The Transparency of the Montana 2013 Legislative Bison Crosshairs

For over a month I have closely watched the 2013 Montana Legislative Session. It is difficult to describe the overwhelming attack on Montana's wildlife and the public's access. There is a very concerted effort to erode the public's rights, putting them in the hands of a privileged elite. For example, HB 404, sponsored by Rep. Kelly Flynn (rancher and outfitter in Townsend, MT) - Provide funding for block management program. This bill seeks to fund Montana's Block Management Program, a program where the State leases land from private landowners, so that public hunters can hunt on that land. The catch is, the funding will come out of Habitat Montana, a program where the State purchases land for public access. Habitat Montana benefits the Montana public, while Block Management ultimately benefits the private landowner. While Block Management can be beneficial to the public hunter, it should not be at the cost of the better benefit - that of purchasing land, making it available to all the public of Montana for many purposes.

HB 404 is the epitome of what is taking place in the Montana 2013 Legislative Session - the removal of what is public, for the benefit of a minority (5%) elite agriculture/ranching industry. And no other wildlife is in this legislative crosshairs like the Wild Bison.

There are 10 House and Senate bills (short titles) that target the Bison.

SB 143 - Revise bison management, sponsored by Sen. John Brenden (Republican, owner of Brenden Farms in Scobey). Senate Fish & Game Committee. This bill would allow year round hunting on any bison that stepped out of the YNP, would prohibit the transfer, relocation and transplantation of any wild bison - equates them with diseased vermin.

SB 256 - Making FWP liable for private property damages caused by wild buffalo/bison, sponsored by Sen. Frederick (Eric) Moore (Republican, rancher, co-owner Solaris Feeders Llc. - cattle feed, Miles City). Senate Fish & Game Committee. This bill would make the FWP liable for any private property damages from bison, contrary to the status of all other Montana wildlife, provided by the Montana Supreme Court ruling of C. R. Rathbone.

SB 305 - Generally revise laws governing bison management in Montana, sponsored by Sen. Jim Peterson (Republican, owner Jim Peterson Ranch). Senate Fish & Game. This bill would prevent bison, such as the American Prairie Reserve pure bison, being released with a transplanted wild herd (such as at the CMR) to increase the genetic stock.

SB 341 - Establish criteria for transplantation or augmentation of wildlife, sponsored by Sen. Jennifer Olsen Fielder (Republican,Silverline Projects Inc., "Wildlife Damage Control", husband Paul Fielder Montana Trappers Association).Senate Fish & Game Committee. This bill seriously prohibits any release, transplanting, etc.of bison by means of public rejection, "implemented only after it is determined that transplantation or augmentation of a wildlife species will not jeopardize existing grazing allotments" on public land, is possibly a traffic hazard, require approval of county commissioners, require nearby private landowners permission, ad nauseam.

HB 249 - Revising laws related to presence of bison/buffalo on private property, sponsored by Rep. Alan Doane (Republican, rancher in Bloomfield/Glendive). House Appropriations Committee. This bill gives private property owners the right to kill wild bison as they see fit.

HB 328 - Allowing hunter notification of wild buffalo/bison location, sponsored by Rep. Ted Washburn (Republican, Big Game Hunting). House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee. This bill gives the Dept. of Livestock the authority to determine if a wild bison can be killed with a hunt,notification of license recipients as to when and where they may hunt, including the location of the wild bison. (Thats not a hunt when you demand exactly where the bison is.)

HB 396 - Revise laws regarding translocation of wild buffalo/bison, sponsored by Rep. Mike Lang (Republican, owner Northern Ag Service Malta). House Agriculture Committee. This bill grants authority to local County Commissioners to veto the release, relocation and transplantation of any brucellosis free bison.

HB 484 - Generally revise bison laws, sponsored by Rep. Alan Redfield (Republican., rancher - Davis Creek Ranch Livingston). House Agriculture Committee. This bill is very insidious, seeking slaughter of any wild bison exiting the YNP, capturing for experimenting, vaccinating, treating all wild bison as diseased vermin, gives the Dept. of Livestock the primary authority over wild bison, ...

HB 507 - Generally revising management of wild buffalo and wild bison, sponsored by Rep. Bill Harris (Republican, Rancher, Outfitter - Harris Ranch, Fort Musselshell Outfitters). House Agriculture Committee.This bill applies livestock laws to wild bison, restricts release and transplanting, holds the Dept. of Livestock as the authority over wild bison, may not transplant any wild bison outside of nearby area of YNP. Any animal leaving the YNP are the property of the Dept. of Livestock to do as they see fit.

HB 312 - Revise laws relating to brucellosis surveillance, sponsored by Rep. Alan Redfield (Republican, rancher - Davis Creek Ranch Livingston). House Agriculture Committee. This bill is a test and slaughter bill, not only of elk, but also bison, charging FWP for the financial bill.

Each of these bills contains more detrimental language than the very short descriptions I have provided. If you will notice, there is a political party common denominator in all these anti-bison bills - Republican. Why are these republicans so adamantly set on destroying the wild bison and prohibiting them from being released elsewhere in Montana? Well, if you read the language, you see 2 common thoughts expressed - grazing competition and disease (brucellosis). 

Supposed Brucellosis Threat

So lets tackle the brucellosis issue for a moment. There has not been one documented case of a bison transmitting brucellosis to any livestock. And since science has advanced to the point that they can genotype the Brucella abortus found in the recent cattle outbreaks, they have all shown to be from elk, not bison. The Department of Livestock knows this and even posts it to their news release section of their website for the last 5 years. In fact, in the last 5 years there have been 9 cases from about 5 or 6 herds. In 2008, Paradise Valley (1 cow). In 2010,  Gallatin (1 domestic bison cow) county, on Turner's Flying D Ranch (speaking with Eric Liska of MTDOL, he stated that there were other bison, but no specific numbers could be provided, that were not cultured, but simply tested seropositive, meaning they had antibodies, showing they had been exposed but were not cultured to see if they were infective. I asked for a location on their website confirming the data and none could be provided.) In 2011, 2 cattle herds had positives in Park (6 on one ranch - confirmed at the Brucellosis in Yellowstone Bison, Science Review and Workshop, presenter Dr. Marty Zaluski), and Madison (1 bull) counties. According to MTDOL, the genotype indicates the brucellosis came from elk.  MTDOL Livestock News Releases  9 cases of brucellosis to warrant the massive killings of 2009 YNP bison for  these last 5 years.

