guest column
The True Cost of Brucellosis
By Robert Hoskins, Guest Writer, 3-07-08
During a recent call-in program on Montana’s Yellowstone Public Radio, at time marker 22.30 minutes, I posed the following question to Senator John Tester:
“It has been shown that in Wyoming, loss of brucellosis-free status between 2004 and 2006 only cost livestock producers one percent of total production costs. Given that brucellosis clearly is not a serious economic threat to Western livestock producers, why do you continue to support the extravagantly wasteful Interagency Bison Management Plan?”
Senator Tester’s answer clearly danced to a tune he didn’t know well. We got the same awkward dance from retired Billings Gazette agricultural reporter Jim Gransbery, who appeared on the show with Senator Tester.
Both Senator Tester and Mr. Gransbery waxed indignant as they stumbled over my question; in stiff stentorian tones they each responded, “Oh, I’m sure that’s too low a cost. No one has told me that brucellosis isn’t serious.” Of course, they had no contrary facts to back up their certainty.
Their certainty is misplaced. It wasn’t I who came up with the one percent estimate. It was the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the federal agency that gives brucellosis-free status with one hand and takes with the other.
In its Federal Register Notice (15 September 2006, p. 54404) that restored brucellosis-free status to Wyoming, APHIS admitted that “the [testing] expenses forgone as a result of this reclassification in status will not be significant for cattle owners in Wyoming....The savings from the forgone testing will be very small, estimated to be about 1 percent of the value of the animals sold.”
We find corroboration for APHIS’ one percent estimate in the Final Bison and Elk Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the National elk Refuge and Grand Teton National Park (2007). On page 187 of the FEIS, we read:
“Although difficult to assess, the brucellosis outbreaks [in Wyoming] do not appear to have had a major adverse impact on market prices for Wyoming cattle. Prices for Wyoming cattle fell sharply in January 2004, but that decline has been widely attributed to the 2003 discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in a dairy cow in Washington State. Since January 2004, Wyoming cattle prices have shown a general upward trend, notwithstanding the several brucellosis discoveries in the state in 2004. Prices for the first nine months of 2005 were well above those of 2003, a time when Wyoming’s brucellosis status was class free.”
The FEIS concludes that costs of losing brucellosis free status in Wyoming amounted to approximately one percent of total production costs—mostly the costs of testing—which the FEIS estimates to have been around $1.2 to $1.7 million per year statewide.
The FEIS does not inform the reader, however, that the 2005 Wyoming Legislature appropriated $1.6 million to help cover the costs of brucellosis testing while Wyoming producers were “burdened” with Class A status.
Thus, much of the cost of losing brucellosis-free status was externalized from livestock producers to the Wyoming taxpayer. This puts the actual costs to producers down to near zero, especially when you consider that cattle prices actually rose during the two years Wyoming “suffered” under Class A status.
Further, according to a Wyoming Department of Agriculture Class A Status Brucellosis Fact Sheet, “cattle moving from a farm or ranch of origin directly to a slaughter plant or directly to an approved livestock auction market to be sold and moved directly to slaughter, do not have to be tested,” which meant no testing costs for slaughter cattle.
In short, the livestock industry has been lying when it claims brucellosis is a serious economic threat. Indeed, losing brucellosis-free status had about as much impact on the economic health of Wyoming’s livestock industry as a bout with the common cold. The same would be true in Montana. (Compare that to the likely costs of an outbreak of BSE in cattle or chronic wasting disease in elk).
So what is the true cost of brucellosis?
We know the purpose of Wyoming’s ghetto-like elk feedgrounds and Montana’s deadly bison circus is not disease control, but control of wild, free-ranging elk and bison. Brucellosis management is the modern range war, and the war-prize is grass, control of land, and control of wildlife.
Our land. Our wildlife.
And it is the citizen-taxpayer who is innocently paying for the livestock industry’s rapacious, mendacious, and brutal range war on elk and bison, on the public interest and the public purse, and on truth itself.
That is the true cost of brucellosis.
