced the threat of people contracting undulant fever, except for vets and others who work directly with infected animals.
I'm very interested in your statement about immunity in elk and bison. Can you elaborate further? Thanks.
Wyoming Game & Fish hurriedly approved a Cow elk hunt for the South Fork of the Shoshone river and the Greybull river area, ostensibly to get more data on migratory Yellowstone elk who winter there after crossing over the Absaroka mountains from Yellowstone and the headwaters of the Yellowstone River south of the Park in the Bridger-Teton wilderness, including the well-known " Thorofare" area. Game & Fish needed tissue samples, but really it was ranchers forcing the ' terminate with extreme prejdice ' scenario. Elk are being blamed for giving a few scattered cows the B. abortus, and not even " local " elk but "Park" elk. The brucellosis bacteria is being exported from the Yellowstone reservoir. Two river drainages north , in Sunlight Basin , the " local" elk show the same seropositive or actual infection rate as the elk that summer in the central plateau of Yellowstone
Nearly everyone I know not raising cattle thought this late season cow elk hunt was insane. Even the local president of the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, formerly an outfitter and now a sitting County Commisioner, w as quoted as being very much against this hunt. Late season attrition hunts are exceedingly r are in NW Wyoming , for any reason . This is maybe only the second time it's been done, even though the Game & Fish's own population objectives for the elk herds are exceeded in every herd unit ( and all those herd units have plenty of associated wolves, I might add). You'd think tha G & F would've been having late season cow elk hunts all along to knock the population down , but it hasn't been happening much at all. Not till a few scattered Meeteetse cattle flunked their B. abortus test a few months ago.
So, my take is just as George puts it in his article...a severe and unnecessary overreaction to a disease that really does not threaten the cattle industry and can in fact be managed by inserting some reasonability into APHIS's hidebound draconian regulations. Of course, ranchers beg to differ and in fact ranchers drove the Wyo Game & Fish to have this unusual hunt. Drove 'em at gunpoint. The ranchers want the elk herd taken down to minimal level anyway, so they can have all the grass and water for themselves in all 4 seasons. Wildlife be damned. I expect we'll see more attrition hunts next year, too. The Forest Service is grumbling over all this, having to service the trailheads and such into the dead of winter just to accomodate the Game & Fish , who are in turn bending over backwards to accomodate the cattle barons... it's a bureaucratic cascade.
It's too early to say what came of this cobbled-up Cody area attrition elk hunt. I have a call into local G & F biologists asking for results and harvest.
I definitely did NOT any appreciable number of local hunter types queuing up for some extra elk meat, or staging their after-Christmas sorties. I saw exactly one elk carcass in a pickup truck in Cody in January , and it was 6-point bull (?) . Normally , the hunting cabal likes to promenade around town with their recently deceased elk in the truckbed to show 'em around.
This whole brucellosis picture is screwy.
Here in the Wind River country of western Wyoming, for example, G&F;ran a 5 year herd reduction program on the Wiggins Fork Elk Herd between 1998 and 2003. The impetus for the program was the complaint by a large ranch in the Dunoir owned by a very wealthy individual about too many elk. The five year program took an estimated additional 1500 elk out of the Wiggins Fork herd, primarily from the the Dunoir segment, which summers on Buffalo Plateau in the Teton Wilderness with Jackson elk but migrates across the Continental Divide along the southern Ramshorn front to winter on Spring Mountain near the town of Dubois. Brucellosis in the Wiggins Fork herd comes from Jackson elk.
It may be that depredation hunts in the Gooseberry Herd west of Meeteetse are rare; I've never hunted there and I don't know that country very well. However, late season hunts been held in the Sunlight/Crandall/Beartooth area north of Cody. I shot an elk in January 1999 in Little Sunlight Creek on a late season tag.
G&F;is still issuing late season cow tags here in the Wind River country and is doing so throughout western Wyoming--all in response to rancher demands for fewer elk.
Dewey is right that brucellosis is no legitimate threat to public health or livestock industry economics. It's all about grass. That's all it's ever been about, and that's all it ever will be about.
RH
Thanks for that insight and background.
I have to say so far the discussion has been very helpful and everyone has contributed some good informative comments.
SNIP: Ranchers have a lot of fear that bison restoration will result in the destruction of cattle grazing," Montana Stock growers Association Vice President Errol Rice said in a recent interview.
