Interagency Bison Management Plan
State and Federal Agencies Predict Busy Winter for Bison Management
By David Nolt, 12-06-07
 |
|
 | |
| Above: A bison in Yellowstone National Park. photo courtesy of National Park Service. Below: Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Suzanne Lewis looks over a map of the Gallatin National Forest surrounding part of the park. photo by David Nolt | |
|
Bison are powerful American icons and stir deep emotions in many different people. The Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP) meeting in Bozeman last Tuesday night was testament to this; dreadlocks and cowboy hats commingled as officials from federal and state agencies presented an update on the IBMP and answered an array of questions on what they predicted the coming winter would hold for Yellowstone’s bison.
In panel discussions and public discussion sessions with the IBMP’s five signatory agencies, officials had one overarching message: all agencies would be fully implementing the IBMP this winter, including – if necessary – the costly and controversial practices of hazing and slaughtering bison who wander out of the park.
Bison, elk and many other mammals carry the disease brucellosis, which showed up in a Montana cattle herd this summer. Though the Department of Livestock (DOL) says the transmission likely came from elk, if another cattle herd tests positive before May 2009 Montana will lose its brucellosis free status, and the DOL will not be taking any chances with bison.
In 2000 the Yellowstone National Park Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Gallatin National Forest Service and the Montana Department of Livestock formed the IBMP to “Preserve a viable, wild population of Yellowstone bison, address the management of bison when they leave Yellowstone National Park, reduce the risk of transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle, maintain Montana’s brucellosis-free status” while protecting private property. The five agencies updated the IBMP operating procedures on November 16, 2007.
Almost 200 people gathered at the Holiday Inn in Bozeman as experts stood on hand during an open house to answer information on the brucellosis outbreak, brucellosis vaccination, bison population, the bison hunt, the Royal Teton Ranch lease north of Gardiner and a quarantine feasibility study.
Though the DOL is the lead agency for managing bison outside the park, there is significant pressure on the Yellowstone National Park Service to take a larger role in controlling the park’s bison, which reached a near-record population of 4,700 this summer. Glenn Plump of YNP talked about vaccinating bison within the park. No case of transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle has ever been proven, and when asked about how the Park Service could vaccinate bison without vaccinating elk, Plumb responded, “The argument that it can’t happen because it hasn’t happened is in some ways a flawed argument.”
The Park Service outlined three vaccination alternatives: Vaccinate by direct handling of bison using a syringe vaccine at management zone capture facilities; expand the program to include remote vaccination of young bison throughout their range; or expand the program to include remote vaccination of all female age groups throughout their range.
When asked about vaccinating elk, Jack Rhyan of YNP admitted the sheer numbers of elk in the park would make vaccination very difficult, adding – even though the transmission of brucellosis to the Morgan cattle herd likely came from elk – elk calving is “not nearly the transmission event, except in feedlots, as in bison.”
Still, information on the Yellowstone National Park website states, “Outside the park wild bison from the Yellowstone population have not been known to transmit brucellosis to a visitor or to domestic livestock…the risk of Yellowstone bison transmitting brucellosis to nearby livestock is very low.”
At a panel discussion, Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Suzanne Lewis spoke toward the difficulty of managing bison.
“Just when you think you can predict bison management, they’re going to probably make you look pretty silly in trying to do that,” Lewis explained.
Montana DOL State Veterinarian Dr. Martin Zaluski said the IBMP agencies are anticipating an active winter because of the high number of bison in the park and deteriorating range conditions due to drought. Zaluski said the DOL would be working with ranchers on new “producer-led initiatives” like vaccinating cattle and increasing the surveillance of cow abortions.
Zaluski also briefly discussed a situation with new landowners on Horse Butte Peninsula, a historical bison migration corridor along the Madison Valley’s Hebgen Lake. The landowners removed all cattle from the peninsula, which they say removes any need for the DOL to enter their property to haze bison. The DOL is maintaining their statutory right to enter the property to haze “as a last resort.” The DOL has requested a meeting with the property owners who have refused.
“It opens up potential for some increased tolerance [of bison],” Zaluski explained, “but that tolerance needs to be looked at through a risk prism. There is still a residual risk.”
Pat Flowers of the MFWP said, although his agency fully intends to implement the IBMP, “We will broaden our vision of how we want to manage bison in the entire state as we do with all other wildlife” in the coming year.
The work will not be easy, however, Flowers emphasized.
“This is about as complicated a resource management issue as I have ever run into,” Flowers said, pointing to the varied public and private interests involved.
A discussion on “Bison Operations on the Ground” for the 2007-2008 winter became heated at times as members of the public grilled agency representatives – particularly the DOL – on everything from the DOL’s sympathies towards bison to an assessment on the logic and success of the IBMP.
Tim Reid, YNP Deputy Chief Ranger said he thought the IBMP was providing a springboard to progress, but noted the “scale and scope” of the issue could mean “success” might not come for 20 to 30 years.
Department of Livestock representative Rob Tierney defended his agency’s actions, saying Montana’s ranching economy hangs in the balance. If the state loses its brucellosis-free status, producers would be prevented from shipping cattle out of the state without stringent and expensive testing.
“One more hit and, boy, we’re in huge trouble,” Tierney explained.
As agriculture profits continue to dwindle, ranchers attending the meeting left uncertain awaiting a Fall 2007 brucellosis testing, which will wrap up on December 7, 2007. Those who attended the meeting looking to hear a change of direction for the IBMP left disappointed as all five agencies reasserted their duty to implement the plan in what could be another busy and controversial winter around Yellowstone National Park.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Couple things here. First, brucellosis is an exotic not native to this hemisphere, with no redeeming qualities. Came from the Med. Given the "conservation biology" acolytes all pander to native first last and always, why is there no consensus on zapping an exotic in wild herds, especially when it looks likely that this is the last reservoir on the continent? Give it the smallpox treatment, okay?
Montana is just the third state to get on the brucellosis hit list due to transmittal from the YNP disease core. The Park has a responsibility for containment that it is not fulfilling. Period.
If the cattle industry was really concerned about controlling brucellosis they should be lining up screaming for the phase out of elk feedlots in Wyoming. Kinda funny that they instead oppose this. I just have to wonder why??????????????????
Dumb statement winners:
1. “The argument that it can’t happen because it hasn’t happened is in some ways a flawed argument.” In what ways would those be? It hasn't happened in 90 years where bison are concerned. When's the last time it happened with elk? Oh yeah...
2. ...elk calving is “not nearly the transmission event, except in feedlots, as in bison.” See #1.
3. “but that tolerance needs to be looked at through a risk prism. There is still a residual risk.” To whom? No cattle equals no risk. Dude, you need a new risk prism. You're getting bad refractions.
4. “We will broaden our vision of how we want to manage bison in the entire state as we do with all other wildlife” Then we assume you'll be designating habitat in Montana for bison--as you do with all other wildlife?
5.“This is about as complicated a resource management issue as I have ever run into” It's really quite simple. Public interests? American bison, America's premiere national park, America's public land, American people. Private interests? Montana livestock industry. Nothing complicated about which way THAT scale tips.