Robert Hoskins is a naturalist, conservationist, and hunter from Crowheart, Wyoming.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Like to receive our print magazine, The New West? Click here for free subscription information.
Comments
Put the snow-plowing money that they blew this year (for what reason?) into a vaccination fund for all the cattle that are to enter the west Yellowstone area in 3-4 Months. For only 3 or 4 months.
Put the gas and boarding bill for all the agents to come up here and run around into a Testing Fund for any cattle that MIGHT get infected.
THEN, IF there are any Bison intermingling WITH the cattle, have the Department of livestock HAZE (NOT KILL) Those Bison back into the Park or to the Horse Butte Peninsula where there are and will NEVER be any cattle anymore.
Could you imagine the amount of money that could be saved and put to the Rancher and his CATTLE. Not wasted away on Wildlife.
You want to fix the disease they need to work on the ONE thing they can control the CATTLE.
P.S. They could pay TOP dollar for the cattle that get infected IF they get infected with only part of the annual budget.
Current Montana bison slaughter policies authorized by governor Brian Schweitzer and being conducted by the department of livestock and APHIS near the border of Yellowstone Park eradicate nothing but Montana bison. Unfortunately, in Wyoming the slaughter includes the public’s elk. Thank you for pointing out Robert that these takings of the public’s treasured wildlife are the real costs of perpetuating the brucellosis bureaucracies in the GYA.
Brucellosis is just one of many livestock diseases that can cause abortion or sickness - Bovine Virus Diarrhea, Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheatis, Blue Tongue, Mad Cow Disease, Scours and the list goes on. If we treated brucellosis in cattle like these diseases and protected the cattle with good vaccination programs brucellosis would prove to be just a small cost of raising cows. Ann pointed that out earlier.
The outdated APHIS rules and regulations need to be changed and their federal budgets need to be reduced or redirected to something truly in the public interest. Some cattle owners and veterinarians I know have begun to question these outdated regulations and the bloated federal bureaucracies they spawn. Perhaps there is some opportunity for common ground here or maybe it really is just about certain factions within the livestock industry attempting to control and take our public land and wildlife.
In the old days when NPS decided to go "natural management," the state vets said, We Tell You So. The buffs divided and multiplied, at some point a bison traded snot with an elk, and then another, and then another, and here we are, with ELK infecting cattle.
Now, the vets can say We Told You So.
A combination of test, vaccinate and slaughter of both elk and bison in the so called GYA, conducted over a period of years, is now the only way to get this EXOTIC, MEDITERRANEAN disease out of the region. The RB-51 and Strain 19 vaccines have been tested for effect on the "charismatic keystone predators" and there isn't any, so vaccines would be safe regarding other species.
Implement now, and perhaps in 20 years or so the infection will be gone, and perhaps, at THAT time we can consider releasing bison from the "confines" of the park into the larger environment, on the merits and not on the surrogate basis the "debate" now totters upon.
But then again, given the lack of merit and logic shown here, perhaps a discussion on the merits alone, is impossible. Such a shame.
If you can convince the CDC that it doesn't matter if a few people get the disease, then APHIS will not worry about it being spread by livestock. Once no one cares if livestock is infected and passes it on to humans, then I'm sure DOL will be more than happy to quit rounding up the buffalo that NPS refuses to manage.
Montana's brucellosis paranoia would just be a curiosity were it not so hard on wildlife and result in so much social conflict.
Humans do get brucellosis, but they never get them from Yellowstone area wildlife nor from livestock in the vicinity.
They are mostly people who drink raw goat milk, from what I have read.
Human brucellosis (undulant fever) because a minor disease after pasteurization became widespread.
Appeals to fear that people might get undulant fever make my eyes glaze over.
I cannot change anything, neither can Montana DOL.
Is it ok with you if brucellosis infected animals are mixing with dairy cows? Every now and then a pastuerization fails and we get milk that makes folks sick. Think of teh effect if that were brucellosis.
