During Dr. Marty Zaluski's presentations,
the Board of Livestock covered the issues
of other states concerned with DSA brucellosis risk, a New IBMP
EIS process, the Bison Environmental Assessment for Year Round
Tolerance and the Elk Brucellosis Surveillance Program.
At times there was no differentiation between
subjects, all being brought up repeatedly, in an intermixed fashion.
I was not surprised with the Bison EA voting of No Action, as
the Board of Livestock stated at their July 29th meeting that
I attended, that they would probably vote - No Action.
When it came time for public comments, due
to an overwhelming amount of mis or partial information concerning
biology or stats, and given only 3 minutes, I was seriously wondering
where do you even begin to start in addressing the literal DOL
bullshit that you would have to wade through (chest waders). They
had an objective and they were not going to be dissuaded from
voting No Action.
Audio
File
1-11:32
minutes - Review of situation with other states, specifically
CO, wanting additional testing for brucellosis from DSA cattle,
review of the Texas Animal Health
Commission rule change and testimony that Dr. Marty Zaluski
gave. Zaluski stated it is imperative that he can assure other
state vets that Montana cattle are not a Brucellosis threat. I
wish he would have stated the same testimony to this Board of
Livestock meeting, because bison were not even an issue with Texas,
as to elk possibly infecting domestic cattle in Montana, Zaluski
stated in Texas, "The chance that any one Montana animal
is brucellosis positive is 0.00024%."
11:33
- 15:50 minutes - New IBMP
EIS process - Zaluski stated that the Yellowstone
National Park was interested in beginning work on a new EIS (current
one is nearly 15 years old and limited). He stated that the Park
Service approached the State of Montana to Co-lead a new EIS.
Preliminary work is being done on a new Memorandum of Understanding
(Mou), defining what each agency's roles are. Christian MacKay
stated the Park Service gave them the impression that the Park
Service was doing a new EIS with or without them.
15:51
> - Bison EA - Bear in
mind, the Bison Environmental Assessment is a Montana
Environmental Assessment, prepared by Montana's
Fish, Wildlife & Parks and the DOL. Under the proposal, the
wild bison that migrate out of Yellowstone National Park could
access and utilize year-round habitat on public lands north and
west of the YNP - IN MONTANA. Currently, there
are no wild bison (wildlife) in Montana. Various
options, such as A - No Action, B- with the largest amount of
year-round habitat use mapped, C - Comprising a smaller portion
of use with D and E getting even smaller.
No other wildlife are treat as wild bison are, with
hazing, shooting if they exit the YNP, capture, test and slaughter,
proposed vaccinations and tagging.
Dr. Marty Zaluski begins explaining the Bison EA,
with DOL Executive Officer, Christian MacKay elaborating on the
DOL perspective, that they want the Yellowstone National Park
to state a population number for bison and manage for that number,
which is estimated around 4700 currently. YNP wild bison population
numbers and keeping it at that low number that the DOL wants,
became the theme for the rest of the discussion culminating with
Christian MacKays statement, near the Board of Livestock vote,
"I see this as a potential
to start getting at some of that conflict, start getting - We
want this from you (repeated
statements of low bison population numbers), you
want this from us (expanded bison habitat in Montana
- BUT this is something that 78% of polled Montanans
have stated they wanted on Montana public lands- not an objective
of the YNP committing some sort of National Park sprawl and taking
over Montana). When you get to what
we want, we can offer what we have." So
basically, the Montana livestock industry that represents the
5% of ag/livestock population of Montana and the 7% of the population
they hire, for a total of about 12% of the Montana population
working in ag/livestock, are holding wild bison on Montana public
lands hostage, until the Yellowstone National Park depopulates
the wild bison herd to low numbers and maintains it that way.
These bison are already at risk of genetic loss due to repeated
slaughters.
Bison Population Reduction and Seroprevalence
Reduction
Christian MacKay stated he wanted lower bison
numbers and reduction of seroprevalence
focused on in the next round of the EIS.
Here are two reports that deal
with the rancher fable that YNP is overpopulated and over grazed,
causing the bison to exit the YNP. Bison are migratory, naturally
migrating out of YNP, which was only a small part of their traditional
range.