Not all bison are exposed to brucellosis, first brought to wildlife by the livestock industry. Of those exposed, not all are infectious. Brucella abortus can only be transmitted through contact with an aborted fetus (generally the first calf) and those birthing fluids for a very short period of time (heat and sunlight, as well as animal scavenging seriously diminish the possible exposure time). Bison bulls, calves, yearlings and non-pregnant females do not shed infected materials that can possibly spread brucellosis. Possibly infected females, in their first pregnancy, are the only possible risk. But as stated before, there has not been a documented case of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle. 

 

Interview with Dr. Marty Zaluski - Montana State Veterinarian, Dept. of Livestock

In a recent interview (Feb. 12th, 2013), I asked Marty a number of specific questions about bison and brucellosis. 

Q: From a health perspective, were you comfortable with the movement of bison from quarantine to Fort Peck? 

A: Yes, he had no reservation about their health status, but believes it would be good to follow up, to make sure they remain free of brucellosis.

Q: Did you approve moving the bison herd from Elk Island Park in Alberta, Canada to the American Prairie Reserve in Montana? Are you comfortable with their health status? Could these bison be used for restoration of a wild bison herd here in Montana? 

A: Yes, Marty approved the health status of the APR bison and was comfortable with their being brucellosis free. And yes, they could be used for restoration. His, "focus is quite narrow for disease issue."  

Q: Could the wild bison on Turner's Green Ranch be used for restoration? 

A: Yes, they are the most tested herd and have been proven to be free of brucellosis. The risk is infinitesimally small.

Q: What's your assessment of disease transmission from bison to cattle - under the current program? 

A: Not zero, its low. You cant prove a negative. The current management is a result of tradition. 

Questions to the radical anti-wildlife ag/livestock industry.

Why, when the Montana State Veterinarian has had no reservations about the health of the transplanted herds, and sees an infinitesimally small risk of transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle, do so many of the radical ag/livestock industry treat wild bison as diseased vermin and legislativally demand their slaughter? Especially since they know the known cases come from elk? Because this is not about brucellosis, this is about grazing and the nearly free grazing rights on public lands that they want access to and the wild bison not to have access to. 

As to SB 212, the oft quoted anti-bison bill that became law in 2011, that required the FWP management of wild bison that are released or transplanted in Montana, it does not apply to the wild bison that are entering Montana on their own, which is part of the recent spat of legislative bullsh$it erupting right now. 212 makes the state liable for the costs for this bison management, which does not apply to any other wildlife in Montana. This needs to change. Wild Bison are wildlife, not livestock and need to be treated as such. Which brings me to the Bison Brucellosis Workshop.

Bison Brucellosis Workshop Agenda Feb. 26-28, 2013

A Bison Brucellosis Workshop is being held at the Chico Hot Springs Resort in Pray, MT, on February 26-28, 2013. On the first day, from 2:30 - 3:00 Disease Suppression: Immunocontraceptives will be presented. This is the frickin' experimental drug GonaCon. The Department of Agriculture APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) has developed a "vaccine" on captured bison that migrated out of YNP. When the GnRH vaccine is injected into the animal's body, the body's immune response neutralizes the hormone's function, resulting in infertility in both males and females. 

This is our wildlife they want to make infertile. And what about the effect on anyone eating bison meat that has been "innocultated" with this GonaCon"vaccine". We know that livestock treated with growth hormones, antibiotics and such, pass into the meat and milk and affect the humans that eat it. Will this also transfer to those that hunt the bison and eat the meat? Or those that simply eat the bison meat? Will this make humans infertile as well? They have used this on deer as well. This should not even be on the table at this workshop. Our wildlife is wild and should not be treated with infertility drugs.

Just after this debacle of an idea, from 3:00-3:30 is Disease Suppression: Vaccination. This is the plain old garden variety bad idea brucellosis vaccinating our wildlife bullsh$it. What hunter wants to eat vaccinated wildlife? What economic success is there going to be in trying to inoculate a free roaming population of wildlife? In fact, when I spoke with Dr. Marty Zaluski about HB 312 and seroprevalence reduction in wildlife through vaccination, he answered, "Vaccinating elk is not viable, vaccinating bison poses challenges, there is no hope at all in vaccinating elk." 

Dr. Bruce L. Smith stated in his letter to the HB 312 committe, "Tools for reducing prevalence of brucellosis, and for that matter other diseases in free-ranging wildlife, are limited compared to those for remedying the disease among infected herds of cattle: tools such as prophylactic vaccinations, culling, test and slaughter, or whole herd depopulation. My experience in Wyoming shows that available vaccines (S19 and RB51) are so marginally efficacious in protecting elk against field strain brucellosis infection and preventing brucellosis-induced abortions that they are not a viable management tool. Wyoming’s experimental test and slaughter program—implemented to greatly reduce or eliminate brucellosis in feedground elk—was abandoned after 5 years due to its tremendous budgetary costs and failure to achieve the program’s goal. The most cost-effective means of limiting exposure and infection of susceptible cattle herds to brucellosis from potentially infected bison or elk are to calfhood vaccinate cattle herds and proactively implement practices that limit species sympatry and comingling during periods when transmission is most likely to occur." 


We need to get the radical ag/livestock industry out of legislating our wildlife as livestock. Wild bison are wildlife and have a right to be here in Montana as wildlife, just as all the other wildlife populations. The Montana public has a right to that wildlife. 5% of the ag/livestock industry should not hold over 50% of the legislative seats to push their special interest agendas on us.