You don't go out and round up every tick that is out there and kill it to keep spotted fever etc. from spreading YOU take precautions for yourself and the things you care about. Brucellosis, Bangs, or what ever you want to call it is NOT what it was years ago. We are now more educated, (or should be) and realize the precautions necessary for humans to NOT contract the disease. If you still drink your raw milk from your own dairy, make SURE your cattle are NOT infected, and don't try to blame the Bison or the Elk or anything else because you were to dam lazy to cover your own Butt. You know how it can spread, so watch for that.
The money allowed in that budget should be spent on the Rancher for the CATTLE. The Rancher should be questioning CDC just as much as anyone since they say they have the most to lose, well then stand up there and fight for it, don't suck it up. There is NO reason for Cattlemen, Bison, or elk to suffer because people are to dam lazy.
Point in this article was the fact that Wyoming and Idaho, who lost the status, didn't lose much of anything else. So WHY are we wasting these millions of dollars?
The current policy doesn't seem to be in anyone's economic interest. All I can figure is that it runs on bureaucratic inertia.
It could be the Montana DOL makes quite a bit of money off of it, selling bison meat, hides, heads and so forth.
“Brucellosis testing, including veterinary fees and handling expenses, costs about $7.50 to $15 per test. The
expenses forgone as a result of this reclassification in status will not be significant for cattle and calves owners
in Wyoming. There were 1.127 million cattle and calves in Wyoming in 2002. The average per-head value of cattle in
Wyoming was $1,020 in 2005. Thus, the cost of testing would represent between 0.7 and 1.5 percent of the average value of the animals sold. The upgrading of the State to brucellosis Class Free status will result in a small savings for those entities moving cattle interstate other than directly to slaughter or to quarantined feedlots.”
As noted above only those livestock owners moving cattle out of state not directly to slaughter are required to test those specific livestock, and as I understand the rules this would be breeding age and capable cattle only (greater than 18months for age cows and bulls). Thus your typical cow-calf operator selling calves to feedlots for eventual slaughter or those moving steers and/or spayed heifers remain unaffected by Class A status.
How would you propose we round up and test/slaughter all of the elk in the GYE?
I see in Range Magazine that you're a brucellosis expert now, so I'll look forward to your answer.
Also, in the interest of accuracy, I noticed this error in your Range article:
"Apart from animals Wyoming hunters have been testing, nobody knows if any of these elk are infected." (p61).
Montana has an active brucellosis surveillance program for elk. There are blood sample collection kits and mailers available at hunting stores and at trailheads. Contact FWP for more information.
Also, I know that Range Magazine's audience wouldn't be interested in hearing that strictures on state-to-state movements of cattle are less than airtight. However, you might want to look into incidents like this one in Sublette County in 2006:
http://www.sublette.com/examiner/v6n11/v6n11s2.htm
You'll see there that 16 (!) semi-loads of cattle ended up in Wyoming without required health inspections. We know about this one because the operators got caught. How many are we ignorant of? There are a lot of fly-by-night operators out there who don't want to hassle with paperwork, or pay for vets and brand inspectors, or who don't want to risk finding out that their herds are infected with brucellosis.
When APHIS says the US beef herd is brucellosis free, that does not mean they have tested every single domestic member of genus Bos in all 50 states. And with active efforts to evade health inspection requirements, I am skeptical that the US beef supply is TRULY brucellosis free. I am also skeptical (because the USDA really doesn't want to find it, and has in fact thwarted private enterprise's attempts to do more testing) that mad cow (BSE) is "statistically nonexistent," to quote the industry shill in your article.
So, we accept some risk that these diseases are still out there in livestock. Ask any epidemiologist or even APHIS officials, and I'm sure they'd agree that we are dealing with some risk.
Yet you want to subject Greater Yellowstone's elk to a massive roundup so we can get to zero risk, rather than taking intelligent steps to manage risk (e.g., buffer zone, ending the Wyoming feedgrounds)?
A great deal of money, time, and effort has been expended to rid the rest of the country of the disease, do you really think they are going to feel what makes you happy is of the highest priority.
By the way one of teh positive members of the first herd was already in a feedlot in Worland, and that entire group of cattle had to be destroyed, even all were steers or old cows destined for slaughter..
