| . | . | . | ||
YELLOWSTONE |
IN THE NEWS TODAY: Protecting Yellowstone -- Guest Editorial NWF Stand by Bison Offer -- by NWF Bison Update -- News Brief Men Found Guilty to Stealing Elk Antlers -- News Brief NEW! Daily Environmental News -- from ISyndicate |
|||
| . | . | . | ||
ROAD REPORT
|
PROTECTING YELLOWSTONEby Bruce Gourley Yellowstone is a national treasure which is owned by the American public. Protecting Yellowstone is the responsibility of the American public. This weekly feature will help identify and explore the issues which are crucial to the ongoing, healthy existence of the "Crown Jewel" of America's National Park system. YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK (YNET) -- From time to time we publish editorials from other writers. Today we want to share with you an editorial by Virginia Ravndal, a wildlife ecologist who lives in Gardiner, Montana, and who is recognized as an expert in regards to the bison and brucellosis issue. The following editorial regarding the bison controversy originally appeared in the Billings Gazette on May 6, and is reprinted by permission of Ms. Ravndal: Whatever else might be wrong with killing some of the nation's few remaining wild bison, it doesn't make sense economically. The stated reason for killing Yellowstone bison is that there could be economic consequences to Montana if they transmit brucellosis, a disease they have carried for the past 80 years, to cattle. Well, say it happens. Pretend all those experts who say the risk of transmission is so small that it is unlikely to ever happen are just plain wrong. What will the consequences be? In this case, there are two types of costs that could be incurred by Montana; costs of brucellosis- related sanctions imposed on Montana by other states, and costs associated with losing the classification of "brucellosis-free", a designation currently assigned to the state by the federal government. The government has already spent millions of tax dollars, and plans to spend at least $50 million more, to avoid these potential costs, yet surprisingly little has been done to estimate them. According to Dr. Gertonson, Montana State Veterinarian, "There have been no formal studies to estimate costs associated with sanctions imposed." Over the years, a grand total of five states have imposed sanctions on Montana because of Yellowstone bison. One of these, Alabama, imported only three cows from Montana. Do these sanctions really cost us enough to justify avoiding them by spending millions to capture, corral, confine, quarantine, kill and ship to slaughterhouses, some of the last remaining wild bison? It is unlikely that Montana would incur the second potential cost, i.e., costs associated with losing its "brucellosis-free" classification, since the only way it can lose this status is if there is an outbreak of the disease in livestock. If this happens, the cost to the state of losing its "brucellosis-free" status would be $6.45 million according to the only study done by Montana's Department of Livestock. The question we should be asking is what would cost us more, taking steps to address the problem once it happens, or taking steps to try to prevent it from happening. Prevention is usually cheaper than the cure. But, that depends on the approach to prevention that is adopted. In the case of Yellowstone bison, striving to eliminate the already minimal risk that bison pose to cattle does not appear to be either reasonable or cost-effective. Millions have already been spent over the past nine years elaborating and implementing an "interim bison management plan." This has fully occupied many government officials, who might have been more productively employed, and has entailed killing several thousand bison, without attempting to seriously estimate the costs that these actions are supposedly being taken to avoid. It would be shameful to allow the government to spend an additional $50 million tax dollars (which represents the costs of only the first of a multi-phase program) to prevent a potential, but unlikely, cost of about $6 million. And what about the social and cultural costs? The National Park Service and the other four government agencies who came up with the plan that has led several thousand Yellowstone bison to the slaughterhouse or to be shot in the field by Montana Department of Livestock personnel, have given only the most precursory attention to the concerns of those tribes whose cultural affiliation with bison is so strong that some define themselves as "buffalo people." The government's solution is to give these tribes the carcasses of the bison that get shot. But not all the bodies get dumped on the tribes. The bodies of the bison that get taken to the slaughterhouse are not given away, they are auctioned to the highest bidder, and, perhaps not surprisingly, the receipts are kept by none other than the Montana Department of Livestock. Is the killing of Yellowstone bison really about economics, as the government claims? If the government can't do it, maybe its time for the taxpayer to do the math. |
|||
| . | . | . | ||
CONTRIBUTING WRITERS AND COLUMNISTS Ralph Maughan
|
NATIONAL