Please take a few moments and contact these legislators and get these anti bison bills killed. 

http://leg.mt.gov/css/Sessions/63rd/legwebmessage.asp  

Call: 406-444-4800

 Kathryn QannaYahu

Dr. Bruce L. Smith's Letter to Montana H.B. 312 Hearing

It is unfortunate that the majority of the public does not know the details involved in much of the testimony given at a legislative hearing. It would go along way in educating the public in many matters. For example, often a person testifying, especially concerning a controversial bill, is limited by time to make specific points or provide verbal documentation. Sometimes all they get to do is list their name, any association affiliation and whether they are proponents or opponents of the bill. Unless requested, we don't see the physical documentation that is hand delivered to these committees.

Fortunately, I was sent a copy of a very important letter that was submitted  by Nick Gevok of the Montana Wildlife Federation (the day before the hearing), to the Agriculture Committee. The Agriculture Committee heard testimony concerning HB 312, sponsored by Rep. Alan Redfield, on January 31st, 2013. This letter is from Dr. Bruce L. Smith, who introduces some of his credentials in his first paragraph. He is also the author of an awesome reference book on elk - "Where Elk Roam: Conservation and Biopolitics of Our National Elk Herd" and appears in the documentary, "Feeding the Problem", which I highly suggest everyone watch. Below is his very telling and damning letter.

Thank you Dr. Smith for submitting such important testimony against HB 312.




__________________________

January 29, 2013

House Agriculture Committee
Montana House of Representatives
Helena, Montana

Dear members,

After reading HB 312, I wish to offer the following comments.

By way of introduction, I spent 30 years as a wildlife scientist and manager, most of those with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the final 22 years as the wildlife biologist at the National Elk Refuge in Jackson, Wyoming. In that capacity, I did research on elk population biology and ecology, but more importantly in regard to HB 312, I coordinated the refuge’s winter feeding program and was responsible for monitoring disease among the elk , including brucellosis. In that capacity I worked with a host of federal and state agency personnel and private groups to mitigate diseases among the elk and their potential for transmission to livestock.

Although I understand that HB 312’s broad intent is to provide the means of authorizing agency responsibilities for testing and prevalence reduction of brucellosis in livestock and wildlife, I find some of the proposed bill’s language so general and vague as to be subject to individual interpretation.

Specifically, Section 1 (2) parts a and b include, in part, the language “eliminated or minimized as much as possible,” and “prevalence reduction procedures” regarding brucellosis in bison and other species of wildlife (which I assume to mean elk).

While I appreciate Montana state government’s interest and efforts to limit the effects of brucellosis on the livestock industry and individual producers, therapeutic tools for accomplishing what Section 1(2) parts a and b reference were largely developed for monitoring/managing/eliminating brucellosis in cattle. Cattle testing procedures are less useful and certainly less practically applied in free-ranging wildlife. Capturing or confining and testing wildlife is expensive, stressful to wildlife, and potentially contrary to principles of managing wildlife as free-ranging public resources. More importantly, the wording I referenced, because of its vague nature, could be interpreted to empower agency administrators to establish and implement management guidelines that could negatively impact wildlife herds.

Tools for reducing prevalence of brucellosis, and for that matter other diseases in free-ranging wildlife, are limited compared to those for remedying the disease among infected herds of cattle: tools such as prophylactic vaccinations, culling, test and slaughter, or whole herd depopulation. My experience in Wyoming shows that available vaccines (S19 and RB51) are so marginally efficacious in protecting elk against field strain brucellosis infection and preventing brucellosis-induced abortions that they are not a viable management tool. Wyoming’s experimental test and slaughter program—implemented to greatly reduce or eliminate brucellosis in feedground elk—was abandoned after 5 years due to its tremendous budgetary costs and failure to achieve the program’s goal. The most cost-effective means of limiting exposure and infection of susceptible cattle herds to brucellosis from potentially infected bison or elk are to calfhood vaccinate cattle herds and proactively implement practices that limit species sympatry and comingling during periods when transmission is most likely to occur.

To this point, the stated language I referenced in this proposed legislation could conceivably commit Montana to the slippery slope of imposing livestock husbandry practices on the public’s free-ranging wildlife. I suspect that is not the intention of HB312, so I suggest reconsidering the bill or redrafting it with language that’s far more specific and more limited in scope regarding “reducing” and “eliminating” disease in wildlife, and more appropriately focuses on how the interests of the livestock industry can be protected through management procedures that have been demonstrated to be successful and are cost effective.

Sincerely,

Bruce L. Smith, Ph.D.
44 Duncan District Road
Sheridan, MT 59749
_____________________________

Now this letter refers to the study, "Using Test and Slaughter to Reduce Prevalence of Brucellosis in Elk Attending Feedgrounds in the Pinedale Elk Herd Unit of Wyoming; Results of a 5 Year Pilot Project" From this study, the following quote states, "Thus, capturing 35% to 60% of cow elk attending a feedground and removing seropositive individuals over a 5 year period does not appear to prevent transmission events." Now if capturing 35-60 percent of the cow elk in a feedlot and baited situation doesn't prevent transmission events, what kind of success is ever possible for a wild, free roaming elk population like we have here in Montana? Test and Slaughter is never going to succeed on our landscape, especially since we have elk that travel between Wyoming and Idaho.

Wyoming Test and Slaughter Paper

Montana House Bill 312, is a farce. Test and Slaughter of Montana elk is not viable, not possible in eradicating brucellosis on a wild landscape, and would fly in the face of all that Montana hunters and conservationists, wildlife biologists and the average citizen have done to bring these elk back from the brink of the late 1800's and early 1900's. For further reading, please see the previous blog post, Back From the Brink, Back To the Brink?

Help stop the proposed massive test and slaughter of Montana's elk.
Please take a moment to send a message to the Montana Legislature:
Call: 406-444-4800  or fill in the online form and submit-

http://leg.mt.gov/css/Sessions/63rd/legwebmessage.asp 

Select Committee 
Use the Committee drop down menu to select Agriculture 
Type in HB 312 in the Bill Number Box
Select Against in the Vote portion
Type in a short message in the message box if you wish
Click the Send Message button

HB 312 Video Stream
Click on the third link, under the screen, HB 312 - Revise laws relating to brucellosis - Alan Redfield.


Kathryn QannaYahu

Back From the Brink, Back to the Brink?