Plan to slaughter stray Yellowstone bison ignites furor
*
By Laura Zuckerman Laura Zuckerman – Sat Feb 5, 3:07 pm ET
SALMON, Idaho (Reuters) – A plan to slaughter scores of buffalo that strayed from Yellowstone National Park has reignited a debate about the nation's last purebred herds.
Buffalo, or bison, that migrate from Yellowstone into nearby Montana are often killed to prevent them from infecting cattle with brucellosis, a bacterial disease that causes cows to miscarry and can infect people with flu-like symptoms.
By Friday, government wranglers had herded roughly 400 bison from Yellowstone, which spans parts of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, into a fenced enclosure for leaving the park's snow-covered high country to find food in Montana.
The plan to kill brucellosis-exposed bison - with the infected number now at 76 and counting - was put on hold after conservationists on Thursday asked a federal judge to grant a stay of execution.
Telephone calls and emails demanding the bison be spared have swamped the office of Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer. The state livestock department is one of five agencies that oversee Yellowstone bison.
The fallout is aimed at Montana, where the economic mainstay of ranching is facing off with a multibillion-dollar tourist industry that trades on Yellowstone and opportunities to view wildlife like buffalo.
Images of wild bison being prodded onto trucks destined for slaughterhouses have been a public relations nightmare for Montana before.
The heavy snowfall and bitter cold in Yellowstone in recent weeks is reminiscent of conditions in the winter of 2007-2008 when a record 1,400 buffalo were killed for roaming outside the park.
Mike Volesky, natural resources policy adviser to Schweitzer, said Montana shouldn't be singled out for blame.
"It's not just Montana's decision," he said. "They come out of the park and we've got to deal with it somehow. We do the best we can."
Critics argue the state seems bent on sacrificing the wildlife that Montana tourism officials say draws millions every year. State campaigns marketing travel to Montana include the photograph of a bison in mountain meadows, an image that tourism-dependent businesses want to promote.
BISON WORTH MILLIONS
"The bison are worth millions and millions of dollars; it's the height of stupidity to be killing them," said Steve Braun, who conducts wildlife tours in Yellowstone and Glacier National Park for vacationing Americans and international travelers.
Marysue Costello, head of the West Yellowstone Chamber of Commerce in Montana, said people struggle to understand how the state can hype its historic ties to buffalo even as it kills them to protect cattle.
"You've got two industries going on here that both want their needs met," she said.
Agriculture always wins in a war between economic interests in a state that prides itself on champion livestock, environmentalists said. They claim the rules for Yellowstone bison are illogical since there are no cattle at risk on grazing grounds outside the park.
Conservationists also question why elk infected with brucellosis are free to seasonally migrate from Yellowstone and mix with cows.
"The public would never tolerate handling elk the way we've handled bison," said Mark Pearson, conservation director for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition.
Scientists say rates of brucellosis infection are lower in elk herds in Yellowstone whereas half the estimated 3,900 bison at the park have been exposed to the disease.
Livestock producers say their misgivings about bison go beyond brucellosis. They worry buffalo will displace cattle on public lands with grazing permits.
"Ranchers have a lot of fear that bison restoration will result in the destruction of cattle grazing," Montana Stock growers Association Vice President Errol Rice said in a recent interview.
An experiment last month that allowed a small band of buffalo to forage outside Yellowstone failed after the animals ranged beyond boundaries clear to government managers but not to the bison.
Hunting of buffalo that roamed from the Rocky Mountains to the Mississippi River cut their numbers from tens of millions to the fewer than 50 that found refuge in Yellowstone in the early 20th century.
Until just a few years ago, the Game & Fish Commission was actually prevented by its own rules from authorizing an elk hunt that jumped across the New Year, however . I honestly think we've only had one of those before now in the Cody area, and they had to rewrite the regs or get the Legislature to sign off on it. It had nothing to do with biology or hunting quotas, and everything to do with state fiscal rules and accounting. Game & Fish wasn't allowed to run one contiguous hunting season in two calendar years.
Point is, if brucellosis in cattle is serous enough to warrant a drastic alteration of secondary species hunting regulations, it should be of enough magnitude to alter its own rules and regualtions.