Or have you learned that not everything is as it was told to you. I for one want answers to my questions, and am not going to stop until they do. They explain to me why they insist on killing everything that might have or does have brucellosis, and then I might agree with you Marion but until they can prove to me that the disease IS as devastating as they say. I won't swallow it. If it is, why do they allow you to consume the infected animal? If it kills, why are the Bison and the Elk multiplying? What about the Disease is so DEVASTATING? Cattle become immune to it, they abort once that's it. What makes it any more serious, than Pink Eye, Distemper, scours, hoof-rot, or any other bovine disease?
And I will complain that my hard earned money is being wasted on the past and past policies. Why don't they nail these people that plant larkspur and lupine, That kills cattle like flies.
Makes as much sense as not driving your car unless the car manufacturer can promise you that you will NEVER get in a wreck and the car will NEVER break down. You won't get very far very fast.
Is Pluto a planet?
It does not kill elk, cattle, buffalo, it can kill humans, and if we are to believe lab studies it kills cow moose.
NPS is the one responsible for the whole mess, the buffs didn't start migrating out of the park until about 20 years ago, when the herds got too big, according to Meagher. They knew then that the buffalo were infected, I'm not sure when it was found in the elk too.
http://www.georgewright.org/01yp_meagher.pdf
You can be as insulting and snotty as you wish, but I nor anyone on this blog can change policy of the CDC and APHIS, you need to address them. Homeland security may be involved in that too.
We are addressing APHIS et. al. and along the way we are trying to wake a few more people up to the fact they are wasting our money on a LOST cause.
They need to figure out WHY they are still afraid of a disease that is NO Risk to HUMANS when the necessary precautions are taken. The disease is capable of being controlled by the fact that once you've had it you are immune. (you as in animals) The way this is being handled now is not getting anywhere. First step Re-look the Disease, and why it is still such a concern, We've learned more about what to do to KEEP from contracting it NOW work on a vaccine for domestic cattle, and let the wildlife fend for themselves. Same as West Nile, Rabies, distemper, sleeping sickness, YOU NAME IT. The sooner us little peons can be heard, the SOONER something can be done to eradicate it out of DOMESTIC and quit trying to control an entire ecosystem, at the taxpayer expense.
People get e-coli, does that mean you're going to go to every feed lot, slaughter house, Ranch, Farm, and Barn in the world and make everyone dispose of all the crap that is on the ground? NO Because it's obvious a LOST cause. SO Make the people aware and take PRECAUTIONS. Quit expecting the Government to take care of you (as in general) and use the brain the creator gave you.
QUIT throwing money away. Use it ON the DOMESTIC. HELP THE RANCHER!!!!!
Sheep were once a dreaded animal in the west. But because of education, and some give and take they are now welcome.
(in most places)
I asked what the health concern outcry was in Iowa a few years back when feral pigs were coming up the Mississippi river into the state. He said brucellosis carrying feral pigs not only infect domestic pigs but can infect cattle too!! Then why not try to irradicate feral pigs? His answer was there have not been many cases crossing over and there is no way one can get all the wild pigs out of the swamps and brush like we have in the southern USA. Not long after this meeting a friend told me he read APHIS has concluded there is no way to successfully eradicate feral pig brucellosis in the US of A.
This same vet was strong in his wanting to stamp out brucellosis in bison but when I pointed out the similarities to the situation in Yellowstone country he said he can only have input on the area of the country he has health concerns with. This guy never got it and being from cattle culture he couldn't see past his beloved cows.
The reality is feral pigs will expand well past Iowa and brucellosis will be in all states this animal occupies. There will be cases, very few, of brucellosis transferring to cattle from these pigs (more chance than by buffalo because of multiple litters per year) but APHIS can accept this number because they will always be small. So why can they not apply the same logic and action to bison and elk?
Also Robert, I posted an answer to your question of how to form hunting regs. so social family order is maintained in Ralph Maughans web site.
I knew it was a falsehood that Yellowstone was the ONLY place Brucellosis still existed. I knew they couldn't have eradicated that disease in the entire country.