In the spring of 1805, Lewis and Clark arrived in the eastern part of what is now Montana state. They reported that this territory was teeming with wildlife, which brought in numerous hunters, trappers, pioneers and homesteaders. Due to hunting for food sources, sport and profit, the elk of Montana, as well as other species, were nearly wiped out.

By 1910, some estimates put Montana's elk population around 3000-5000. "As the open valleys and lowlands of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming (habitat and forage for the elk) were increasingly farmed and ranched, and communities and transportation routes sprang up, herd migratory patterns were cut short or eliminated.The elk found old travels routes blocked by fences, traditional wintering grounds studded by homes, and forage usurped by domestic sheep and cattle." "The wanton killing of elk for their canine upper teeth began about 1904 in Jackson Hole. The Tuskers, as they were called, were blood brothers of the buffalo tongue hunters, mercenaries who killed buffalo for only that eipcurean delicacy. Thousands of elk were slaughtered for their teeth, which at peak prices brought ten dollars a pair." Where Elk Roam: Conservation and Biopolitics of Our National Elk Herd, Bruce L. Smith, 2012, pg. 20. "By the early 1800s, subsistence, market, and hide hunting had almost eliminated elk east of the Mississippi River. This hunting continued to reduce elk in the western United States, and elk were gone from eastern Montana by the mid-1880s and were also heavily impacted in western Montana." FWP Elk Plan

This decimation of Montana's wildlife has been referred to as, "the brink."

Elk- like the bison - were vanishing, and like the bison, they found refuge in Yellowstone National Park. The establishment of YNP, in 1872, and its remoteness was a major factor in preserving elk in North America. In the early 1900's people saw that conservation and re-introduction would be necessary to revitalize elk numbers in various states. "During the late teens and 1920s, local and national sentiment for protecting and expanding existing elk herds became stronger. Many local sportsmen’s clubs were formed with a prime purpose of preserving elk." - Elk Plan. In 1913, a hundred years ago, Montana established the Sun River Game Preserve as a refuge from hunters and free from the competition for forage by livestock. There was still much competition for forage. Some farmers and ranchers were shooting elk to protect the forage for their domesticated livestock.

A prominent case involved C. R. Rathbone, of the Circle H, near Augusta, in Lewis and Clark County. Mr. Rathbone acquired the land in 1931. It was already evident that his ranch was part of an established migratory and winter forage habitat for the elk. He had not availed himself of the remedies available through the Fish and Game. To "deal" with the forage competition he advertised for machine gunners, in the Great Falls Tribune, to help kill a thousand elk, but they did not arrive to dispatch any elk. On March 3, 1939, Rathbone shot an elk himself, out of season. After killing the elk, he sent a telegram to the state warden at the Fish and Game Commission in Helena. They sent a deputy game warden out, who surveyed the situation and arrested Rathbone. I have a copy of the Montana vs. C.R. Rathbone Montana Supreme Court decision, which is very enlightening. A number of people are familiar with the oft quoted couple lines of the decision:

"Montana is one of the areas in the nation where wild game abounds. It is regarded as one of the greatest of the state's natural resources, as well as the chief attraction for visitors. Wild game existed here long before the coming of man. One who acquires property in Montana does so with notice and knowledge of the presence of wild game and presumably is cognizant of its natural habits. Wild game does not possess the power to distinguish between fructus naturales (In property law, fructus naturales are the natural fruits of the land on which they arise) and fructus industriales (The fruits of industry, meaning crops and other annual plants that must be sown each year in order to produce.), and cannot like domestic animals be controlled through the owner. Accordingly a property owner in this state must recognize the fact that there may be some injury to property or inconvenience from wild game for which there is no recourse." 

It is important to note, that through this entire legal document, not once is brucellosis mentioned. Rathbone is not wanting the elk killed because they are a source of brucellosis, he wanted them killed because they were competition for forage. And yes, elk were known to be infected with brucellosis by 1940 (Brucellosis first detected in wild elk in 1930).  

Through serious conservation and management efforts, "Statewide, post-season elk numbers increased from an estimated 8,000 in 1922 to 22,000 in 1940, 40,000 in 1951, 55,000 in 1978, and an estimated 130,000 to 160,000 today."- FWP Elk Plan  Now that is back from the brink! So where are the elk heading now? Back to the brink with Test and Slaughter? 

On January 31, 2013, HB 312  held its hearing before the Agriculture Committee, not the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee. That alone gives you an idea of what is taking place. This bill is sponsored by Representative Alan Redfield (R), a rancher of the Davis Creek Ranch in Livingston. HB 312 deals with wildlife, particularly elk, concerning brucellosis, and it was submitted to an ag committee. Not only is this bill a Test and Slaughter bill, but it would force the Fish, Wildlife and Parks to pay for this required elk slaughter. All for the supposed protection of livestock, from a disease that the European cattle brought into the wildlife in the first place. 

This bill advocates the mass slaughter of elk, under the banner of, "Save our cattle from brucellosis," but it forces the hunters to pay for it to boot, while obfuscating (intentionally bewilder) the science of brucellosis. Brucella abortus is a zoonotic disease, which means it can spread from other species to humans or vice versa. It causes the abortion of an animal's first offspring the majority of the time. Despite brucellosis amongst wildlife, even with some of the first offspring being aborted, wildlife have lived with this disease and are still increasing in numbers in conservation areas. But the livestock industry view domesticated animals as a commodity. That means an aborted calf is lost revenue. This is a financial issue.

So let's look at brucellosis here in Montana. How devastating is this disease in cattle to warrant massive Test and Slaughter campaigns against elk and bison and the beaucoup (that's French for a helluva lot)  FWP/hunter bucks to fund this slaughter? 