6. “One more hit and, boy, we’re in huge trouble,” Isn't everyone just sick to death of livestock industry hyperbole? They lie, bison die. Cut the drama and start taking responsibility for managing your herds. Vaccinate them and get them out of the way.
i agree the blood test only shows exposure, sort of like a skin test for TB in humans ... tissue samples would show actual disease and perhaps pinpoint more scientifically who infected these animals.
i've said this many times before in the comments in other articles about buffalo on this site: when the DOL starts to extend their predatory reach towards elk, maybe then the hunters and sportsmen's groups will finally begin to realize what a travesty the IBMP plan is and why groups like Buffalo Field Campaign have been standing with and for the buffalo for over ten years.
maybe when DOL/APHIS decides they should be "in charge" of elk and we have an IEMP, with elk managed by DOL, it will be a wake up call. so far the only hunter/sportsman's group to stand up on behalf of buffalo is the Gallatin Wildlife Association led by glenn hockett; i am grateful to glenn and the GWA members for continuing to push for real restoration of native herds of buffalo in montana, with year round habitat ... then, and only then could one conduct an "ethical" hunt rather than the shoot-em at the border fiasco we have now.
Buffalo are immune to brucellosis, and can't spread it to anything if they don't have it. Tissue testing will verify this, so why isn't it being done?
You boys afraid you are going to lose your "cowboy welfare" (free grazing).
There is only one sensible answer, eradicate the disease. The cattle already are vaccinated, now it is time, past time to start vaccinating all of the buffalo. Wyoming is working on vaccinating the elk on the feed grounds. I'm sure the feed grounds will have to be phased out, but that will mean a reduction in elk numbers, just moving them onto ranches to survive is not the answer.
The buffalo have been exposed, and test positive to the inefficient card tests performed on them. The same as a beef cow will do that has been vaccinated. But they aren't "infected", merely exposed, and immune.
Your recommendation to "vaccinate" the buffalo is more ignorance, there isn't a vaccine for buffalo, and the one for cattle doesn't work on buffalo.
WY G&F;is dabbling with a 'test 'n slaughter' approach, in which infected elk are killed, so as to reduce the prevalence of the disease within that feedground herd. Unhappily, crowded conditions and curious noses checking out "hot" afterbirth can quickly nullify marginal gains from 'test 'n slaughter.'
Montana is focusing on bison and ignoring elk, because elk have vociferous supporters in the outfitting and hunter community. Despite a lack of evidence of transmission from bison to cattle, cattle growers are paranoid and exercise disproportionate political influence in Montana.
Meanwhile, APHIS is laying the groundwork for a massive 'test 'n slaughter' program that will take on the impossible task of rounding up all wild elk and bison and shoving them through the system, essentially converting Greater Yellowstone elk and bison into "livestock." Such an effort would essentially destroy the wildness of wildlife and violate all kinds of laws and regs underpinning the National Park Service.
Meanwhile, we ignore steps that could keep cattle safely immunized and continue feedground operations that keep brucellosis at high incidence levels -- far higher than they exist in elk herds that don't have feedgrounds.
Yet another example of politics and greed trumping sound science.
Has any of you NIMBYs ever taken a basic biology class? Ever herd of the carrying capacity of an ecosystem?
Herds wander cause there is not enough for them to survive on, so they seek forage over the next hill. Want to see my pictures of winter killed bison and elk in the park? Must be a great way to die, slowly starving.
I enjoy seeing bison, elk and all the others(except whitetails jumping in front of my car!!), but with the increase of private property/loss of habitat caused by our 'civilization' I believe numbers have to be limited somehow. Lets use some COMMON SENSE. Millions was spent on reintroducing wild dogs, er, i mean wolves to yellowstone. I like the idea of re-establishment. Now the big suprise is they breed like dogs!! Quit managing.
While i don't eat beef, I support the montana's cattle industry. Without the agricultural products -animal and plant- that are produced here and sold worldwide, we will further our decline into
the bottom tier of states. For us that actually work and raise familys here economics are important; schools, infrastructure are in a shameful state. I suppose it's different if you came from somewhere with a pocketful of dollars from selling an overvalued house. I'm tired of seeing massive overconsumption of everything.
There was an attempt to catch some of the Pelican Valley animals and breed them to the tame ones, and then release them when they were old enough, however that did not pan out and of course the tame buffs managed to expand to interact with the others so it became a moot point. The only way to be absolutely sure that cows gave the disease to the buffalo is if they had 100% negative tests in the Pelican Valley buffs before they found it in the Lamar animals, and of course no one thought of having to prove anything at that point in time. I'm sure they never dreamed that anyone would be trying to have the right to overload the land with thousands of buffalo.
Of course there is no reason to believe that buffalo will stop wandering at Horse Butte or anywhere else. anyone who thinks they will turn back to avoid a dairy any more than a beef cow is kidding themselves.
By the way the elk do not deliver their calves until very late May and early June....after leaving the feed grounds, so no they are not checking out the placentas on the feedgrounds. On top of that elk deliver in solitary unike the buffalo.
As Pronghorn states, “When will someone with adequate backbone and integrity come along to correct this hugely unjust situation?
This winter with the changes on Horse Butte may just be the winter that makes a difference. Leadership and change certainly will not come any of the participants of the IBMP.
Interestingly, the agencies had no area or booth for the public to officially submit written comment. This was a significant failing of this process. As well, all the questions asked of the agency representatives during the panel session were screened and thus controlled by the agencies (you had to write your question on a note card that was then reviewed by the agencies and thus who knows what questions were never asked, much less answered). Furthermore, the only written public record was controlled by the agencies during the roundtable discussions by their note takers. For the record, I did provide written comments on behalf of the Gallatin Wildlife Association to representatives for at least 4 of the 5 IBMP member agencies, but I have no way of knowing whether this is part of an official public record or not. I wonder if you could request a copy as a member of the media.
Anyway, I would like to compliment the agencies on the Open House format and for conducting the 3 roundtable discussions. That format allowed for a truly democratic public process to take place and I think those discussions were quite fruitful. I learned a lot, however mostly from other interested publics. More time in the roundtable discussions would have been even more beneficial in my estimation. They took notes, I guess we will see what they do with them.
Unfortunately, Pat Flowers speaking for all the agencies made it quite clear prior to the roundtable discussions that nothing would change this winter/spring. So, the message was: Here is what we are going to do and this is set in stone no matter how ridiculous, inhumane or expensive it may seem, now we would like to hear from you.
At the meeting, only the public pointed out all the conflict-free public and private land habitat that is inappropriately mapped as zone 3, a drop dead zone for wild bison. I don't think I heard one agency person say the word habitat. What a waste. This plan is laughable, but it is getting increasingly harder to laugh at all this waste and needless wildlife harassment and slaughter. The DOL has no business messing with our wildlife and our public and private property rights when they could simply protect a few cows.
David Nolt's article, though well written, pretty much follows the status quo of reporting on brucellosis, bison, elk, and feedgrounds: all the reporters accept the claim from the livestock industry that brucellosis in elk and bison pose a serious economic threat to the livestock industry, which, they also claim, is important economically to the West.