Now when are they going to learn that it's easier to control that which you already have in your possesion?
An awful lot of time and MONEY has been wasted on a DREAM. Not to mention countless Bison lives lost to a ridiculous notion.
As I've asked before, IS THERE REALLY ANY DISEASE THAT HAS BEEN ERADICATED?
The more time and money wasted on ecosystem eradication, is time that should be spent on a vaccine, fencing or what have you, for cattle. We all (or most all) should already know that as soon as you conquor one thing another stronger one pops up. So we need to focus on the cattle and keep up with them NOT the wildlife ecosystem. You get a handle on it within the cattle THEN maybe you spread out. The focus is on the wrong object.
On the western edge of the Park, the Horse Butte for instance could probably handle over 500 head of Bison year around, and that is only the PENINSULA. Not to mention all the other thousands of acres where there are NEVER any cattle.
The NEXT herd (if there is one) of cattle that is infected by the Brucella, Hoof-print it. Find out EXACTLY where it came from. (USDA says they can do that let them) Then KEEP that herd as your study herd. Use IT for vaccine testing, eradication.
Follow it out through the infected Cattle herd. Study it for the way it evolves and affects cattle, and ways to halt it. Why don't they BUY the 'next' infected herd and instead of slaughter STUDY IT?
SAVE money!!!!! SAVE Lives!!!!!!! SAVE Livelihoods!!!!!!! SAVE Jobs!!!!!!!!
Quit being forced into submission, by a non-supported fear.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/wildlife_damage/content/printable_version/feralpigs.pdf
The publication came out in October 2005.
It states that "Swine brucellosis has been reported in wild pig populations in at least 14 States . . . Cattle can also become infected . . ."
Travel around Texas, Tennessee, or Georgia; look at all the small beef herds of 30-40 head, out in the hills and woods with thriving wild hog populations, and ask yourself if you really believe the US cattle herd is truly brucellosis free, or if we're really doing risk management and surveillance instead.
But I have a question for you? Why are these programs not common knowledge among the public?
As for the future, yep, I do support test and slaughter and vaccine. If the shots only cost 20 bucks a pop, that's a raw cost of roughly $100,000 to inject every bison with the RB 51 sauce. Of course, hiring the shooters to do it would cost more. But over a period of years the infection rate would decline, no question. Sure it would temporarily traumatize Bob J's social groups as well as certain other bleeding hearts, but hey, it worked nationally for the most part with a less-effective Strain 19.
And while feedgrounds have certainly been part of the problem of spread in elk, they can also be part of the solution as a point-of-gather for control. Let me be heretical and suggest, MONTANA TEMPORARY FEEDGROUNDS. If hunter blood sampling, or FWP darting of herds with sampling darts, shows infection over one or two percent for an "action threshold", then LURE the lovelies into a sampling enclosure with a nice big breadloaf of hay. Test, slaughter, vaccine the rest.
Gee whiz, it's not like rounding up an elk or buff turns it into some kind of domestic pet that eats apples from your kindergartener's hand and obeys "Roll Over In the Clover." The animals will remain wild enough.
Ya know, I think the problem is, if the problem is actually solved, those screaming the most about the crisis will have to find something else to scream about, and that scares them.
The strain is out there and it's there to stay.
WORK ON THE CATTLE!!!!!!!!!!
Has hit the nail on the head. The brucellosis, feedlots, the killing of bighorn sheep to protect domestic livestock from removal from public lands, wolf so called "management" and so on--these are all part of a long term last hurrah for the old West trying to maintain its control of public wildlife. If wildlife advocates don't fight these kinds of things we will lose free roaming animals--and no longer have "wild" life. That is why we on both sides argue so passionately--this isn't about how many wolves or bison that are killed. It's about how we treat wild animals and the land and who gets to control its destiny.
http://www.thelandonline.com/l_special_events/local_story_032165828.html
Yah, sure, like THAT will ever happen.
Maybe they should eradicate all the livestock. Makes about as much sense.
Show me ONE politician, or elected official that has followed through with any of the promises they make to get elected.
Besides the promise to WASTE our money.