In 2008, Paradise Valley (1 cow). In 2010,  Gallatin (1 domestic bison cow) county, on Turner's Flying D Ranch (speaking with Eric Liska of MTDOL, he stated that there were other bison, but no specific numbers could be provided, that were not cultured, but simply tested seropositive, meaning they had antibodies, showing they had been exposed but were not cultured to see if they were infective. I asked for a location on their website confirming the data and none could be provided.) In 2011, 2 cattle herds had positives in Park (6 on one ranch - confirmed at the Brucellosis in Yellowstone Bison, Science Review and Workshop, presenter Dr. Marty Zaluski), and Madison (1 bull) counties. According to MTDOL, the genotype indicates the brucellosis came from elk. So unless the MTDOL, did not release other cases of cattle brucellosis to their news, there have only been 9 domestic livestock cases of brucellosis in 5 years. MTDOL Livestock News Releases  9 cases of brucellosis to warrant the massive killings of 2009 YNP bison for  these last 5 years, and now they are trying to make law, the Test and Slaughter of untold numbers of elk at a massive cost to FWP / hunters.  

During the Agriculture Committee Hearing on House Bill 312, the first opponent speaker was Randy Newberg, "The point I always try to make, really worked hard on the last couple of years, meeting with stock growers, meeting with others, is the importance of how the hunter and livestock producer are actually in the same boat, on the issue of brucellosis. There's no doubt that a solution to brucellosis is good for all of us.  But what seems to happen is, I feel like it is ground hog day or something, because here we are 2 years later, and we are looking at a bill that's almost identical to the same bill that we had in the 2011 session. And again, it's funding this issue on the backs of hunters. Not that we don't want to help, we want to see solutions, but I try to explain to a lot of our audience the complication of the brucellosis issue and now that it's infecting elk, a lot of hunters are really taking interest in this.

When it was just bison, because we very seldom get to hunt bison, there wasn't that much interest in the hunting community. There's a lot of interest now. And the biggest ally of the agriculture industry is going to have, in bringing pressure to APHIS, in getting the bacteria of brucellosis off the Select Terrorist Agent list, is going to be the political power of hunters. And it seems like there's a policy of no good deed goes unpunished, as it relates to the hunters. And I try to explain to them the complications in the history of this disease, especially in Yellowstone National Park, and I heard some of the previous testimony saying, well now it's in the elk. Yep, it is and I agree. I bet any money those elk got that from the bison. But, the hunters who do a little research, they say, 'Where did the bison get it?' Well, pretty much, all data points that they got it from livestock. And, so here we are, however many years forward, we are asking hunters, 'You guys get to write the check for something that came from livestock.' That's just, it's very hard to explain that to a hunter, why he should write the check to pay for something that came from livestock, and now it's the livestock industry, which I understand, all the economic concerns, ...I don't think this is the proper solution."

Randy's wager that the elk got brucellosis from the bison, made me question. I have read the academic papers: On the Origin of Brucellosis in Bison of Yellowstone National Park: A Review, by Meagher and Meyer;  as well as a host of papers that cite this and Mohler's original study in 1917. In their introduction, Meagher and Meyer state, "The question of origin cannot be answered directly, but the general consensus of experts on brucellosis is the B. abortus was introduced by cattle."   

So what of Randy's wager?  I began a search, online, as well as speaking with professionals in the elk and brucellosis field, trying to find an answer as to the brucellosis origins for elk. I was referred to even more experts. What it amounts to with elk, is that after the time that European cattle were introduced, there were no wildlife biologists that were heavily studying the elk, to be able to determine origin. Tom Roffe (PhD, DVM) stated that elk (cervids) are not as good a reservoir for Brucella abortus as cattle and bison (bovines) are. Any determination would be circumstantial. While I did not find the answer I was seeking (hard science, concrete origin) Tom Roffe gave me a better answer than the question I was asking.

Roffe stated that the origin of elk brucellosis was a red herring. He has spent much time and money into research concerning brucellosis. Tom Roffe has written and been party to quite a number of academic papers on the subject, as well as being interviewed in the documentary - Feeding the Problem, involving the elk feeding grounds. He stated, "A lot of money and resources have been used, just so we can point the finger." Pointing the finger does nothing to stop any transmission of brucellosis. Knowing the origins of the elk brucellosis will not stop it from being spread today or the future, either to domestic cattle or the wildlife. So my origin quest is a moot point.

Below is the testimony of Mark Albrecht. And like any science field, this subject has it's own language. So here are a few terms for the lay people, such as myself, so that you can better understand the testimony. Seroprevalence is the number of persons/animals in a population (prevalence) that test positive for a specific disease based on serology (blood serum) specimens. Identifying the occurrence of disease is usually based upon the presence of antibodies for that disease. Seropositive is a positive blood test result for an individual/animal, showing that they have been exposed to the disease or were vaccinated and now carry the antibodies. This is comparable to those of us that had Chicken Pox as children. We now carry the antibodies of that disease in our blood. A blood test would reveal that we were seropositive for Chicken Pox. But this does not mean we currently have it, or worse are presently communicable/infectious. HB 312 does not target infectious elk, it targets all elk that were ever exposed.

Mark Albrecht, DVM & Elk Brucellosis Working Group Member was the 5th to speak, clarifying major points in the brucellosis issue, "There's several things, I'll try not to run on too long, but there seems to be a really consistent piece of misinformation in this brucellosis puzzle, that I would like to try and clear up. Seroprevalence does not equal infection. Infection does not equal infectious. Okay, because an animal is seropositive means it's been exposed, it does not mean that it will transfer the disease. Even if an animal has brucellosis it does not mean it can transfer the disease.

So we need to quit getting on the bandwagon, of saying seroprevalence equals infection. If we are going to talk about seroprevalence, ends up being seropositive. If we were to use, there's really two ways, and I understand what my friend Rick Gibson's saying, as far as not wanting to do test and slaughter.  If we are going to reduce seroprevalence, there's effectively two good ways to do it - we can vaccinate, we can test and slaughter. There's no good vaccine in elk right now. If we want to look at seropositive, Strain 19 is probably the better vaccine in elk, the old version that we used. Any elk vaccinated with Strain 19, will turn up seropositive. RB 51, the newer vaccine, doesn't work very well in elk, would not make them seropositive, so we don't have a vaccine. What's left? Test and Slaughter. That's the only way we can go.