Didn't APHIS and USDA and the state vet and everyone else make brucellosis policy based on what the Stockgrowers wanted ? That would be the norm . I think the brucellosis regs have come back to bite the very industry that more or less spawned them. The Stockgrowers not only brought B. abortus into the Rockies all the way to Yellowstone with their Texas cattle drives consisting of infected Old World cattle , their attempts to regulate away the consequences seem to have backfired at this stage of the 80-year campaign to eradicate the disease. They are victim of their own self-fulfilling policy . Remember , most of the brucellosis regs were formulated to protect the MidWest dairy industry ...that's where human Undulant Fever was rampaging. O er 11,000 people died of it in Chicago in one year alone, due to lack of antibiotics not yet being invented and dairy product pasteurization not yet widely implemented. Out West here, the Cow-opoly game board has always looked a little different. We have scapegoats.
My question: Are ranchers owning up to their own culpability in the long brucellosis saga, or just once again displacing the problem away from their camp onto the public's back ? I'm just having a hard time grasping that three sick cows and one sick domestic Bison in Boondock, Wyoming are such a threat...
The quotation from Mike Volesky in Zuckerman's story is pretty lame. In the case of bison, yes, we can blame the State of Montana for the abuse of Yellowstone bison.
What we blame Yellowstone National Park for is negligence of its conservation trust.
RH
But yipee I found it.
The Quote, and link follows.
"Bottom line, our ranchers don't support bison relocation," said Errol Rice, executive vice president of the Montana Stockgrowers' Association. "Our ranchers are just very fearful that bison restoration will result in the elimination of cattle grazing."
http://www.necn.com/01/04/11/Montana-examines-relocating-some-Yellows/landing_scitech.html?&blockID=3&apID=c8db4a32efeb474bbf90fc0532b30181
The cow elk I shot in January 1999 in Sunlight was off a type 6 late season 1998 tag. As I recall, the G&F;Commission met in special session in December to extend that tag into 1999. I don't recall any regulation or statute in place at the time that prevented the Commission from taking that decision. The fiscal year for Wyoming state government runs from 1 July to 30 June. The reason for the extended season was that snow had come late to the country and very few elk were taken because few elk had migrated out of the Park. A common situation here in NW Wyoming.
But yes, it is true that tags are seldom extended into the following year. It's tough to get people into the mountains in the middle of winter to hunt elk. People aren't as tough as they used to be.
My own view of what's happening in the livestock industry regarding brucellosis is that the agencies and ranchers can no longer pretend that brucellosis can be eradicated, either from wildlife or livestock, although it's still the formal policy. I'm convinced that the claim that the country's cattle herds are brucellosis free is false. I think the disease is continually creeping up from Mexico and is getting into American herds and it's falling through the cracks of a flawed market surveillance system. And then there's Brucella suis.
As yet, we've had no conclusive proof that the two incidents of brucellosis infection in Montana cattle a few years ago were caused by elk. (They certainly weren't caused by bison). No complete, final genetic analysis of brucella isolates of infected cattle from those two episodes has ever been been published. A preliminary report blaming elk was full of holes and simply not credible. I believe those Montana incidents were caused by cattle, probably Corriente cattle, which are popular on the rodeo circuit. We also had an outbreak of brucellosis in eastern Idaho a couple of years ago that we've had no information about beyond the original report. I strongly suspect that incident is also cattle caused, so of course you're not going to get any admission of it from the livestock industry. Had it proven to be elk, we'd have heard about it.
The only place where elk can legitimately be blamed for transmitting brucellosis to cattle is around Wyoming's elk feedgrounds. And we know what Wyoming ranchers think about elk feedgrounds.
In Wyoming, the livestock industry has simply chosen feedgrounds and the protection of forage they provide over brucellosis, which means brucellosis truly isn't a dangerous disease. That's why the APHIS regs have changed about herd depopulation. Brucellosis is just another cost of doing business. So why are elk and bison paying the price?
It's the grass.
RH
A very good analysis and I had suggested that elk had caused some of those transmissions, but as you note, the evidence is circumspect at best.
Geo--I looked really carefully at the claims and published reports about the Montana outbreaks. There simply was no conclusive proof of an elk transmission. Indeed, according to the genetic tree for the second incident published in the preliminary epidemiological report, the genetic profile of the infected Corriente cow was actually more closely related to brucella isolates taken from quarantined Yellowstone bison. And of course, those bison weren't roaming around.
RH
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Texas-discovers-new-cattle-brucellosis-infected-herd/2011-01-28/Article.aspx?oid=1303698&fid=CN-LATEST_NEWS_
http://worldofranching.com/market_news/?p=210
Thanks. This outbreak occurred in a southern Texas county, which suggests Mexico as the source. A cattle source. No Yellowstone bison or elk for a thousand miles.