For years, I have urged reporters to dig into the merits of these claims. If they dug, they would find out that brucellosis is not a serious economic threat to the livestock industry. They would also find out that there isn't much of an economic future for the livestock industry in the West for both ecological and economic reasons.
Once in possession of these facts, I have suggested to reporters that instead of accepting these fraudulent claims from livestock industry apologists about the so-called brucellosis threat, they should look to the politics of brucellosis, which is, simply, that brucellosis "management" is merely a tool for extending the control that the livestock oligarchy exerts over wildlife and land use policy, not to mention the federal and state wildlife and land management agencies, for its own private benefit.
In other words, brucellosis management isn't about disease; it's about power. Brutally pursued power, as a matter of fact, as the abuse of bison in Montana make abundantly clear.
The brucellosis problem isn't a true problem; it's a fraud. The real problem faced by the livestock industry is how to maintain its political power and economic privileges, both illegitimate, in the changing political, social, and economic environment of the New West.
Broadcasting the big lie about brucellosis in wildlife is one strategy followed by the livestock industry to achieve this illegitimate, oligarchic goal.
It is now approaching two years that Wyoming got its brucellosis-free status back from APHIS after the outbreaks of brucellosis in cattle in Sublette and Teton Counties four years ago. (I have discussed the nature of these two outbreaks in earlier commentary on elk feedgrounds on New West at http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/article/5493/).
These outbreaks were legitimately ascribed to infection by elk from at least two feedgrounds, although the circumstances of infection point to deliberate negligence by the ranchers involved and the Wyoming Game & Fish Department, which operates the feedgrounds as an agent of local ranchers and the livestock industry. I discuss this issue of responsibility in detail for the outbreaks in the commentary at the above listed URL.
Anyway, I have recently been perusing Wyoming livestock data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, a part of the US Department of Agriculture, for the years prior to, during, and after these recent brucellosis outbreaks in Wyoming cattle.
I have yet to find any evidence that loss of brucellosis-free status has had any significant economic impact on Wyoming's livestock producers. That is, the data do not support a claim that loss of b-free status obstructed the ability of Wyoming producers to market their cattle out of state, nor do the data support the claim of significant economic loss to producers.
While this is a preliminary conclusion because I am still looking at the data, it seems so far that there wasn't much difference economically between b-free status and class A status as far as marketability and price are concerned.
The only difference between the two conditions was the requirement for increased testing and surveillance of Wyoming cattle. The cost of additional testing was externalized to the public purse when the Wyoming legislature appropriated $1.6 million as a(nother) subsidy to producers.
Nothing new; just another example of how heavily dependent livestock producers are on taxpayers--that is, you and I.
Brucellosis can not be eradicated without eradicating all the wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone Region. APHIS admitted that the only way APHIS eradicated brucellosis from any given livestock herd was to kill all the animals, period. Thus the wildlife vaccination program is a farce and waste of tax payer money.
Brucellosis is a seasonally contagious disease with the primary risk of transmission window being February through June 15. Brucellosis infected birthing materials purposely placed in southwest Montana by APHIS and FWP researchers never persisted past June 15. Never!
Only mature (18 months or older), breeding age and capable cattle are susceptible to brucellosis and therefore testing. There are very few susceptible age cattle using the area south of the elk winter ranges in Montana, especially between February – June 15. Protect these few cows and the “problem” is largely solved.
July 1 turnout dates for livestock are a sound brucellosis protection/prevention measure. The 2 cattle allotments on Forest Service public land in the Taylor Fork area of the Upper Gallatin watershed represent the only potential risk factor in the entire watershed all the way to Big Sky and these cattle do not enter this area until July 1 (Cache/Eldridge allotment) and July 10 (Wapiti allotment).
Many private landowners in the region are extremely wildlife friendly and some have made a clear statement to the DOL that they do not want them entering their property to haze, harass or kill bison. Elk are allowed to migrate and winter on many of these private lands both in the Upper Madison and Upper Yellowstone area.
The entire Horse Butte peninsula is completely free of any conflict from cattle and desired habitat for bison, including calving. There is no scientific or political reason for removing bison for this area ever.
Bison are wildlife, not livestock, and they should be managed by the Montana FWP as valued native wildlife.
Cattle vaccines are effective. Protect cows and quit killing and harassing our wildlife. Any research on vaccines should be designed to improve livestock vaccines and procedures (adult vaccination).
APHIS brucellosis rules for livestock are outdated and brucellosis no longer poses a significant human health risk the United States. The pasteurization of milk largely cured that problem and the “infected” cattle that have been slaughtered over the years go directly to the food chain. We eat them, so what’s the harm?
There is no need to capture a bunch of bison if they head down the Madison valley this winter, because they are all headed to conflict-free winter range where thousands of elk currently graze without restriction. However, if the DOL/APHIS feel compelled to capture a bunch of bison just because they can under the auspices of this plan or because they truly threaten some susceptible cow somewhere, we can transplant these bison to public lands in the Park in the Upper Gallatin at Specimen or Dailey Creek or on our Gallatin Wildlife Management Area at Teepee Creek where there are absolutely no susceptible cattle.
These are just some of the great ideas that were shared by the public at this meeting. I’m sure I haven’t listed everything, but for now, I’m of to the elk summit in Bozeman.
The reason I ask is that bison management needs definition of methods and results to sell alternatives to current processes.
Why doesn't anyone ever discuss what's going on at Turner's Flying D operation and compare it to this situation?
Any state that wants to take on the responsibility of dealing with them should be able to do so, no state should be forced to do so.
Brucellosis is only one problem that free roaming buffalo would present, there are a lot of disease free herds in the country if the states wanted to take on the responsibility of managing them.
Responsibility is the key word, and the one not understood by those living in a dream world. We live in the 21st century, not the 19th, and we cannot turn back the clock. It would be so much more productive to work on helping find a way to eradicate disease and control the numbers of buffalo to the carrying capacity of the Park. All of the state parks having buffalo herds are able to do it, why not a NP with many more resources?
The power to claim land, to eliminate economic sectors one hates, the power to play God in Yellowstone.
The premise that a population needs to be eliminated to eradicate brucellosis is not true. Otherwise there would be no cows anywhere on the planet.
For practical purposes, brucellosis is an exotic isolate in the Yellowstone region. A period of aggressive, targeted management of both elk (about 3 percent infection) and bison (50 percent) over a span of two or three generations would certainly address the endemic occurrence of this exotic, non-native disease in its last continental stronghold.
I suspect that soon, Wyoming will in fact begin to aggressively deal with elk infection at the feedgrounds, and DOL APHIS NPS need to do precisely the same test-and-slaughter regime starting now, and lasting as long as it takes. For that matter, MT FWP and ID DFG need to start seriously monitoring elk infection. Whether that means tissue samples at hunter-check stations in the region, with more-intensive follow-ups if positive animals cluster in an area, I don't know.
But the political agenda needs to step aside from the real problem of disease. Using brucellosis as a social foil is a crock. Get rid of the disease, and THEN we'll discuss bison and elk distribution on the merits.
After my first brucellosis story on NW, I soon gave up the notion that I would be able to please all or any of the myriad of people involved and interested in this issue. Quite honestly, that's not my job. It is my job to get important, interesting information to the public, and whether or not this story did that -- whether or not I just reaffirmed the status quo or accurately reported on the meeting -- can certainly be up for debate.