It would be great to get rid of brucellosis. That would be fantastic. Like to get rid of knapweed, leafy spurge and a lot of other things too. We are not going to get rid of sero-positive animals. Certainly, as much as it's nice to blame Fish, Wildlife and Parks, because it's always nice to have a fall guy, they alone have no possible way of getting rid of brucellosis, within the state of Montana. Not when you have Yellowstone Park, not when you have animals moving between Idaho and Wyoming. It's not gonna happen.

And so, sero-positive is the wrong thing to be looking at. Looking at sero-prevalence is the wrong thing to be looking at. So let's pick the low hanging fruit, let's go with what is easy. Randy Newberg talked about it. Nobody wants to increase infections in cattle. You got agreement on that. The Elk Brucellosis Working Group said, 'Let's work together to minimize transmission to cattle. And I put forward that that's the way to go. Let's do that in a consensus building manner, not in what could be viewed and I don't know that this is at all true cause I don't know Representative Redfield at all, but could be viewed as activist legislation, as far as it's divisive, it's pushing, it's bringing the sides apart. And I encourage you to read, I know John Anderson, one of the Elk Working Group members, also wanted to be here, but couldn't, but sent me a letter -

John C. Anderson, Ruby Dell Ranch, Alder, MT and Elk Brucellosis Working Group Member,

'As Rancher within the Brucellosis Designated Surveillance Area, a member of The Fish Wildlife and Parks Elk/Brucellosis Working Group, and a Montana Stockgrowers Association member, I wish to comment on HB 312 before the House Ag Committee today.

I must stand in opposition to HB 312 as presented for the following reasons.

• The Elk/Brucellosis Working group worked for six months or more this past year to put together a plan to deal with livestock and brucellosis infected elk, which has the potential to bring stakeholders together in a cooperative effort to deal with this issue in the Brucellosis Designated Surveillance Area.
• HB 312 serves to polarize rather than bring people and groups together to address this issue.
• Requiring Fish Wildlife and Parks to “pay for brucellosis surveillance and prevalence reduction in wildlife” could conceivably use their whole annual budget and would likely have limited success in solving the brucellosis problem in wildlife.
• State Veterinarians in the states Montana exports cattle to will be very unlikely to accept the requirement that the order would expire only one year after the last case of brucellosis is detected in livestock.

I feel this bill is very premature given the efforts Montana Department of Livestock and Fish Wildlife and Parks have and are continuing to put into the brucellosis issue within the DSA. It would be more beneficial for the Legislature and all Montanans to work with the efforts which are in process rather than placing heavy-handed restrictions on these agencies.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I urge the House Ag Committee to reject HB 312 as introduced.

Sincerely,

John C Anderson, Ruby Dell Ranch Inc.'

"Now that's from my ranching friend John Anderson. So I think if we can work with a citizens group, local groups on a local landscape, we can bring people together, we can bring ranchers, sportsmen and landowners together and we can minimize transmission, for the better of everybody, that would be the most scientific, fiscal, responsible way to go. Again, I would urge you to not support HB 312. Thank you." 

Using Test and Slaughter to Reduce Prevalence of Brucellosis in Elk Attending Feedgrounds in the Pinedale Elk Herd Unit of Wyoming; Results of a 5 Year Pilot Project, "Thus, capturing 35% to 60% of cow elk attending a feedground and removing seropositive individuals over a 5 year period does not appear to prevent transmission events." Now if capturing 35-60 percent of the cow elk in a feedlot and baited situation doesn't prevent transmission events, what kind of success is ever possible for a wild, free roaming elk population like we have here in Montana? Test and Slaughter is never going to succeed on our landscape, especially since we have elk that travel between Wyoming and Idaho.
 Test and Slaughter Paper

Dr. Bruce L. Smith's Letter to HB 312 Ag Committee


The 12 member Elk Brucellosis Working Group, produced the Brucellosis Working Group Proposed Recommendation. 3 of the members were in attendance at this hearing. Rick Gibson testified as a proponent for HB 312, with the qualification that this was not a "Test and Slaughter" bill. 

  Dustin Monroe, the 6th speaker, expressed that this bill was an effort of the stockgrowers, "eliminating your competitor." This is a reference to the forage competition between the elk/bison and the livestock industry, which not only utilizes their private lands, but many also lease public lands for grazing or haying, which wildlife have rights to. There has been a growing battle for grass/foraging in the west, which has drawn major attention in numerous research books such as, Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West; Who Controls Public Lands and Beyond the Rangeland Conflict: Towards a West That Works.

The 7th speaker, Justin Sakalis, with the Montana Audubon, stated a very important point concerning Test and Slaughter, which had just been released that morning in the Fiscal Note, "Control of brucellosis in wildlife, surveillance and prevalence reduction management, which is also called, 'Test and Slaughter'. And we know that it's 'Test and Slaughter' because, in fact, it says it in the fiscal note, 'animals that test positive will be slaughtered on sight.' There is no indication that this method works in dispersed wildlife populations in elk, like we have here in Montana."

View the Fiscal Note,  Bottom of page 1, point 3, second sentence, "Captured animals that test positive will be slaughtered on site."

Glenn Hockett, the 9th speaker is President of the Gallatin Wildlife Association (Hunter/Fisher Conservation group) stated, "I want to concur with a lot of the proponents (per Glenn Hockett, he meant to say OPPONENTS). Many of our group went over to the Madison Valley, worked with John Scully and other ranchers on this issue. We've also participated on the Bison Citizen Working Group, as well as the Elk Working Group. I think this bill does build animosity, rather than partnerships. In particular, I would refer you to line 20, where it mentions the administrator shall... The administrator is the state vet. Marty's sitting in the back here, I hope he will testify. But, I interpret this as a shifting of major burden upon the department of livestock over elk. That will really kick a sleeping giant. This will wake up a lot of sportsmen, not only in Montana, but across the United States.And so, I would urge you to think twice about this. I think the local working groups is the way to go. We're trying to work together to minimize the risk of transmission. No one wants another cow to get this disease. We won't be completely effective in that, but the DSA helps, it's a great management tool. And I think this is comparable to cheat grass. I mean we've got it. We can't get rid of it. It would be nice, but brucellosis is going to be here and we have to learn how to manage it."