RH
It sure blows the top off of Yellowstone being the only 'reservoir'.
With the numbers I have seen in amount of Bison at 3900, 50% is 1,950 (supposed) infected Bison. The elk population in this entire area is around 100,000 5% of that is 5000. So If this is correct we have more infected Elk than we have total Bison in the Park and those elk travel far and wide.
Mexico is of course a reservoir for livestock diseases in general, particularly brucellosis and tuberculosis.
Just as a reminder, the 50% number for bison refers to seropositivity, that is, showing antibodies for exposure to brucellosis. I've not seen a clear number for the percentage of actually infectious bison. Or for elk, for that matter. The percentage of infectious animals is significantly lower than mere seropositivity suggests.
There are without doubt more infectious elk in the GYE than bison, given the numbers, and that is due to the feedgrounds. It is possible that brucellosis is being sustained in the non-feedground elk of the Greater Yellowstone at higher levels than previously by private lands harboring. I expect private lands harboring of elk, which can replicate feedground conditions, is responsible for the brucellosis incidents in a cattle and a domestic bison herd last year in Wyoming's Wood and Greybull Rivers country southeast of Cody.
RH
"North American bison have rebounded from near-extinction in the nineteenth century but from such small inbred founding populations that once-rare deleterious nuclear gene alleles and mitochondrial haplotypes are now at high frequencies. The initial bottleneck was compounded by decades of unnatural selection affecting bison conservation genomics and undercutting restoration initiatives. The genomics era began in late 2010 for bison and sister species yak with the release of 102 whole mitochondrial genomes, displacing earlier control region and microsatellite data not extending to coding regions. This allows detection of both sporadic and sub-clade level mutations in mitochondrially encoded proteins and tRNAs by comparative genomics methods: deleterious mutations in both cytochrome b (V98A) and ATP6 (I60N) occur within a single common bison haplotype. Since similar mutations in human and dog cause clinical impairment of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, these bison are predicted to be significantly impaired in aerobic capacity, disrupting highly evolved cold tolerance, winter feeding behaviors, escape from predators and competition for breeding. Because Yellowstone National Park bison are subjected to genetically uninformed culls and surplus animals used to seed new conservation herds, mutational status has significant implications. Continuing take of the remaining bison with wildtype mitochondria may recapitulate errors of nineteenth century bison stewardship bringing bison conservation to the point of no return."
Bison are not actually well recovered. Read the IUCN status report. the number of conservation bison (plains) in 1930 was about 20,000 and today about 20,500. In fact we have made the situation worse as we divide them up into smaller and smaller herds that are clearly not genetically sustainable. Over 74% are in herds of less than 400 and almost all are behind fence so are no longer ecologically functional. All other bison (96%) are in production herds which are on an entirely different evolutionary pathway and not selected by forces of nature but by man.
The mitochondiral disease issue is the least of concerns and quite manageable in terms of the future of bison...hybridization across the subspecies and cattle gene introgression are perhaps more critical. A genetics conference on this issue is scheduled in March at Tulsa OK which will address this.
Vaccination was explored extensively in willdife of the GYA in a conference in Laramie several years ago. Scientists from across the world attended. There are huge challenges in trying vaccination including efficacy and delivery. Alll that will do is reduce prevalence but it will take major interventions, cost and have marginal effect. As evidenced by the fact that AG folks would not accept quarantined bison from Yellowstone that have exceeded any ag standard by times 10 imposed on cattle or other livestock and met standards published in the USDA APHIS Uniform Methods and Rules...approved by USAHA shows us that there is NO standard satisfactory to agriculture for accepting these animals. The truth is this disease issue IS a smokescreen and no matter what hurdle bison jump AG folks keep flagging this issue. The issue is competition and FEAR....this is a deeply insecure industry that cannot abide any threats and will use politicial influence and the status as landed gentry to push their industry agenda.....even when bison have exceeded any standard ever imposed on any animal in the world they will deny it access to grass. It makes me wonder why we allow grazing on public land including National WILDLIFE Refuges and Montana's own State WILDLIFE management areas. We will share grass but cattlemen will not......seems many double standards are at play in this game.
I do think, however, that the issue is more basic than who gets the grass -- it's who gets to control the public land. Ranchers have seen what has happened to those other Lords of Yesterday, the miners and loggers, and are afraid of losing the subsidized monopoly over public rangelands they have enjoyed for the past 130 years or so.
