Below is a link to the EMWH webpage dealing with the
Sept. 10th testimony that Montana's DoL, Dr. Marty Zaluski gave
before the Texas Animal Health Commission concerning their brucellosis rule change on cattle imports from Montana, Idah and Wyoming, the 2 GYA states affected by the brucellosis issue.
There are a number of statements that we dont normally hear here
in Montana on this subject, from the DoL on brucellosis. When I requested the
written public comments from TAHC, I received a 72 page pdf file which not
only included Zaluski's 50 pages, but statements from the Montana
Stockgrowers Association, Montana Cattlemen's Association, some
Montana ranchers. The pdf file is broken up by submitter for
easier viewing. Also available are the audio files of the
testimony. I really hate transcribing, so I have only done the
main testimony from Dr. Marty Zalusky, not all the questions and
his answers that followed yet. Mr. Palmers testimony on audio file 10 is also
pertinent.
http://www.emwh.org/issues/brucellosis/livestock%20tahc.htm
DoL, "Montana's DSA includes 282 operations with 73,200
cattle and domestic bison. This fiscal year, 42,025 of the 73,200
animals have been tested to achieve a 99% confidence that the
disease (if it exists) is present at a rate of less that 0.008%.
The chance that any one Montana animal is brucellosis positive is
0.00024%." "In comparison, the state of Montana has an annual
infection rate of 0.007% with five affected herds over six years
since 2007." "There is no documented case of bulls spreading
brucellosis." "So what happens is you have cattle properties that
are typically on the flats, the river bottoms and the prairies,
and then you have the elk ground that is alot of time in the
forest. So its not like those elk are on private property
typically, and in fact often times those elk are on BLM or Forest
Service land," "So there are practices, its not like they come
down on the flats, then spread out five fetuses and they take
off."
Heres a really good one - no mention of bison, "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."
MSA, "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."
Mr. Palmers testimony (audio file 10) on behalf of the
Matador Cattle Company (Koch Industries), the owner of the
Beaverhead Ranch in southwestern Montana, discussing how little of
an issue this is, "the majority of those times those elk are not
calving in the same location as the cows."
Darrel Stevenson, Stevenson Angus Ranch, "As you can see
the rate of incidence is extraordinarily low and our policing
system has proven to manage with superb efficiency....Why isnt the
science trusted? As reviewed in the attached, incident rate in
Montana is low and imported cattle to Texas become even lower with
a pre-shipment test? With no documented case of bulls spreading
Brucellosis, why are they bundled into the concern?"
I would like to ask this same question of the DoL who shot the
lone bull bison on the Dome Mountain WMA after hazing it off the
Dome Mountain Ranch (private property rights ignored) and shooting
the 2 bull bison on the west side. DoL knows that bulls dont
spread brucellosis, nor the bison to cattle, which is why he only
addresses elk in his presentation. And based on the science and
stats presented by Zaluski, as well as the statements from the
associations and ranchers, brucellosis from elk is extremely low,
extraordinarily low and easily manageable, mitigated. So why in
Montana do they inflame the dialogue on this issue and we dont
hear this kind of testimony and science?
I think it is time that we put wildlife management back into the
hands of the FWP as far as bison are concerned and keep it there
as far as the elk are concerned. Remove "eradication/elimination
of brucellosis from wildlife reservoirs" from our Fish, Wildlife
and Parks documents/statements, such as that which FWP is signed
onto in the IBMP; support natural regulation of these wildlife in
the Gallatin National Forest and the Yellowstone National Park, as
it should be (their signatures should not be on the IBMP
eradication/elimination of brucellosis either). Brucellosis is a
minimal disease threat to the cattle industry (more cattle are
killed by weather or vehicular accidents each year than years of
extremely low brucellosis transmission from elk), which can be
managed through the DoL herd plans that Zaluski describes, as well
as efforts from FWP in minimizing possible transmission of
brucellosis through approved Elk Working Group measures such as
encouraging security and forage on public lands and hazing from
private.
Kathryn QannaYahu
No comments:
Post a Comment