They send animals to slaughter that leave the park in areas where they are wanted, and there are no cattle (Horse Butte). What does all of this tell you?
If this is a population control program, like sharpshooters "controlling" elk in RMNP, then be honest about it. Let's have THAT conversation, because this absolutely has nothing to do with brucellosis.
It is apparent that "the DOL is ill-equipped to manage bison"....Brian Schweitzer while running for governor of Montana 2004. That statement garnered my vote in 2004. I won't be so gullible this year. The problem is that in the inter-mountain west, we don't have two political parties. We don't have a choice between Republicans and Democrats. We have Republi-crats.
When the DOL just can’t figure out a cost effective and lasting bison management solution, which involves year round access to thousands of acres of conflict-free habitat we already own, reasonable public hunting that is not part of a zero sum game and a little fencing to protect a few cows for a short period of time, one must wonder, who really is in charge here?
Robert's editorial has done a great job of pointing out the brucellosis farce, but even when we provide win-win suggestions to address the brucellosis situation and protect a few cows so bison can be respected and conserved as valued native wildlife the message falls on deaf political ears.
I think the tag is about $500, and shooting one is not particularly easy.
Utah also has an easier hunt for buffalo on Antelope Island in the Great Salt Lake (easier because it is an island)
Input for bison scoping notice
By Bob Jackson 3/7/08
I am afraid I need to take issue with your basic premises as pointed out in your assessment of Montana’s previous “successful” bison hunts. The only way Montana was successful in planning, management, and operation is if herd elimination outside Yellowstone is the goal.
My degree is in F&W;Biology, I spent 30 years as a seasonal backcountry ranger in Yellowstone, and since 1976 I have raised buffalo on my farm in Iowa. We have 400 bison on 1000 acres.
My concern is with your assumptions. Yes, your “hunts” are based on today’s game management harvesting techniques which means everything is geared to hunting of individuals. The problem is bison has very strong family makeup, like elephants, and hunting based solely on killing individuals means non sustainable fracturing of these families. Compounding this is the excessive stress incurred since bison can not flee like elk or deer.
This gets into the next problem. Families have homes and if you hunt them before they establish homes as a permanent base (it doesn’t happen until the offspring born in this new territory are allowed to stay where they are born and then have offspring of their own) it will mean bison searching far and wide for new homes. This is not what Montana wants when panicked bison end up in Ennis and Bozeman. Montana’s elk and deer populations already have a sense of home but the bison you propose “to hunt” outside of Yellowstone do not. What you need to consider is you have a situation like Moses and his people wandering around in the wilderness for 40 years trying to find a place to call home. Montana can hunt resident bison and expect to keep them there only after Montana lets them establish a permanent home.
Montana also can not kill bulls during the formation period in the areas you want bison to stay. All family members have roles and the bull’s roles include providing protection for the matriarchal family components. In establishment periods if bulls are shot the cow groups will vamoose for most of the year!!!
Montana CAN shoot all scout bulls that travel to areas where bison herds are not wanted. This keeps the cow groups from making the big jumps across inhospitable terrain. There is too much for the cow groups to risk if they have to venture through little graze or difficult terrain without scout bulls coming back to show them the way. Think of the Oregon trail and how humans organized to make successful new homes and then Montana can rationally set appropriate hunting seasons.
There is much more but I think you get the idea. If you are actually serious about allowing bison to occupy lands outside of Yellowstone you need to PLAN for it. Your state biologists do not understand what makes bison herds tick and thus they need to go back to the drawing board and become enlightened in terms of family infrastructure. Then Montana will have a start in making a controlled and sustainable bison “hunt”.
As for determining how to set seasons and age –sex hunting I suggest you look to how Indians hunted bison. They used a lot of buffalo jumps, surrounds and impoundments. The idea was to kill ALL bison in that group. Since these were mostly the more vulnerable spin off satellite family groups, overall herd infrastructure was maintained.