A couple things: I had the misfortune of going to school for journalism, not wildlife biology or ecology or veterinary science. So, on a story like this I suppose I am being a bit of a BS artist, but I'm learning as I go. That said, I have absolutely no interest in maintaining any status quos that are detrimental to the environment or public. There is obviously much, much more to this story than what you see here, and I can only tell y'all that I'll keep after it. This was a report on the meeting, not an exposé on the IBMP and ranching and politics in MT. I think you can read this story and draw your own conclusions, which all of you have and I continue to look forward to reading the feedback about this issue. I'm not trying to shirk my duties as a reporter, just explaining where I was coming from with this story.
Bottom line: The IBMP and DOL's involvement with bison management is controversial (as stated in the story), but it is what it is. The take home from this story was that all these agencies will be fully implementing the IBMP in what they expect to be another busy season for the management plan. Is the logic of the IBMP flawed and does the DOL exert excessive authority over bison management? That's for the public to decide. I'll try to continue to provide the facts, the players, the science, etc., and hopefully something worthwhile will bubble to the surface.
Neither the DOL or the critics of the DOL and IBMP are happy with this story, so I guess, in a way, I'm doing my job. Once again: I am well aware there is much more to this story, and I will continue to cover it. And for the record, I am neither an agent of the Department of Livestock or the Buffalo Field Campaign or any other vested interest outside my own life as a citizen and resident of southwestern Montana. A lot's at stake here and a lot's involved. I'll do my best to get at the heart of it all. Thanks for the feedback, stay tuned and thanks for reading.
-David Nolt
To Suzanne Lewis I say, "Bison are very predictable if one understands what makes bison tick. It’s just that your advisors, the Park biologists, do not understand bison nor for that matter any basic herd behavior. If they did you would be closing the interior of Hayden Valley and the Mirror Plateau to overnight and day use during the sensitive summer calf caring time to keep bison from leaving the park in the numbers seen today". One can not confuse the apparent tameness of extended families near the road to the isolation needed in each family’s core home. The explosion in outfitter and private day trips allowed during the summer in Hayden ultimately pushes these hazed and corral stressed bison extended families out of their homes and makes carrying capacity a mute point. These buffalo end up seeking out other homes ....which happens to be out of the Park (no Plains Indians were stupid enough to disturb the cow-calf herd’s pre rut because this meant these herds would not be back the next year). For the Pelican-Mirror herd, being of wary Mt. Bison culture, there is no recourse to leaving the country because humans occupy any area bison scouts venture into. Thus the result of the Park allowing huge increases in backcountry users in Mt. Bison home turf, coupled with expansion of Plains bison, in the last 30 years has eliminated the upper Lamar-Saddle Mt. habitat and severely stressed Mt. Bison's last summer stronghold, the Mirror Plateau.
What is worse is the Park biologists are playing an active role in disturbing bison cow-calf herds by physically following these animals when the calves are so small and their mothers so feeling the need to protect. Just because bison families aren't running from these researchers following close on foot doesn't mean they are not terminally disturbing them in their home bases. To Suzanne I say, "You keep applying for research money to "understand" bison better but you end up indirectly killing these animals with each of these direct or indirect congressional appropriations". Most of your biologist bison projects today remind me of the well intended conflict oriented grizzly studies of the "70's when Park backed research meant human guinea pigs finding out what happens when grizzlies were purposely repeatedly disturbed in the back country. The results are seen in researcher Barry Gilberts face when a griz circled back and attacked him while he was going to the john behind a tree... after being disrupted several times by him and another researcher that morning. The only difference in the outcome of studies then and now is bison mothers leave their homes without fighting back.
To the IBMP stated plan of proceeding full steam ahead with trapping and shipping bison for slaughter I say to those who don't agree to this, the only way it can be stopped this winter is to get a court injunction pertaining to the inhumane way these bison are allowed to be handled in Park corrals. Whether the agencies are right or wrong proceeding with their supposed brucellosis driven agenda makes no difference when it comes to treatment as now seen in these corrals. Abuse can not be tolerated, no matter what the end justification. Yellowstone and the other agencies presently have the 'license to kill" and are above the law when it comes to animal cruelty contentions. This is because these agencies enacted "experimental" status at the beginning of this brucellosis endeavor. Thus, inhumane acts that would put a Montana livestock producer in jail can not be acted on when applied to activities at Park bison corrals. I can not understand why Yellowstone would want or agree to above the law stipulations when the animals being affected are Park animals, but then again our country feels we can justify being above the law when it comes to interrogating potential terrorists.
Thus, an injunction to question the right of these agencies to proceed with inhumane animal treatment, as allowed in a corralling operation clearly non scientific in nature, is needed even before monitoring of these facilities for inhumane acts is sought. Whether the verdict is life or death for Yellowstone bison, every participant in the IBMP needs to consider the welfare of every animal first in any decision of life or death they make on these animals. Without this emphasis, as seen with every roundup in these corrals, one has to question the ethical validity of participation by any agency in IBMP wanting to be above the law when it comes to handling of the animals they are responsible for.
The second myth out there being subtly perpetuated by some is that exotic domestic cattle are “diseased free”. Again, and perhaps unfortunately, this is far from the truth. Let’s just consider one of the significant diseases other than brucellosis that cattle can carry and spread to native wildlife and other domestic animals.
1.) Blue Tongue was recently reported in central Montana http://fwp.mt.gov/news/article_6004.aspx and is a series disease that can kill both domestic sheep and native wildlife, including whitetailed deer, mule deer, antelope and even elk. The impacts of this disease to both domestic sheep and native wildlife were fatally dramatic this summer in Montana. Please also check out this web site from Utah State University http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/factsheet/AH_Beef_02.pdf, which points out cattle are the main reservoir for overwintering of Blue Tongue Virus in temperate climates. Gnats become infected from cattle and then spread the disease to other cattle and sheep as they take blood meals. Reproductive effects of Blue Tongue include abortion, infertility, mummification, and stillbirth. As well, the presence of Blue Tongue significantly limits marketing opportunities for cattle internationally. See: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fsheet_faq_notice/fs_ahbluetongue.html “For about 25 years, the presence of bluetongue viruses in the United States has blocked the export of U.S. cattle, sheep, and goats to many major world markets. Currently, these markets include Australia, New Zealand, and the European Union. Canada accepts U.S. cattle, but requires rigorous testing before the animals may cross the border.” As well please check out http://www.addl.purdue.edu/newsletters/2002/spring/bluetongue.shtml from the Purdue Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory where the following is outlined: “The threat of decreased trade associated with Bluetongue outbreaks has become an even bigger threat to the livestock industry than the actual disease itself. According to Kahrs, “bluetongue is a major obstacle to exportation of U.S. ruminants and ruminant products and probably affects the United States more than most countries.” This is because of the prevalence of BTV in conjunction with competent vectors within the U.S., vague surveillance and reporting policies, and extensive BTV research emanating from U.S. laboratories.” Furthermore, “The overall seroprevalence of cattle in the United States is >18%.”