The Brucellosis Working Group Proposed Recommendations (which a number of the opponents to HB 312, spoke of and advocated, including Marty Zaluski, the State Veterinarian with the Department of Livestock), was approved by the Fish, Wildlife and Parks commissioners January 2013. While I and others had some concerns with some of the language in this document, as well as who would comprise these local working groups, worried that it could lead to Test and Slaughter, it is a work in progress and does represent varied parties coming to the table and working toward an objective of reducing the transmission of brucellosis to livestock. As stated before by several opponents, no one wants to see the livestock contract brucellosis. But, after spending a century to bring Montana's elk back from the brink, are we now going to start Test and Slaughter, sending their numbers back to the brink? House Bill 312 would do this.

The following is the list of the Opponents, in order, to HB 312, who testified during the Hearing:

Randy Newberg, Headwaters Sportsmen Association; Bryan Sparks; Joe Gutkoski, Yellowstone Buffalo Foundation; John Scully, Madison Valley rancher; Mark Albrecht, DVM, Elk Brucellosis Working Group member; Dustin Monroe; Justin Sakalis, Montana Audubon; Ward Olson; Glenn Hockett, President, Gallatin Wildlife Association; Rob Gregoire; Sam Milodragovich, Montana Sportsmen Alliance & Skyline Sportsmen; George Golie, Montana Wildlife Federation; Ben Lamb, National Wildlife Federation; Ken MacDonald, Fish, Wildlife and Parks Wildlife Division Administrator; Becky Weed, owner Thirteen Mile Lamb and Wool Company; Marty Zaluski, State Veterinarian, Montana Department of Livestock; Richard Douglass, Zoonotic Disease Ecologist, Elk Brucellosis Working Group Member.


Help stop the proposed massive test and slaughter of Montana's elk.
Please take a moment to send a message to the Montana Legislature:
Call: 406-444-4800  or fill in the online form and submit-

http://leg.mt.gov/css/Sessions/63rd/legwebmessage.asp

Select Committee

Use the Committee drop down menu to select Agriculture

Type in HB 312 in the Bill Number Box

Select Against in the Vote portion

Type in a short message in the message box if you wish

Click the Send Message button

HB 312 Video Stream
Click on the third link, under the screen, HB 312 - Revise laws relating to brucellosis - Alan Redfield.



Kathryn QannaYahu

...there will be a war!

On January 31, 2013, at the Montana State Capitol, 3:00 PM, lines were being drawn in the sand. A war was brewing, though some would say the war has already been here, it's just gaining momentum.

In an age old military tactic of "divide and conquer", two major anti-wildlife bills had hearings at the same time, though one was not originally scheduled as such. Senate Bill 143, sponsored by Sen. John Brenden (farmer), in Room 303, AN ACT REVISING BISON MANAGEMENT LAWS and House Bill 312, sponsored by Rep. Alan Redfield (rancher) in Room 472. SB 143, AN ACT PROVIDING AUTHORIZATION FOR TESTING AND PREVALENCE REDUCTION OF BRUCELLOSIS IN LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE.

Hunters, Conservationists and Native Americans filled the rooms, room 472 being so small that the public overflowed into the hallway. But, this particular account is the battle that was waged in room 303 - SB 143. 

On one side sat the 10 member Montana Senate Fish and Game Committee: John Brenden (R), John (R-Chairman), Owner Brenden Farms; Debby Barrett (R), Rancher - Barrett Ranch, Inc.; Tom Facey (D); Jennifer Fielder (R); Brad Hamlett (D), Rancher - Hamlett Ranch Co. Sun River; Larry Jent (D); Jim Peterson (R), Rancher - Jim Petersen Ranch; Rick Ripley (R-Vice Chairman), Farm & Ranch - Wolf Creek; Fred Thomas (R); and Kendall Van Dyk (D). I find it interesting that half of the Fish and Game committee members are farmers and ranchers. And yes, the Chairman of the committee is the same senator that is sponsoring the bill. This leaves the the vice chairman, Rick Ripley, also a republican and also a farm/ranch owner to preside as "Chairman" over this day's battle. 

Brenden opened with a very poor argument for his own bill. The small number of proponents follow, most of which are ranchers/land owners in Gardiner, MT. There is a common thread to their statements, that of property damage, money lost and no compensation. In their eyes the bison are disease laden fiscal liabilities, walking biological warfare agents. As usual, the demonized bison are linked with the wolves, a common pairing at public meetings of either bison or wolves, by their enemies. One of the bill proponents is Bill Hoppe, a resident of Gardiner, whose website lists him as an outfitter. He identified himself as a rancher. In a quote from the New York Times, " He testified before the house committee that metal pens were built at bus stops so children could be safe from bison. 'Buffalo are running free, and we’re corralling our kids in a country where we’re supposed to be free,' Mr. Hoppe testified." The Times journalist Nate Schweber noted, "(The superintendent for Gardiner’s public schools said there were no such pens, however.)" I looked further into the pens. They do exist, they were provided by a non-government organization, due to some of the Gardiner resident concerns, but they have never needed to be used and have been stored with the Forest Service. Hoppe also testified over in room 472, at HB 312, with what sounded like the same speech he read at the SB 143 hearing. 

Then the floor is turned over to the SB 143 opponents. They are clearly in the majority and anxious to have an opportunity to testify. The 22nd person to testify was Patrick Dougherty, representing the Bear Creek Council. He spoke of residents in Gardiner, all of them having bison on their properties, that more damage came from deer and elk, than bison. "The idea that they do tremendous amounts of damage is ridiculous. Elk and deer do far more damage to my property than any bison do. I also want to point out that anyone who testified here from Gardiner, brought up one important point, finances. They all want money. They saw across the river that the Church Universal Triumphant got 3 million dollars for their grazing rights. They are not here because they're against bison. They're here because they want you to pay them to have bison." Grazing rights is a common foundational issue on a number of the anti-wildlife issues. 