Thus we get into “fair chase”. Fair chase terminology is modern day abnormal spin off from evolutionary hunting emotion. The problem is present day man still carries this emotion but technology (guns) has warped our understanding of this emotion when it comes to hunting of animals. Thus we end up with “sporting” and “fair chase”. If groups of people hunt groups of animals today we think of herd reduction or herd slaughter and not fair hunting (as a ranger I used to patrol the late Gallatin elk hunt so I know what reckless group slaughter is all about if carried out without game plans). But if we want to think of this hunting group as a bonding common cause (provide for family and friends) then the hunter as part of this larger hunting group becomes much more in tune with our revolutionary role. I think it is worth a try…and is the only way Montana will maintain bison family infrastructure when hunting is used as a management tool.
It does not mean hunting of solo animals does not happen. Indians hunted those bison the herds culled to the outside perimeter. But with guns instead of spears and long bows it means hunters “reaching” to the center of the herd happens and thus Montana needs to consider initially limiting solo hunting to scout bulls and old cows left behind the herd.
Not very romantic to some “rugged” individuals, I’m sure, but it is the only way to establish sustainable, stay at home herds of bison in Montana. Once 10-15 years have gone by the bison herds will have enough infrastructure established outside the Park where bison can withstand state biologists making the same errors in management as they do now with Montana’s elk herds.
I still believe it is NOT a disease issue at all. It was stated on that program that the Russians, have a vaccine that works on cattle against the disease, so why don't we have it? It is PORK BARREL spending, that they are afraid of losing, and the Bison are the ones losing. There are too many lies coming out of the IBMP partners, and the public is swallowing it all hook line and sinker.
Tina your point of the May 15 deadline is a perfect example of tax dollars being thrown away by the Department of Livestock et. al. The money that has been spent so far this year on these operations, could have been put in a vaccination/testing fund for the rancher's cattle. It could have been used on every cow that is to come in to this area and still had enough left over for fencing for the pastures, and cost the Rancher NOTHING.
Bison are Wildlife, and should be treated as such. there are over 20,000 acres of public and private land on the Horse Butte Peninsula that is completely void of cattle at all times. There is absolutely NO reason that Bison shouldn't be allowed to inhabit those 20,000 + acres, if for no other reason that when they calve on that land they won't be calving on some cattle pasture somewhere else.
In research conducted in the Greater Yellowstone Area both north and west of the Park brucellosis has never been documented to survive beyond June 15. Scavengers either clean it up, or the bacteria breaks down as temperatures rise in the spring. Bison are usually done calving by that time, and Cattle are just then being brought into the area. Sometimes the cattle are not brought in until the first of July. And once the birthing material is either eaten or subjected to the warm temperatures and sunlight there is no risk of transmission. Since there are no cattle on the 20,000 + acres on the Horse Butte there is NO risk of transmission anyway.
For the operations to continue on the Horse Butte is a WASTE of money and time. Once there is an established herd, then hunting could be used as a management tool for keeping the numbers in check. I don't profess to know the make up of the Bison family, but I do know that there is an awful lot of money being wasted when it could be better spent ON the Cattle FOR the cattle.
You have clearly pointed out the futility of using inadequate vaccine to try to eradicate brucellosis in elk and bison. Thank you. You have also noted, by extension of your “reduced prevalence” and need to “manage”, a truism in all wildlife and human health care….that overpopulation in any population means measures are taken by each species to insure overpopulation does not get to the point where there is no habitat left ….to insure survival of that species.
In the vet profession and industry many billions of dollars have been spent to counter the effects of the most extreme of overpopulation, as seen and practiced in confinement livestock facilities. It has worked relatively well, albeit for only a very short earth time, with all of this infusion of money, to keep animals alive. I assume you think we could do the same with wildlife if only we could control every movement of their lives. Since we can’t you have to revert to step two, control populations so incidence of disease is “controllable”.
I suggest you go a step further with nature’s dictums and look a little closer how nature “did it” very well before the vet profession came along. Especially look into how herd animals did it very effectively for millions of years. They did not have to depend on boom or bust with population numbers, as inferred with your simple proposal of population control. They actually had ways of insuring learning and betterment of species and populations within each species. How did they do it?