If you are an “amenity” buyer of land in the Greater Yellowstone Area or anywhere for that matter you would be well advised to realize that if you lease your property for livestock grazing there can be significant consequences of that decision to native wildlife as well as native plant communities.
The good news for cattle advocates in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) is that it appears some types of cattle can be raised without consequence to the greater livestock industry due to the perceived or real brucellosis transmission risks from wildlife, in particular elk. As I understand the APHIS regulations steers and spayed heifers can be brought into the GYA and leave the GYA without marketing or testing restrictions. As well, I believe the science on brucellosis persistence indicates that July 1 or later turnout dates for susceptible cattle (breeding age and capable cattle over 18 months of age) in the GYA will also work as a sound brucellosis protection/prevention mechanism. Let me be clear, I am not suggesting exotic cattle grazing in the GYA is a good idea, especially at the expense of native wildlife including North American Elk and Bison. I’m just saying we can get along in the context of the brucellosis issue. Bison and elk can be managed as the incredible native Montana wildlife and big game species they are and those interested in raising a few cattle can do so with minimal if any changes.
Eradicate Blue Tongue if you want to do the livestock industry, especially domestic sheep producers a favor. Elimination of that cattle disease will also likely benefit wildlife. But please don’t imply we are wasting all this taxpayer money on this brucellosis boone-doggle for the benefit of wildlife in the GYA or human health in the United States. Again, let’s protect a few cows with some very cost effective and efficient means and move on.
The point I was trying to make in my comment above is that all reporters, not just David Nolt, have devoted themselves only to the surface facts, not the deep facts, and as a consequence, they are failing to get the important facts into the public debate.
In his response above, Nolt sidestepped this issue of the importance of deep facts by asserting that if no one's happy with the reporting, then he's doing his job. This is what we hear from the agencies all the time, and it's simply a cop-out.
An analogy: I'm sure David Nolt knows who Ernest Hemingway is. Hemingway's aesthetic of writing was the iceberg principle--that the most important things are below the surface, the deep things, the deep emotions. His primary technique was to arrange the surface so that what was hidden in the deep, the bulk of the iceberg, as it were, would become apparent to the reader through his emotional reaction to the surface facts and their artful arrangement in the narrative of the story. This way of writing, of dealing artfully with surfaces--which is actually an impressionist technique, adapted from painting to writing--is of course a kind of poetry, and it takes considerable skill to pull off.
But journalism isn't poetry, it isn't literature. It is sheer fact. Hemingway's iceberg principle doesn't apply to journalism.
The public needs, and we expect, journalism to give us the whole iceberg. And that's not happening, neither with bison nor with any other public issue.
Nolt tells us in his story above that DOL asserts elk are the source of the brucellosis outbreak in the Bridger cattle herd. Fine, but that doesn't get us anywhere. Does he tell us that there is no evidence for it? Not at all. It would have been easy to find out about the lack of evidence.
It took me two minutes of talking to the Montana State Vet at the IBMP Open House the other night to determine that not only is there no evidence for an elk source, there WILL BE no evidence. DOL is simply satisfied to tell a lie, since science really doesn't matter to the livestock industry. All that matters is to use big and little lies to justify the expansion of livestock industry control over wildlife in and out of the Park.
What I'm trying to get across is that this little issue--did elk infect the cattle herd--provides another opportunity for digging down deep into the true facts, since the surface facts are false.
Why is the press refusing to ask, "Why is there no evidence for an elk source? Why will there be no evidence for an elk source? Is there any evidence for a cattle source?"
Here's the rule: As with any great public policy issue, it comes down to finding out the answer to this question: who benefits, and who loses. Asking this question is the best way to enter the deep and tell the true story to the public.
I think this is called investigative journalism.
The brucellosis fraud is rife with deep facts that reveal who benefits and who loses. All that is necessary is to dig, dig, dig. Why is this so difficult to understand and do?
Here's another deep fact that the press has ignored. The agencies are making a big deal of their proposed bison vaccination program in the Park. It will be, ostensibly, a scientific experiment to see if vaccination reduces brucellosis seroprevalence in bison.
However, after about five minutes of talking with a biologist involved in developing the vaccination program, it became clear to me that they are missing some important baseline data that are absolutely necessary to determine whether in fact vaccination will reduce seroprevalence in bison.
What are these data? The key measurement in this vaccination "experiment" is what I call the "shed factor." That is, what the agencies say they are going to try to achieve materially is the reduction of the amount of Brucella abortus organisms "shed" into the environment by abortion events in bison.
However, to claim with any scientific confidence that the vaccine works, one has to know with good confidence what the current "shed factor" is inside the Park. That is, one must have good, extensive data on the number and distribution of abortion events in bison, as well as good data on the actual exposure of bison, to include the number of bison, to these abortion events BEFORE beginning to vaccinate.
Guess what. The Park doesn't have this data.
Consequently, there can be no valid comparison of data pre-and post-vaccine.
In other words, we don't have a scientific experiment.
If we don't have science, then what do we have? That, to paraphrase Hamlet, is the real question. The deep question.
The "brucellosis fraud" narrative I am suggesting tells us that what we have is livestock industry politics, with the goal of taking full control of wildlife both in and out of the Park for the benefit of the livestock oligarchy.
This is an easy narrative to understand. After all, the entire history of the western livestock industry has been one of murder, theft, intimidation, and retaliation to control land and wildlife for its pecuniary benefit. There's a good short discussion of this history in the chapter on violence The Oxford History of the American West.
In short, that is what journalists should be doing--finding out what in fact we do have, both on the surface and in the deep.
Who benefits, who loses. It's a simple question, but even the simplest things are difficult.
RH
I wonder if I could make a simple request. Your comments, based upon your extensive knowledge of both how Yellowstone National Park works, or more accurately how it doesn't work, and of bison biology and behavior, are singularly valuable additions to the public debate.
However, I wonder if you could break your comments into shorter paragraphs. Much shorter. My eyes aren't what they used to be and it's hard to read a mass of words on the computer screen.
Best wishes,
RH
Another example of this at the IBMP Open House was the hunt booth where FWP rather than DOL representatives were "manning" the table. DOL, not FWP is the only agency that can authorize a "hunt" for wild bison in Montana under current law (MCA 87-2-730). Please read the law at: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/87/2/87-2-730.htm if you don't believe me. So why aren't DOL representatives manning the "hunt" booth? Asked about how the hunt is going, things seem fine, 10 bison harvested so far. However, are there any bison in the State of Montana now - no. Essentially we are killing them all as soon as they step into Montana. Thus, what is the status of wild bison in Montana - essentially extinct except for some high fenced bison kept in captivity at the National Bison Range in Moiese. If bison management is about brucellosis management then why are the brucellosis-free bison at Moiese kept behind a high fence - why can't they just roam? Oh yea, they are a big animal that eats grass. This hunt has been reduced to a shoot 'em at the border "tool" administered by the DOL to eliminate bison, not brucellosis from the state of Montana. Bison may be tough to manage, but they are wildlife not livestock and the FWP should be given the responsibility to manage them as valued native wildlife in the State of Montana.
As to why the press is doing such a poor job of reporting the facts about bison, not to mention about a whole host of other important issues, perhaps I can start the discussion, having done a bit of free-lance writing--unsuccessfully--in my day. There are economic, political, and social reasons.