But can we blame them for perpetuating lies to save their domination? As Robert pointed out, the real ones to blame in this -- the betrayers -- are the amoral administrators and employees of Yellowstone National Park who participate in this travesty. Every single one of them involved in this debacle are traitors to the ideals to which they give so much lip service.
Of all the native species in all the National Parks, the bison of Yellowstone is the only one killed simply to prevent it from leaving the Park. For shame. For shame.
Terrific, informative article on this important issue and the ramifications of it. Thank you for all of the research you did on the disease, the problems with the wildlife slaughter--I mean "management," the truth about the real reason for the years of harrassment and slaughter, and some real solutions to protecting cattle from brucellosis and bison from continued genetic disease and the suffering it causes. As far as I can tell by the comments, which I have not read word for word, the Buffalo Field Campaign has not weighed in on your essay and this long and informative discussion (Thanks to all!) that has followed. I hope they know about it and will do so. They have worked so hard for so many years and been tireless voices on the bison's behalf.
Now, what to do about the federal and state emplyees and policies in bed with ranchers in creating the smoke screen and supporting and perpretrating the slaughter to protect private interest with all our public tax dollars?? It makes me crazy angry to think of what is happening, and why, when the truth is so clear and the same old corruption and slaughter continues with no solution, no change in sight.
Nadia recieved a grant to study the entirety of the contemporary Brucellosis issue in depth , and spent many long months doing just that , from Wyoming to Kazakhstan. Especially Kazakhstan , where research , animal husbandry , and general management of brucellosis is light eyars ahead of US programs and policy .
In particular, Kazakh researchers have long sought an effective vaccine . If I recall Nadia's reportage correctly ( no guarantee here), developing a vaccine for B. abortus is extremely EXTREMELY challenging, for many reasons. Not the least of which is the bacteria itself, which has a genetic makeup that lets it escape normal epidemiological remedies by altering itself somehow. The best vaccine available for B. abortus in cattle , R-19 , is at best only partially effective and varies from breed to breed of cattle, ranging down to near zero in Bison. Any effective vaccine for B. abortus will be exceedingly narrowly constrained by genus-specie - subspecie/breed . What works for (some) cattle won;t work for bison , and vice verse. Trying to develop a vaccine for elk will be a biotech nightmare. Then you have to innoculate . Good luck with that.
My memory is dim, but I seem to recall from Nadia's extensive reporting that the best way to manage Brucellosis involved some serious herding protocols and animal husbandry. That meant educating the herders of Central Asia. That , too, is challenging. Central Asia---which is almost certainly the ancient Garden of Eden of Brucella and has had it forever and dispatched it to the four corners of the globe , has a Brucella bug for every domesticated herd animal ...horses, goats, sheep, pigs, and of course cattle. The research into combatting the disease has been world class and sufficiently funded and intensive in every way , yet the technical solution to Brucellosis is still a long long ways off. B. abortus is so genetically simple yet robust and malleable that it is hard to ut down.
There are many different strains of Brucella , some unique to single genus of mammals, some cross genus and cross species. B. abortus affects both bovines ( cattle and bison ) and cervids ( elk) , and can be harmful to hominids ( that would be us ), but not deer or moose that I know of.
I hope Nadia will chime in here, or maybe link us to her series of articles .
I'm of the opinion that Brucellosis will never go away ( thank you , Mexico ) , but it can be mitigated and contained . The best tool is better animal husbandry---intensive herding.
The obvious solution is to physically separate bison from cattle. A simple task order: Move the cows...
Since that " solution" is already in the pay book and doable and relatively easy and cost effective , that it has NOT been widely adopted is to my mind the smoking gun echoes above that it is really not about the disease Brucelloisis at all, but rather the control of grazing lands and the rancher's collective desire to be the dominant user of the land, wildlife be damned.
That is the only scenario that fits the facts. It's the grass, stupid. The Cowboy Myth and the Cattle Baron mentality still rule. "Better Animal husbandry , my pink Stetson...."