And reducing seroprevalence, which
does not equal infection/infectious, but also represents acquired
immunity, though initially may possibly be reduced by test and slaughter,
will likely increase seroprevalence due to a dynamic referred
to as "richochet". "During the course of
our simulations, we observed a dynamic that we refer to as a richochet,
which is likely to be generally applicable to other disease control
and eradication programs. As seroprevalence and herd immunity declined
due to test -and-remove or sterilization, a proportion of simulations
had large subsequent increases in seroprevalence, sometimes increasing
to pretreatment levels." "Thus the occurrence of superspreading
events are likely to increase as herd immunity decreases."
"Reductions in brucellosis seroprevalence are likely to result
in increases in population growth rate. In the Yellowstone context,
an increased growth rate will probably result in more bison leaving
the park and increased boundary removals...the costs of boundary
management could potentially increase in the future if bison have
higher population growth rates." - Simulating
sterilization, vaccination, and test - and-remove as brucellosis
control measures in bison. 2011
25:42 > Jim Hagenbarth, MT rancher,
and the Bison Citizens Working Group
Jim spoke about his participation on the Bison
Citizens Working Group and their recommendations
to the IBMP. He did state that he personally opposed the Bison
EA later.
33:33 > Comments From the Public
Bill O'Connell, ag producer
& hunter, stating the need for extended habitat, that hunting
is management tool, what is occurring presently is not even a hunt,
its a shoot them when they step across the boundary.
Jim Bailey, retired wildlife
biologist and professor, author of American
Plains Bison, Rewilding An Icon, stated that a lot had been
spoken concerning numbers of bison, pointed out that the EA says
that this decision does not change, in any way, the IBMP goals for
numbers of bison.
Jim Hagenbarth, rancher, Voiced
voting No Action, opposed Natural Regulation, brought up YNP numbers
and stated No Action until Parks Service steps up to the plate and
manages their numbers.
Errol Rice, Montana Stockgrowers Association,
No Action, spoke to representing commercial interest in the beef
industry, including advocating sending reps to other states concerning
the brucellosis import situations (TAHC),
spoke of maintaining the DSA and marketing interests.
At the TAHC Hearing in Texas, MT DOL's Dr. Marty
Zaluski stated, "So really the DSA in the state of Montana
is in southwest Montana. And it is designed to identify the cattle
at risk from brucellosis positive elk. So we know that brucellosis
positive elk are in southwest Montana, they can potentially expose
cattle and so the key to identifying the cattle at risk is to identify
where the brucellosis positive elk are." There was no mention
of bison, because bison Brucella genetics are different. Brucellosis
Science Review Workshop Panelists Report 2013. "To date,
no documented transmission of brucellosis from Yellowstone bison
to cattle has occurred." "Our results indicate that elk
and cattle isolates are virtually identical genetically, differing
by only one to two mutational steps. On the contrary, bison B. abortus
differed from cattle and elk by 12-20 mutational steps."- DNA
Genotyping Suggests that Recent Brucellosis Outbreaks in the Greater
Yellowstone Area Originated from Elk, 2009. Molecular Epidemiology
of Brucella abortus Isolates from Cattle, Elk, and Bison in the
United States, 1998 to 2011, 2012.
Errol Rice, Montana Stockgrowers Association,
submitted
a letter to the TAHC in Sept. 2013, stating, "There is
an extremely low risk of brucellosis transfer posed by cattle coming
out of Montana. While a small area of Montana in the Greater Yellowstone
Area (GYA) is affected by rare transfers of brucellosis
from wildlife, the state of Montana has proven highly effective
in its efforts to mitigate the spread of brucellosis. The states
testing provides for a 99% confidence of finding brucellosis at
a level of less that 0.0008%."
42:20 > Discussion of the Board of
Livestock
John Scully, rancher, begins a long questioning
period, which I will not refute line by line or this would turn
into a book. I will address some of the main issues brought up involving
who spreads brucellosis, seroprevalence, risk threat, etc. He kept
trying to get Zaluski and MacKay to answer questions about the Ted
Turner domestic bison herds, which Dr. Marty Zaluski kept trying
to explain, and John Scully, not only being a rancher, but an attorney
should know, Zaluski could not reveal legally. Scully continued
to insinuate Turners domestic bison being diseased and infecting
wild elk.
- The YNP is not being overgrazed, mismanaged,
which I linked to above.
- "Median total risk to cattle from elk
and bison was 3.6 cattle-exposure event-days (95% P.I. 0.1 - 36.6).