Economically, there rarely is a market for truth or true facts, which often are not as interesting as false facts. True facts have to have a grounding in reality as we experience it. False facts just need to be made up. As we know, marketing is largely a sophisticated form of rhetoric, which, if you are philosophically inclined, came under much criticism from the Greek philosopher Plato as simply the sophisticated lie that is more interesting than the truth and diverts human beings from their proper functions in life, however those functions are defined. We might call the sophisticated lie "propaganda," of which Madison Avenue is a master. The Nazis weren't bad at it either.
Politically, newspapers have come under the control of heavily capitalized corporations more interested in profit than journalism. The family owned newspaper, the community newspaper, the muckraking newspaper, have all but disappeared. With that disappearance, we have virtually lost the public, civic space in which democratic debate about true facts and false facts must take place. There is no room for truth in our society, so journalism has degenerated into the tabloid. The web has mitigated this tendency to a degree, in that people like you and me have an opportunity to speak out. On the other hand, it also gives the unworthy, the ignorant, and the bullies an opportunity as well.
Socially, in the West people are still enamored of the cowboy myth, a myth that never existed except in the minds of Owen Wister and his literary successors in Hollywood. No one wants to know the truth about the livestock industry in the West--that it was a brutal, lawless, destructive force, despised, hated, and feared by the people as a malignant force. We see the truth of the nature of the livestock industry every day in the gross mismanagement of bison in Montana. The livestock industry still is brutal, lawless, and destructive.
It's quite clear that brucellosis in both bison and elk is a fraud, that what we're really observing is the workings of a police state intending to keep the cowboys in charge of land use and wildlife. It's just difficult to get that true fact before the public.
RH
the habitat could certainly support more than zero bison on a year round basis in southwest Montana, which is what we currently mandate today in the "Plan". We could sure figure it out.
I am a hunter and I support public hunting as the preferred method of what I will call conserving wildlife populations. What we are doing to bison, including the current "hunt" is not sound wildlfie conservation in my opinion. We are treating them worse than livestock, instead of valued native Montana wildlife.
First, we must restore bison on a year round basis to southwest Montana and the best place to do this is in the Upper Gallatin, where the land is almost entirely publicly owned. The main private landowners in the area operate dude ranchers, that I would like to think would benefit from the presence of wild bison in the area. I have talked to some of these folks and heard positive responses to the idea of bison recovery and conservation. What the ultimate populatin level will/should be is debateable and dependent on many factors. Basically though, private landowners and their tolerance for bison just like their tolerance for elk will likely lead and limit the recovery and conservation of bison in southwest Montana overall, not carrying capacity.
The Madison Valley offers an excellent opportunity to develop a private/public partnership in this regard. I suggest we could do this to the Wall Creek Wildlife Management Area west of the Madison and to about Indian Creek on the east side of the Madison River. What do you think? There is also lots of publicly owned habitat in the Dome Mountain area south to the Park that is suitable and currently unoccuppied by bison in the Upper Yellowstone Basin.
What is really interesting and more than a little disturbing about this is that there are 3 major Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs)that were purchased with sportsmen's dollars and bison can't use them (Wall, Gallatin and Dome Mountain WMAs). Connecting and protecting wildlife migration corridors to these WMAs is largely in place for elk and other wildlife. Why not bison? As well, believe it or not cattle actually get to use one of these WMAs - Wall Creek. Is this right, especially if it is done at the exclusion of a native big game species that is virtually extinct in Montana?
As well, wild bison on private lands and the WMAs can not be randomly taken by native Americans without regulation by the State of Montana. Allowing bison access to these areas would help address some of the uncertainty associated with native American take. This is a great opportunity to solve this percieved problem in a respectful and sustainable manner.
Groups like TNC with over a billion in assets are the little guys, the rancher hoping to make a living for his family and be able to send his kids to college who has invested everything he owns into his ranch is the "big rich powerful" rancher.
If ranchers had any power or influence beyond the local area we wouldn't be having these discussions. No one would even consider that they had the right to control someone else's property.
Even if the enviro groups lose one battle they jsut go beg more money via taxpayer funded grants, or "donations" to file another lawsuit.
Please use an example of a state that is able to manage free roaming buffalo whether infected or not.
As for bluetongue, Ralph blames it on sheep, you guys blame it on cows, most blame it on a gnat that shows up once every few years.
Buffalo are a roaming herd animal, and if not controlled as the dreamers wish, they would roam from border to border again. That shoudl be interesting.
As to Bison, I believe many of your points have merit. Like African villagers, I don't believe ranchers care whether raising cows or bisons are important when the $$$$ flow to protect their way of life and property. A cashflow profit analysis may go a long way to sell your ideas to the doubtful.
After all, the hunting management system that Theodore Roosevelt helped put into place in North America--actually, we have Aldo Leopold to thank for actually designing it and putting it into place beginning in 1930--recognized wildlife as a public trust, the common property of us all--private rights are severely circumscribed for the common good. We call this the North American Model of Wildlife Management, and it is intentionally distinct from the European and now South African models, which treat game animals as private property.
Any model that makes wildlife a private good rather than a public good do nothing for conservation of wildlife.
Further, I wouldn't put too much faith in the reports that commercialized hunting in Africa has reduced the threat to wildlife, or even put money into the hands of African locals. Big game hunting is still in the hands of whites.
Canadian wildlife biologist Valerius Geist has written widely on the value and superiority of the North American Model to the European Model of game management. Jim Posewitz of Orion The Hunters Institute has written widely on the public trust. I've also addressed some of these issues in my essay on Aldo Leopold that I posted on NewWest a couple of years ago.
Look it up.
See: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4444/is_200604/ai_n17184537/pg_2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Glenn, try the business school and see if there is a masters candidate that might take it on. Stgructure a comparison with Turner's Flying D operation.
Black Rhinoceros Conservation and Trophy Hunting in Southern Africa: Implications of Recent Policy Changes
Endangered Species Update, Apr-Jun 2006 by Nelson, Fred
The success of these southern African nations in managing black rhinos has been a result of strong protected area management agencies, law enforcement, monitoring, and to a lesser degree the involvement of private landholders and rural communities. An important component of the overall wildlife management policies of Namibia and South Africa has been promoting locally managed commercial use of wildlife, and thereby encouraging the adoption of wildlife a form of private land use. Since the late 1960's, southern African countries have emphasized sustainable wildlife utilization, including commercial trade, as a conservation strategy (Child 2004). Namibia granted private landholders the right to manage and utilize the wildlife on their land, subject to certain regulatory restrictions, in 1967 (Jones 2001). By devolving responsibility and authority for wildlife in this way, government policies enabled landholders to capitalize on wildlife's competitive economic advantage over alternative agricultural land uses in semi-arid areas. The result was a broad expansion of wildlife populations; game numbers increased by an estimated 80% on private lands in Namibia from 1972 to 1992 (Barnes and de Jagr 1996). South Africa also developed a policy of private ownership of wildlife, and has witnessed a similar expansion of the land devoted to game species during the past thirty years. While these policy changes applied only to freehold lands, which were held primarily by white minority landowners, Namibia and Zimbabwe later spread the approach to their communal land areas as well. Namibia's community conservancies, whereby rural communities are granted the right to manage and capture the benefits from wildlife on communal lands after they have formed registered conservancies, have been particularly successful in generating local revenues and leading to wildlife population recoveries since 1998 (Jones 2001; NACSO 2004). Among other successes, the Kunene Region of northwest Namibia, where many of the community conservancies are located, is now home to the largest free-ranging black rhino population in Africa, with about 140 animals ranging across the semi-desert environment of this area's communal lands (Barnard 1998; Child 2005; CITES (nd)c).