Related to the debate on grass...we ARE ALREADY having that debate all across North American and certainly in Montana. Just look at the CMR situation and the intense push back on the APF bison project or even Tribal bison programs in Montana. It is little known that the percapita tax on bison is over 4 dollars while in cattle it is under 2... Also consider a large national willdife refuge where bison could exist but God forbid we give some of that grass to a bison. Just check out the anit-bison bills in legislature to get a sense of how much this is about grass, competition and power. Senate Bill 212 would allow restoration of bison as long as there is NO impact to agriculture production. WE are not even able to discuss the idea of economic trade offs and free markets to discuss the best use of grazing lands in MOntana for the good of the public and the country. We are not even given a chance to present a case for bison being worth more on the land to many local communities and a means to create a diverse stable economy if it is thought to have ANY impact on agriculture.....this is certainly about protecting one specific industry in Montana regardless of the interests of other sectors or publics. There is intense fear and anxiety and it is clearly propogated by the leaders of Agriculture with clear political intentions. Unfortunately in the long run I am convinced it will not help agriculture but hurt them. Even more compelling this fear and anxiety over willdife and wildlands will not make stronger communities in Eastern Montana as I can testify by my own home town and family business....towns are dying and they need people to support retail and businesses. The number of fokls involved in modern agriculture is shrinking and even though they are an important industry they alone will never provide a birght future for these small communities....just look at what is happening to these towns.....They need PEOPLE not cows to grow and prosper. That can come from a diversified economy that includes other prosperous industries and businesses including recreation...BUT that cannot happen when there is a chokehold on wildlife and recreation by the landed who cry foul every time a land use other than cattle grazing is suggested by land managers....even though they are highly subsidized and living off cheap access to public land.....YES it is about sharing power and space and grass....NO DOUBT!!!
Finally, yes it is taxpayers that pay for all of this. Conrad Burns got annual approps for GYIBC of $1 million per year...That approp still in play today (another subisidy for agriculture). it is our Federal tax dollars on top of NPS expenditures and APHIS expenditurs that are expended and circulated to pay for brucellosis management in GYA....DOL gets the funds for the state...check out the Fiscal note on Senate Bill 212.....here is a bill brought in by conservatives that only Costs money and brings in no revenue but affords no real beneift to agriculture except to exert power and control. This and several other bison bills fly right in the face of conservative values and principles but they don't care. The fiscal issue is not even being discussed by the committee....That bill and the other bills to make bison livestock only cost taxpayers and shift more power totally to Montana DOL and agriculture on this issue and YET will not reduce brucellosis risk one inch........
Great contributions to discussion. Thanks for sharing your insights and information.
http://wyofile.com/2010/02/green-fees-cheyenne-lawyers-crusade-on-us-legal-payments/.
It's always helpful to do your homework before speaking.
RH
Thanks Dusty. Good to have your perspective.
I don't think the Tea Party types have any monopoly on asking for fiscal ( not' physcal') prudence from the government. To paint George with the Tea Party brush is a bit of a distortion , isn't it? Kind of a cheap shot.
It appears on the surface anyway that you personally might be a somewhat progressive rancher. I see a 6-year old New York Times article stating that you sold the development rights on your Choteau MT ranch for the purpose of wildlife conservation . But then again , you are an outfitter up there by The Bob , so that means a set aside for assured elk habitat as well , which I presume is a direct economic benefit to your outfitting .
But I have to ask: what is the feeling among ranchers along the Rocky Mountain Front of northern Montana about paying a fair price for their grass, water, and access to public land ? About cattle operation and related farming subsidies in general ? Free subsidized predator control ? If you have the time, enlighten us...
I do have to say that once the Public Health issue is resolved when it comes to brucellosis, for instance , what
is left is managing the situation where cattle ranching and wildlife compete and often conflict for the resource, for whatever reason . I've come around to the idea that the whole brucellosis thing is a red herring.
You are lucky up there in Choteau that the dreaded B. abortus has no reservoir in your neck of the woods, since Montana Department of Livestock et al does such an egregious job of " managing" it down here in my neck of the woods, by slaughter. Wyoming appearts to be going down that same dark muddy dead end road from the looks of it, except they are directing their scorn towards elk ( a cash crop to outfitters but too often seen as a scourge to ranchers) , not bison.
Hoskins has a good point. Be careful where you step. We all know what the world's oldest profession is. I'm pretty sure in this day and age, lawyering does the same thing and is at or near the top of the list...on both sides of any court case.
One reason is I take care of my own and don't ask for handouts. heck I haven't seen a pay check in over 6 years and I get no assistance from anyone or thing. I just squeak by, taking care of my mother. Her retirement won't pay for extended care, and I wouldn't put her in there anyway. $1,200.00 a month doesn't go far.