The estimated percentage of cattle exposure risk from
the Yellowstone bison herd was small (0.0 - 0.3% of total risk)
compared with elk which contributed 99.7 - 100% of the total risk"
- A
Risk Analysis of Brucella abortus Transmission Among Bison, Elk,
and Cattle in the Northern Greater Yellowstone Area (2010),
which DoL's Dr. Marty Zaluski was one of 7 authors on. - page
41.
- "Minimal opportunity exists
for B. abortus transmission from bison to elk under current
natural conditions in the northern GYA. The reasons for
this lower probability of adequet contact for B. abortus transmission,
even when spatiotemporal overlap occurred, are likely immunological
or behavioral. Differences in the immune systems of elk compared
with bison may make them less susceptible to infection. These
immunological differences may also account for the different responses
of elk and bison to vaccination, leading to the failure of elk
to be protected by RB51 vaccination while bison acquire some protection
from the vaccine. Also, anecdotally, bison are more dominant than
elk and may drive elk off grazing areas, increasing their opportunity
for exposure to elk infectious material but decreasing the opportunity
for elk to be exposed to bison infectious material." Ibid
- "However, because bison rarely
transmit B. abortus to elk, management alternatives
such as vaccination that reduce bison seroprevalence are unlikely
to reduce transmission from elk to cattle." Ibid
- "Our results indicate that elk and cattle
isolates are virtually identical genetically, differing by only
one to two mutational steps. On the contrary, bison B. abortus
differed from cattle and elk by 12-20 mutaional steps. These results
suggest that the recent brucellosis outbreaks in cattle in Idaho
and Wyoming originated from elk, not bison...The
relatively high genetic divergence between elk and bison B. abortus
isolates suggests that B. abortus might not be exchanged extensively
between elk and bison, though additional sampling (including more
recent bison isolates) and genotyping are required to access this
issue." - DNA Genotyping Suggests that Recent Brucellosis
Outbreaks in the Greater Yellowstone Area Originated from Elk.
2009
- Seropositive
does not equal infection/infectious, it can represent immunity.
1:09:45 > Board Discussion
Farm Bureau submits letter opting for Alernative
A - No Action
Board discussion and comments continued to center
around reducing YNP bison numbers, that the YNP is over grazed and
not adequate forage. Christian MacKay describes a history of conflict
between YNP and the State of Montana, again, bringing up population
management. "I see this as a
potential to start getting at some of that conflict, start getting
- We want this from you (repeated
statements of low bison population numbers), you
want this from us (expanded bison habitat in Montana
- BUT this is something that 78% of polled Montanans
have stated they wanted on Montana public lands- not an objective
of the YNP committing some sort of National Park sprawl and taking
over Montana). When you get to what
we want, we can offer what we have."
1:28:13 > Board Decides to make a
decision on the Bison EA
Board votes unanimously to vote Option A, No
Action, no qualifications.
Board then discusses population numbers and
economics, with Scully suggesting, instead of working on a "new"
EA, throw their energies into working on the new IBMP EIS. Christian
MacKay also speaks of numbers, older numbers, and going into the
new IBMP EIS with that, working on that sooner rather than later.
Scully moved that Zaluski and MacKay work on population numbers,
economics, disease control recommendations and come back to the
Board of Livestock with those recommendations. Motion was passed.
The
Department of Livestock issued a News Release Jan. 14, 2014
"The Montana Board of Livestock has weighed
in on a draft environmental analysis (EA) regarding year-round tolerance
of bison outside of Yellowstone National Park by initially endorsing
the no-action alternative (Alternative A).
'We’re keeping the door open, but the
board unanimously believes there are unanswered questions that need
to be resolved before we can do anything other than support the
no action alternative,' said board chair Jan French, a cattle industry
representative from Hobson, after the board concluded its meeting
earlier today.
'Specifically, we’d like to see more information
about bison population thresholds,' she said. 'Would more habitat
mean more bison? We don’t know, and with the park’s
bison population hovering at near-record highs, it just wouldn’t
be prudent to move forward without having more information on that
and a few other topics.'
As such, the board directed Department of Livestock
staff to work with the Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks
to try and come up with more details. French said the board will
revisit the draft EA as more information becomes available."
If you listen, there was no discussion
to keeping the door open on the Bison EA. The Board voted
against the Bison EA and instructed Zaluski and MacKay, to coordinate
with FWP and any other agencies or industries to work towards the
new IBMP EIS, not to revisit the Bison EA.
|