It has to do with families, home and territories. When vets found out some viral and wind borne diseases in confinement facilities meant the only way to control it was miles of isolation between facilities, then think of how nature did the same thing with the space required between territories of extended families. Then go a step further and think the resistance and immunity to disease was simply a contest of one extended family against another. Those infected families who could deal with it better passed on those traits to heirs in that family. Thus the good traits lived on and bad ones died out. Think of all those vet pharmaceutical companies, the Fort Dodge labs, the Iowa State and Purdue University vet research labs….and think each of this being an extended family …except there are thousands more of these labs than our govt. budgets are unable to fund ….and then we see real long term wildlife disease control.
No, there is no way any of our health research endeavors can compete with natures. Modern science is relegated to dealing with symptoms while wildlife “Lewis and Clark” days are constantly bettering themselves.
To control populations the way Whiteman “does it” is actually counter productive. We bust up families and therefore reduce space between groups of individuals. Disease is dramatically increased with modern hunting practices. As for overpopulation, it actually happens less with functional families. Home is very entrenching and they do everything possible to maintain that home. Thus there is population control within that home.
Enough for now but I think vet science needs to look a little closer to see how animals did it before universities came along. Then and only then might we solve the brucellosis issue in the greater Yellowstone.
Adaptive management for the agencies means that "we're going to do bad things to bison now because the politics demands it, but we promise to do good things for bison later, IF the politics changes." Well, since bison aren't welcome in Montana, and as far as the livestock industry is concerned, never will be, the politics won't change. Therefore, the status quo mismanagement and abuse of bison will continue as long as the livestock industry has veto authority over any decision to move bison onto winter range in Montana.
It's so simple. It's up to the public to change the politics and ensure that bison management serves the public interest, not the special interests of ranchers and the livestock industry.
By the way, the inability of APHIS and DOL to pin the brucellosis tail on elk for the Morgan cattle herd outbreak should suggest to the public that it's not possible to pin the tail on elk because elk didn't cause the outbreak. There is no doubt in my mind that the outbreak has a cattle source. Of course, neither APHIS nor DOL can admit that. The press needs to really start digging into the claim that elk are responsible. They aren't.
It sounds to me like a cow chased you once and you have hated cows since and blame them for the worlds woes.
Last I knew Bison were also considered BOVINE.
Many public officials at various public meetings have implied it was elk near a cattle herd in Emigrant, which would require yet another cattle herd. However, as I understand it, six of the seven infected cattle were destroyed without APHIS taking any DNA samples, which could have been used to help determine the actual source of the infection. Some of these cattle may have been Corriente cattle, a breed that hails from Texas and Mexico, which at the time were not brucellosis free.
So my question is why isn't APHIS/DOL making the report they have used to publicly implicate elk and apparently have used to claim it is not a bovine source public?
That the original 'hot' cow WAS bangs vaccinated, and was actually a Black Angus, not the Corriente. 3 of the 'positive' cows were Black Angus, and vaccinated, and 3 were of the Corriente, NOT vaccinated. Not saying they actually 'had' it but they were 'exposed' to the 'hot' cow.
I'm in no way trying to argue here, I'm just stating what information I have, and where I get it from.
I feel it's important to get the truth out no matter WHAT the truth is. If my information is Wrong, I would appreciate being told.
But that is my source for the infected Morgan Herd.
Ann--look at my last comment on David's story, where I discuss the issue of open vs. closed herds as that question relates to brucellosis. The Morgan herd was open; as Glenn notes above, the Morgan herd received Corriente cattle from Texas. We don't know where those cattle originated. Possibly Mexico, which is NOT brucellosis-free, and regardless, Texas only recently received brucellosis free status, a designation I question, given the politics of brucellosis.
In any case, cattle have NOT been disproven as the source of the Morgan outbreak. Glenn's comment above points out that APHIS failed to take appropriate blood samples from the cattle found to be infected, thus losing any opportunity to scientifically determine the source of the infection in Morgan's herd.
As yet, APHIS has failed to provide credible explanations as to why it failed to take blood samples. I suggest a political reason.