<<<<<<<<<<<<
I do not favor private wildlife ownership and have spoken out against the Cabelaization of the West's wildlife. That being said I believe if a comprehensive solution can be crafted to put landownes, public interests, field sportsman, and species conservation on the same side I think those options deserve a closer look.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hunting for conservation solutions
VIEWPOINT
Eugene Lapointe
Hunting bans could do more harm than good when it comes to the long-term survival of vulnerable species such as African elephants, argues Eugene Lapointe. In this week's Green Room, the former head of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) makes the case for hunting and why it can be a part of wildlife management policies.
Elephant tusks (ivory) are used in artefacts around the world and, whether we like it or not, they command a market value similar to many precious metals
Are bans on hunting and trade the best way to conserve species?
It is natural for people to jump to the conclusion that they are. After all, if no one is allowed to kill an animal, the thinking goes, surely its population will grow.
But the problem is that many more species are becoming endangered each year and very few are recovering.
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List of threatened species worldwide now stands at 16,119 for all flora and fauna and includes a quarter of all mammals. Is it not time we found a better approach?
Market value
To understand why hunting and trade bans are not as effective as they are supposed to be, it is worth considering elephant conservation programmes in Africa, where countries have adopted two diverse strategies.
Elephant tusks (ivory) are used in artefacts around the world and, whether we like it or not, they command a market value similar to many precious metals. As a result, there is a constant international demand for ivory.
Unfortunately, most African economies are poor and wildlife conservation has to compete with many pressing demands for public money, such as the provision of public housing, sanitation projects, health care (particularly related to Aids) and education.
So conservation projects are going to be most successful if they can be self-supporting; in other words, if they can generate income and provide local jobs.
In southern Africa, countries have followed the philosophy of sustainable use. They have issued permits to sport hunters to kill a limited number of elephants that are pre-selected according to factors like age and sex. They cannot shoot breeding animals, for example.
Sport hunting produces significant income through hunting fees, safari costs (guides, accommodation, trophy fees, etc.) and this is reinvested into conservation programmes. Local people support it because it provides secure employment.
The result is that in Namibia, South Africa and Botswana, elephant populations are well-stocked and healthy, while incidences of poaching have been kept to low levels.
By contrast, Kenya takes a protectionist approach. Killing elephants is prohibited and the country steadfastly argues against international trade in ivory.
Conservation in Kenya has become largely a law enforcement operation and, inevitably, this is a drain on limited local resources
An unintended consequence is that poaching is encouraged because local people receive little added value from the elephants and, instead, see a local resource going to waste.
In some areas people suffer when elephants destroy crops and homes. Habitat damage from dense populations also negatively impacts many other species.
Conservation in Kenya has become largely a law enforcement operation and, inevitably, this is a drain on limited local resources.
While elephant populations have recovered, poaching remains a problem and, in stark contrast to southern Africa, people have to be paid to shoot problem animals...
Bigger picture
It is to be expected that people will question how conservation can be aided by allowing animals to be killed and utilised.
Sustainable use still seems counterintuitive to some. But the conservation results with species like African elephants and the fully recovered and abundant Florida crocodile prove otherwise.
Unfortunately, there is a tendency for nations to practise sustainable use at home while prescribing protectionism abroad
Sustainable use is enshrined in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and is used as the basic wildlife management philosophy in countries such as the United States.
And there are signs that "sensible conservation" may be creeping into vogue as realities hit home and wildlife officials begin to critically assess realities. Recently, the BBC reported that authorities in Malaysia have decided that the best way to protect turtles is to license, rather than ban, the collection of their eggs.
Unfortunately, there is a tendency for nations to practise sustainable use at home while prescribing protectionism abroad.
This is true for African elephants, seals, sturgeon, whales, tigers, rhinos and many of the so-called "charismatic" species.
In the future, the fate of many animals may well depend on the extent to which the public around the world starts to accept the idea of utilising wildlife in a sustainable way.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Have people noticed how some politicos, Jay Inslee for one, in the US are seeking to have polar bear hunting 'banned' in Canada rather than managed as a renewable and sustaining resource?
Even the American Prairie Foundation (APF) in South Phillips county Montana had to take ownership of previously publicly owned wild bison from Wind Cave National Park and legally, or perhaps illegally I'm not sure, turn them into privately owned alternative livestock in order to "release" them on their private and surrounding public BLM lands. My guess is this was due to the intolerance of livestock oriented bureaucracies and special interest groups who are afraid of even attempting to manage bison as a valuable native asset.
I believe APF's intentions are honorable and I support their work, but their situation is telling. If it were just about brucellosis, why weren't the bison from Wind Cave National Park transferred directly to the Charles M. Russell National (CMR) National Wildlife Refuge, which is also administered by the Department of Interior. They were and are "brucellosis-free", so why weren't they released as public wildlife free to roam, including on adjacent APF wildlife friendly property? The problem I have been told lies with the intolerance of the BLM, livestock permittees on the CMR National Wildlife Refuge, surrounding landowners with livestock, and again their political cronies.
Calling for the eradication of brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area will have significant adverse impacts to tax payers’ wallets, a yet undetermined variety and number of wildlife species, and the integrity of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The effort will also drag on forever, the perfect non-solution. It will also not change the fact that North American Bison are big animals that eat grass.
You seem to think I don't keep up with African conservation and don't read the articles. I do. I have traveled widely in Africa and have quite a few friends there.
I am very familiar with the "sustainable use" argument, especially as it is used in Africa and Asia, as well as in Canada. We hear the argument primarily from those organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund that are pushing the concept. They certainly have a vested interest in it.
Thus, we hear that we have to turn tigers as well as elephants and other rare animals into market commodities to save them.
I'd point out that the aurochs is extinct in Eurasia, and what we have remaining are domestic cows.
There is a difference.
What you've quoted above from the BBC is the general opinion of those who think that what is essentially game ranching, or the commercialization of wildlife, primarily through the commodification of game animals through trophy hunting, or game farming, which is the production and export of game parts (e.g., ivory), will serve to conserve wildlife.
Any examination of the application of market principles to wildlife conservation, whether on this continent or any other, points to a history of UNSUSTAINABLE USE in the long run, with the added tragedy of animal domestication to provide one product abstracted from the entire animal in an ecological setting. In other words, the WILD animal we are trying to conserve is transformed from a biological and ecological being to a domesticated product the sale of which depends upon the ebb and flow of human whims in the market.
Commercialization inherently leads to privatization. We see that here in North America with the growth of game ranches.
In short, what we save may look like an elephant, but is it truly an elephant?