WILDLIFE FEDERATION STANDS BY BISON OFFER by National Wildlife Federation BOULDER, Col. -- Montana's immediate rejection of a National Wildlife Federation (NWF) offer to work with state officials and ranchers to end the brucellosis controversy deprives Montana ranchers and wildlife alike of a common-sense solution to a crisis that need not exist. "NWF held out a real solution that protects ranchers from both the threat of infection of their cattle and the fear of losing Montana's "Class Free" status that is essential to selling their stock to other states," said NWF buffalo project manager Steve Torbit, Ph.D. NWF is offering to reimburse ranchers who graze cattle along the Montana- Yellowstone border for the cost of vaccinating vulnerable animals against the abortive disease brucellosis. The plan will work to eliminate all external concerns about the health of Montana cattle, bolster brucellosis immunity with an adult booster, and help build consumer confidence and strengthen markets for Montana cattle. Montana's state veterinarian quickly discounted the NWF offer, claiming that all affected cattle are already vaccinated. Torbit responds, "The suggestion that the state isn't worried about these cattle contracting brucellosis makes you wonder why they were killing the bison in the first place." Torbit posed that question in a letter asking Montana Stock Growers to reconsider their immediate rejection of the plan and outlining its specific elements:
The letter notes that the state's rejection of the plan claims that the issue is not vaccination, but eradication of brucellosis from Yellowstone, something the nation's leading experts, including the National Academy of Sciences, say is impossible. Because brucellosis can infect animals other than bison and cattle, complete eradication would have to include testing 120,000 elk over 12 million acres of the greater Yellowstone area. The extreme technical difficulty of testing a large, varying wildlife population makes reducing the risk of transmission by vaccinating cattle the only real, long- term solution for people and wildlife. "It seems apparent that if an adequate barrier of protection can be constructed to further minimize the already very low risk of disease transmission to livestock, then the status of the wild buffalo is irrelevant," continued Torbit. Montana's claim to capture and test bison that leave the park, shipping to slaughter only those found to carry brucellosis, doesn't hold true in practice, according to NWF. Of the 96 bison slaughtered this past winter, 42 were bulls, which are physically incapable of transmission. In addition, Montana state officials claim to test all buffalo before slaughtering them, but impartial federal brucellosis testing uncovers a different story. Recent federal lab tissue tests reveal that only two of the first 15 wild buffalo sent to slaughter this winter actually had the diseaseand the infected animals were both bulls, posing no threat of transmission. "If Montana were truly concerned only about keeping domestic cattle healthy, these buffalo would still be alive," said Torbit. "Americans won't tolerate the state of Montana treating wildlife as livestock and managing animals like buffalo based on political whim rather than sound science." NWF teamed with the InterTribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC) in 1997 to create the foundation for the Citizens Plan to manage Yellowstone buffalo, which recently received the support of more than 47,000 people, 85 percent of those who commented on federal proposals. In addition, the plan is supported by more than a dozen local, regional, and national conservation groups. "If brucellosis poses a threat to the profitability of Montana's livestock industry, then state officials should champion NWF's vaccination plan," said Torbit. "Their failure to do so raises a question as to their true motives. Are they concerned about protecting ranchers' livelihoods, or are they more interested in continuing to make public wildlife resources vulnerable to officials' political agendas? We think it's time for the governor and his staff to consider a common-sense way to end this crisis once and for all." The nation's largest member-supported conservation education and advocacy group, the National Wildlife Federation unites people from all walks of life to protect nature, wildlife and the world we all share. The federation has educated and inspired families to uphold America's conservation tradition since 1936. |
|||
| ye | . | . | ||
| BISON UPDATE News Brief The Montana Department of Livestock announced that they hazed 96 bison back into Yellowstone National Park last week. The total hazed back into the Park this month stands at 131. Thus far this winter, 90 Yellowstone bison have been shipped to slaughter, according to the DOL. The DOL continues to be the only government agency that insists there is no alternative to the slaughter of Yellowstone bison which carry the disease brucellosis (see Protecting Yellowstone above). |
||||
| . | . | . | ||
| TWO MEN FOUND
GUILTY OF STEALING ELK ANTLERS News Brief According to the National Park Service, two men from Butte, Montana, pleaded guilty last week to collecting and removing elk antlers from Yellowstone National Park. Gregory Barnes and Shane Lowney were arrested with over 100 pounds of elk antlers in their possession, and even more pounds in a cache awaiting retrieval. Both men were fined and placed on probation, and will be unable to enter Yellowstone during their probation. |
||||