Another major front of this battle was being waged by the Native American tribes from the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, the Nez Perce, the Blackfeet, Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, the Crow, and a variety of specific tribal agencies like the Intertribal Buffalo Council, Tribal Fish and Game/Wildlife Departments, and the Montana American Indian Caucus. Native American attorney's pointed out the legalities of treaties, constitutions and spiritual/cultural practices. Comparisons were made to treatment of the bison to the Native Americans, that have been rounded up on reservations. One astute Native American (sorry, I cant sit through this video a 3rd time to catch his name) pointed out the artwork in the upper portion of room, depicting the iconic wild bison. Common on the lips of these bison warriors were the statements of existing governmental co-operations, working groups, and the like that would be in jeopardy should this bill be passed, with good reason, as well as the promise, not an empty threat, that this bill becoming law, "ensures endless litigation." I have to admit, this makes me smile. 

Another wildlife warrior, in this particular legislative skirmish, was Glenn Monahan, the 15th opponent to SB 143 and the only person, regardless of time, to be gavelled by Vice Chairman Rick Ripley (R). Glenn Monahan, a Gallatin Wildlife Association member, passionately spoke from a prepared statement, nearly verbatim. 


"I was in attendance last session when Sen. Brenden’s earlier bison bill was heard in this committee. That bill was less extreme than today’s bill, and it did not become law.

Yesterday, I downloaded and reviewed the audio transcript of Sen. Brenden’s testimony to this committee from 2011.

He repeatedly made reference that if we allow wild buffalo in Montana, 'there will be a war'. 

Well he was right, there is a war! It’s a War on Wildlilfe being waged in the legislature at the behest of the radical fringe of the ranching industry.

The radical War on Wildlife is manifesting itself with a bill to ban bighorn sheep transplants, another to create an elk capture, test, and slaughter program when elk are inconveniencing livestock producers, and now we have SB143 – The 'shoot ‘em at the border' bill. The legislative War on Wildlife is real. 

This bill is EXTREME. The mere introduction of this bill is an embarrassment for our state, and if this bill attracts national media attention, it has the potential to do great harm to Montana’s highly lucrative and rapidly growing tourism industry. Economies thrive on diversity, and this unnecessary bill will negatively impact our state’s tourism business, while doing essentially nothing to benefit the livestock industry. We should be nurturing tourism in every way we can. 

In 2010, the Interagency Bison Management Partners authorized the formation of a Bison Citizens Working Group of which I am a member. It was comprised of a cross section of Montanans, including moderate members of the ranching industry, Jim Hagenbarth (Dillon), Lorents Grosfield (Big Timber), and Ariel Overstreet (staffer with Montana Stockgrowers Association). 

We met monthly for 2 years, during which time we did what the legislature does – we discussed and deliberated, AND recognizing that survey’s have show that 68% of Montanans favor wild bison. WE COMPROMISED, and problem solved, with a lot of effort to satisfy all of the diverse interests. 

Recently, the CWG presented its consensus recommendations regarding wild bison - some highlights of which included: 

1. expanded habitat for bison – outside the Park in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem AS A MANAGED SPECIES 
2. respect for private property rights, and 
3. recognizing the concerns of livestock producers 

The extreme position that SB143 represents is a slap in the face to the 40+ citizens who invested much time and energy to come up with equitable solutions. I believe that legislators, as representatives of our entire citizenry, have an obligation to respect the work of the CWG, and SB 143 is emphatically not the way to show that support. In closing I’ll offer one final quote from Senator Brenden’s 2011 committee hearing … he said, 'I’ve been fighting dialogue all my life'. So the approach of SB143 is 'my way or the highway'. No dialogue and no compromise. It’s a bill based on fear, anger, and emotion. I urge (at this point Glenn gets gavelled) the committee to table this bill – you will be saving Montana from the embarrassment of this bill (Ripley gavels again saying, 'That's enough. Next opponent.' You can hear Sen. Brenden say, 'Thank you Mr. Chairman.' Glenn does not get to finish his statement, but you can read it.)– protecting our livestock industry and our tourism industry from the wrath that it will generate. And Senator Brenden, I think that my beloved state of Montana would be best served by you withdrawing this bill." 

The following is a list of the many and varied Opponents who testified (in order), to Senator John Brenden's "ridiculous" SB 143: 

Senator Jonathan Windy Boy; Ruben Mathias, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Tribal Councilman; McCoy Oatman, Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee; Germaine White, Information and Education Specialist, Natural Resources Department Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes; John Harrison, Attorney Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes; Jim Posewitz, hunting and wildlife author; Mike Clark, Executive Director of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition; Claudia Narcisco, Montana Chapter Sierra Club; Kit Fischer, National Wildlife Federation, Northern Rockies and Prairies Regional Center; Craig Knowles, Bison Quest; Pat Flowers, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Region 3 Supervisor; Ervin Carlson, Intertribal Buffalo Council; Dustin Monroe, Executive Director Western Native Voice; Charles Walking Child; Glenn Monahan; Robert Magnan, Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, Fish and Game Department; Nick Gevock, Montana Wildlife Federation; Burdette Birdinground, Crow Tribal Member; Ray Yazzie; Wes Heustes; Vito Quatraro, Montana Sportsmen Alliance; Patrick Dougherty, Bear Creek Council; Mike Fox, Fort Belknap Tribal Council; Stephanie Gillin, Tribal Wildlife Biologist; Matt Skoglund, Natural Resource Defense Council; Terry Tanner, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes; Mark Azure, Director Fish and Wildlife Program, Fort Belknap; David Ditloff; Darrell Geist, Buffalo Field Campaign; Ron Skates, President, Native American Fish and Wildlife Society; Fred Matt, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes; Christian Mackay, Montana Department of Livestock; Mike Leahy, Rocky Mountain Region Director Defenders of Wildlife; Sharon Stewart-Peregoy, American Indian Caucus. 

For those that would like to view the Montana SB 143 hearing, click on the SB 143 link below the video screen and save yourself 16 minutes of the Roll Call.

Send a message to the Montana Senate Committee of Fish and Game and tell them to kill SB 143 and stop the war on Bison. 

Choose Committee 
Use the drop down menu and choose Senate Fish and Game 
Type in SB 143 in the Bill box 
Select Against 
Type out a specific message if you wish, then hit the Send button. 

Kathryn QannaYahu