My favorite equalizer is a .357.
Just saying being called a Tea bagger is not so bad, in fact I would take it as a compliment.
Better than a carpet bagger I guess.
The problem I see with so many of these issues is; that quite simply we all want what we want and we don't care who gets squished to get it. And we are all pretty much guilty of this mentality. You can see it in these blogs or in the halls of congress. No one thinks much of anyone else and what is important to them, just what is important to me and I will use whatever means possible to achieve my goals. Cause I'm right, right. There is validity to all sides of this and many other issues we face, but unless we all let go of the rope at the same time someone will get drug through the mud. What is most discouraging to me is that I think we would rather see if we can drag someone through the mud hole, rather than try and come up with workable solutions to issues that have many stake holders.
I would like to see a cowboy and a hippie sitting on a hillside enjoying the scenery. Cowboy says "You know, we need to find a way for buffalo to just be buffalo in this state. They help make this state special and are very important to so many people." Hippie says; "Yeah bison are really cool, but so are cows and cowboys. They are part of the fabric of this state and we can't
restore bison for the pleasure of one at the expense of another".
Now that could be a historic conversation.
I appreciate well written and researched words from anyone, even George. On that note I apologize for mispelling fiscal, I did however, look up paramecium so I should get half credit
With the fraudulent letters in hand, Montana's state vet got the state legislature to give the Dept. of Livestock control over all migratory wild bison in Montana 1995.
Sanctions has been the hammer that has driven biased news coverage, legislative machinations, and corrupt political funding of one of the most costly, wasteful, destructive, asinine plans ever launched by government.
When I shared the documents with news reporters more than a decade ago, none cared to print a word.
The fraud has been repeated so often it has become boilerplate in news articles. It makes me wonder if you have to pay to play these days to get a fair hearing in the news.
Killing wild buffalo is big business now.
As long as Sens. Baucus and Tester continue to funnel the multimillion dollar gravy train that has fully equipped the Dept. of Livestock to keep wild buffalo extinct in Montana the fraud will continue to be perpetrated, and the perps will leave behind a legacy we all will regret.
When the meat comes from a chemical vat on the back porch...Me thinks the little doggies will go the way of the harness maker...No more little doggies...No more rancher aristocracy...
Just think, open the vat, stop the flow of the green fluid, cut off a steak, close it up, next day, cut off another steak...The future opens up to a far green country.
my email is
1. what is your opinion on where or not the bison should be slaughtered?
2. What are some pros and cons of it
Regarding working together, how about taking a serious look at House Bill 482. We are calling it "The Montana Wild Buffalo Conservation and Management Act of 2011". You can search and review text of the bill here:
http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws11/law0203w$.startup
The intent and focus of HB 482 are:
1. Bison are valued native wildlife in the State of Montana.
2. FWP is the appropriate agency to have primary authority over bison conservation and management in Montana, including public hunting.
3. The Department of Livestock is still involved in terms of addressing private property rights/disease conflicts on private lands owned by those threatened by bison.
4. Current law, which allows the government (DOL) to enter private property without permission (MCA 81-2-120) would be repealed. That law also empowers the DOL to do all it’s largely unregulated hazing, capture, confinement, and slaughter of bison.
5. There is also a section recognizing the cultural heritage and treaty rights of tribal nations regarding bison.
I'm not sure I qualify as a hippie, but if you've got the hillside, I'd like to see the view.
I would counter with the parallel proposition that since humans share 98 percent of their DNA with chimpanzees and work for bananas, perhaps both the Park Service and the Montana Department of Livestock administrators can be replaced with chimps.
I have one serious response to offer. For the Umpteenth time, the Grey Wolves brought from Canada are the same species of Grey Wolf that was exterminated 60 years before. The same Canis lupus. That alien exotic wolf argument is a red herring , used in desperation by detractors.
If I were the all powerful Cod of Governance, I would deed all Federal land under USDA and USDI care to the Native American prior owners, and see what kind of genocide they come up with. You know, the old turnabout is fair play. They would find myriad ways to eke out a living from all those lands "untrammeled by the hand of man, where man is a visitor and does not stay."" or however that is worded. This 18th century European romanticism that is the heart of all this angst over public land has run out of steam and truth. Do you suppose the builders at Angkor Wat got a building permit, got EPA permission? Or the Mound People of the Mississippi River Valley? After a couple thousand years of environmental damage, I see that China is doing just fine. Got America on the run. The hordes of India seem to keep on walking around the cows, with no complaints. Can't say the same for the effete minority who deem to hike on rural trails in the US. This country is consumed with perceptions and has let reality fall by the wayside. And with it, our economy, our national safety, the whole of public education. The bison whine is such a tiny, teeny issue of perception, but such a great diversion from reality for so many. And unlike going to the movies, you don't have to buy a ticket.