An elephant is what its habitat is. If it exists in wild habitat, it is a wild animal. If it exists on a game ranch, it is an agricultural product.
There is a difference.
Both logically and practically, there is no reason to believe that what comes out of this is conservation. It is merely a form of agriculture--game agriculture--and there can be no doubt that there is a fundamental contradiction between agriculture and wildlife conservation wherever agriculture exists.
Travel sometime through Africa, or the Middle East, or southwest Asia and look at what thousands of years of agriculture have wrought.
Conservation may be impossible there--there is hardly any wildlands. But it can still be successful here, if we preserve enough wild habitat for the wild animals that depend upon it.
RH
What needs to happen is to get the cowboys completely out of wildlife management.
RH
As for the investigation on the cause of transmission in the Morgan herd, I knew that and definitely should have included it in the story. Don't know why I didn't. Thanks for catching that.
This has probably been discussed before, but it seems to me the argument could be made that the IBMP (whatever you think of the plan) is not being met in one major regard: It states, "Preserve a viable, wild population of Yellowstone bison."
Since any wild bison are basically hazed or corralled or shot once they cross the line, wouldn't it be fair to say that is not preserving a wild herd? Bob Jackson, if you're still reading, any thoughts?
As per Pat Flowers' comments at the meeting, it will be interesting to see if the MFWP role changes at all in the coming months/years. I'll be sure to follow this.
Thanks again for reading everybody.
What is the difference from a wildlife standpoint between an elk ranch and a buffalo ranch?
If one pursues "the brucellosis fraud" narrative, for which there is abundant evidence, it is clear that there is no intent on the part of the agencies to ever allow wild, free-roaming bison in the State of Montana. There never has been. The true goal of the IBMP is to ensure the political viability of the livestock industry, that is, the goal is to maintain and extend the political power of the livestock industry over land use and wildlife management policy for its own benefit.
As the livestock industry becomes more and more economically nonviable--something for which there is also abundant evidence--it is lashing out ever more violently to maintain its illegitimate oligarchical status.
No one with the least intelligence actually believes brucellosis can be eradicated in the wildlife of the Greater Yellowstone. That's the point. With the stated intent of brucellosis eradication, knowing that it can never be eradicated, that means these intensive, obstrusive, brutal, and despicable wildlife control measures (test, slaughter, quarantine, vaccination) can remain in place indefinitely.
That's what it is all about.
RH
Beef cattle that have been vaccinated will test positive for brucellosis because of the anti-bodies that give them immunity.
A buffalo will test positive for the same reason. It has been exposed, and has developed antibodies.
Both are immune, one by injection, the other naturally.
BUFFALO DO NOT HAVE BRUCELLOSIS! The are immune to this disease.
But they will continue to test positive to a card test, (negative to a tissue test).
In the park, they are classified as "wildlife", but when they cross that imaginary, invisible line into Montana, they suddenly become "livestock" according to "cowboy logic", and come under the conrol of MDOL.
If anyone cares to research the history of this whole brucellosis myth, it stems from a Montana vet that jabbed himself in the thumb with an infected needle and got "bangs", the human version ov brucellosis. Clarence Siroky was his name, and he became obsessive about anything that even hinted at infection. It was his influence that created the present "zero" tolerence Montana has now.
Robert, in my opinion, on issues like this economics lead the politics. When bison economics outshine cattle, then the politics and the agencies which are the enforcing arms of those politics will follow. This battle between cattle and bison will continue with predictable results until such times as ranchers are not threatened.
Let's have some free thinking, tabula raza. Look at what Turner is doing. He has very large spreads where bison roam 'wild,' the herd is culled and commercially harvested, and there is some hunting. What if adjacent ranchers in the bison areas could be convinced to join a Bison Inc. that would follow Turner's model to some degree? The ranchers would receive payments, similar to CRP payments, from the profits to replace their cattle profits? The Bison Inc. animals would have free roaming within Bison Inc. territory clear back to Yellowstone. The hunting public would be bought into the process through Block Management that had specific access times and harvest regulations. Just some thoughts. It is not a matter of being ideologically pure or right. A solution has to be effective and have stakeholders on the same side.
The IBMP has no definition of wild bison; it is assumed that bison inside the Park are "wild," whereas bison outside the Park are livestock--by state law, by the way. There is no expression in the IBMP of any understanding of wild bison as animals that have an evolutionary history that requires extensive habitat for survival.
It makes no biological or ecological sense to base the wildness of an animal on what side of the boundary it happens to be on at the time. This is nothing but legal legerdemain.
If you want to continue to push the "sustainable use" scenario a la Ted Turner and African game ranching, go ahead, but it is not acceptable--what Turner is doing is not conservation, but commercial use. He is raising livestock, period. He is game ranching, and by game ranching, he is domesticating bison.
Practically, that leaves bison under the jurisdiction of DOL, not FWP. Yellowstone bison wouold still be treated as threat to domestic bison under your scenario.
Turner's bison are not, and never will be, wildlife. They are private property, livestock, not a public trust.
What you are suggesting is that Yellowstone bison continue to be treated as livestock on a game ranch. This is simply unacceptable.
Who said anything about ideology? This is a practical matter of the survival of wild animals in their wild habitat. As soon as agricultural principles and techniques are applied, you no longer have wildlife animals, but livestock. This is not hard to understand.
As for stakeholders, there are none. I will point out that for nearly 15 years, conservationists have been suggesting common sense, rational means to ensure separation of cattle and wildlife during the time window for transmission of brucellosis. The livestock industry has refused categorically to consider any of these recommendations, and has instead applied the big hammer when a scalpel would have worked.
Of course, since the actual goal of the IBMP is to extend livestock industry control over bison (and elk here in Wyoming), not prevent the transmission of disease--which is a red herring, because biologically, brucellosis is not a serious disease in either wildlife or cattle--there is no reason for the cowboys to consider the recommendations of conservationists. We are not considered stakeholders, or partners; we don't count.
RH
I did find this study of the new vaccine they plan to use for bison as well as elk.
JD, you need to read about the situation more, approximately 25-50% of the positive testers they slaughter and check do have the active disease.
The reason they changed the vaccine used for cattle is because the old vaccine did give a positive test when the animal was immunized.
This should not be a political issue, it is a health issue, and it needs to be dealt with as such. I cannot imagine that any official, politician or otherwise is ever going to risk a mass outbreak of undulant fever in this country.
http://www.gyibc.com/Meetings/techiemin102505.pdf
It doesn't make much difference when the damn fool poked himself. Vets are still poking themselves and getting it. It's an occupational hazard, and they have no reason to complain.
What I'm trying to get across that we are not dealing with issues of personal revenge or individual psychological problems because someone got a disease that is an occupational hazard. We are dealing with very broad issues of agricultural politics and culture. Everywhere you find agriculture, you find an assault on wildlife and wildlands, because both are a threat to agriculture. Anything that is wild is a threat to ordered societies with complex political and economic systems. This problem is deeply engrained in civilization, whether Western, Eastern, or American.
In the broadest sense, our task as conservationists is to carve out places where land and animals can function beyond the reaches of agriculture. That's difficult, very difficult, but it is the task with which we are faced.
RH
Ano