It all gets old. Tired. And does not function like a Swiss watch. Hardly functions at all, and maybe because the dueling NGOs of litigation are firing on all tax forgiven money cylinders. Don't tax the rich. Do tax the rich. The left can't get it right, ever. But they depend on the tax avoiding trusts and foundations to fund their NGOs. Mainlining untaxed money can make you an addict. School teachers have yet to figure that out. They just wonder why they become the victim. Easy. No free lunch. Backdoor financing for 503 sub clause (pick one), comes with a price. Money is a finite resource. You can make a documentary of Wall Street criminals, but they are NGO funders. Paulson was not only CEO of GoldmanSachs, but a former Treasury Sec. and CEO of The Nature Conservancy, the mulit billion dollar annual revenue untaxed "feel good" repository for ill gotten gains. Just don't let them bust YOUR whore? Is that it??
There is always another side to every story. Ted Turner can sell you bisonburger every day. It comes from a dead bison. He has as many or maybe more, than the US Govt. Bison are no longer and endangered species. They are just what is left after the wolf carnage in YNP. The buffalo tribes of the New West would like to harvest any that leave the park. Let them. The Park will benefit, and so will private land owners and livestock. If I were the Cod of Codpiece, the prick in charge, I would let them shoot them in summer in the Park. That is who they were, and who they are. Let the tourists see bison for what they were, a cultural centerpiece, whose value was greatest when they were freshly killed, about to feed, clothe, and house a hard working people who were quick to adapt to and use European tools. This is my view, which is just another on the same subject for which there are no absolutes, no real "right" way. Just when the little Dutch boy plugs one hole, another springs up. Another gets created by too many human births, too much nutrition easy to come by, too much health care, too few labor intensive jobs. Television is about how to get grandpa a woodie. Do you really think we are capable of having a sane conversation about bison in the wild??
I would say he should send his comments to the Black Bear Blog, or Toby's web-footed wonderblog, where they will be genuinely appreciated for the "fringe" factor they so rightly deserve.
When a commenter resorts to delineating the players as " bison whiners, the wolf faeries, the friend of the cougar, the barred owl shooters, the fish ladder..." whatever opinion is proffered has been pre-discounted to near zero. Although bearbait does make a couple of worthwhile points, the ballast of his rhetoric submerges it to a level beanath reasonable discourse.
I hold NewWest and its considered opinion framework to a much higher standard.
Bison were never considered a prey species for wolves, just elk on down. At the time wolf reintroduction for Yellowstone was being formulated, bison numbers were low....a few hundred, not a few thousand. While the Academy Awards were playing the other night, I was switching back and forth to PBS for the ' Nature" episode on Yellowstone's wolves and grizzlies. Some fabulous cinemaphotography illustrating what happens when wolves try to take down a full grown bison. They get whomped. But they do make off with a few new bison calves, as do coyotes and especially grizzlies. But not in any appreciable numbers since the bison learned to mount a herd-wide defensive posture and are much less sedentary these days.
Myself, I've noticed that the Pronghorn of the Blacktail Plateau region west of the Lamar Valley are having their fawns in among the bison herds. The Pronghorn and the Bison seek to be actively and tactically cooperating on protecting their young from predators in late spring early summer , and that is a new adaptation.
Also, if you track wolf numbers inside Yellowstone, you will see the number of wolves and wolfpacks are falling off , not increasing. It's fallacious to say there are too many wolves for the available prey. That's not true. They are adjusting in reciprocation , as expected , and long shown to be the case elsewhere.
In fact, Doug Smith says he would not be the least bit surprised if in a few years there are only 2-3 active wolf packs in Yellowstone and much less population than now. Fewer elk, fewer wolves, all healthier and in balance. I expect that same phenom to occur outside Yellowstone as well, but on a longer time scale. We're still only 15 years into this reintroduction , far too early to be calling winners and losers or predicting the outcomes. We really won't know the score with wolves until they have been back for as long as they were gone. That's still 45 years from now...