What you wrote is part of why I am even more excited. I want to show some points that get lost in this bison debate, but are becoming more clear as shown by the action options presented to the MT FWP Commission last week. Almost all involved lower elk numbers, if adopted.
Some things to know about this issue for those just tuning in. Things that will surely impact the number of elk in the areas of MT, WY, and ID where there is an increased incidence of Brucellosis in wild elk.
Brucellosis was introduced to NATIVE wildlife by DOMESTIC animals. Any vet or scientist will tell you that is how this disease got to native wildlife.
Brucellosis rules were adopted over a half century ago to help prevent humans from contracting the disease, mostly due to milk pasteurization. Hardly anything has changed in these rules governing the disease and the financial impacts the rules have on ag producers.
Those rules are still in effect, even though the world of food science is light years ahead.
Brucellosis-free status is very important to livestock industries. A loss of that status means multi-million dollar losses to a state cattle industry.
It only takes very few confirmed positives in a herd to have large areas, even a state, to lose its Brucellosis-free status. Imagine the guy on the Canadian border who loses a lot of value because Montana lost its Brucellosis-free status, even if though he is 300 miles away and has a completely clean herd.
The disease and rules are enforced by the Federal agency - APHIS, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, a part of the USDA. Not known for creativity of flexibility on this issue.
As a result of these old archaic rules costing ranchers millions of dollars to vaccinate and even more when you get a loss of Brucellosis-free status, many in the ranching community have zero tolerance for bison. That is why the MT Department of Livestock hazes bison back into the park or other areas of agreed upon tolerance.
This also results in some of the fringe legislators in Montana looking to FWP and hunters to fund a test and slaughter program, even though we all know it will do nothing to eradicate the disease.
The disease has spread to a greater degree among elk. Now that the incidence of Brucellosis in elk has increased, ag producers are looking for ways to have fewer elk.
Some in the veterinary community (and some legislators) are stuck on the idea of eradication of the disease, not control. Eradication is impossible across the large landscapes of MT, WY, and ID.
Eradication requires depopulation - their term for killing every possible transmission vector represented by elk, deer, bighorns, rodents, etc.
Yeah, read that again. DEPOPULATON MEANS KILLING EVERY POSSIBLE TRANSMISSION VECTOR IN THE NORTHERN ROCKIES. READ - ELK, DEER, BIGHORNS, ETC.
What a stupid idea. Yet, that is the direction many entrenched in this debate are trying to take us. Just look at some of the ideas that will pop up in the Montana legislative session that starts in January and it will show you how some people think eradication via depopulation is a good approach.
This is not polio, or small pox, or some other disease we have wiped out in humans. You cannot get rid of a disease in wild animals by vaccinating them all. You can find a better vaccine in the affected animal, cattle, and keep it from transmitting that way.
Until we get some people (legislators and some producers) to understand that eradication is not an option, we will probably never be able to put enough pressure on APHIS or the other involved agencies to direct more resources toward a better and more effective vaccine in cattle.
Until hunters get behind this and start putting pressure on APHIS, we will probably never be able to get these ridiculous rules changed that are punitive to the ag producers.
These are two areas where I see hunters and ag producers can make a big difference. I have been working with some in the landowner community to find ways for hunters and ag producers to come together as a common voice on this. I have another meeting with some of them next month.
RMEF has had this issue on their radar screen for a while. They are working to try find reasonable solutions that will allow elk to continue to prosper and not put the entire financial burden of this problem on ag producers in those states where Brucellosis is endemic to native wildlife populations. They do not feel elk abundance has to be a casualty of this issue.
Senator Tester's staff has met with a few of us to discuss ways to get the Federal agencies to change long-entrenched processes and budget priorities. That can be done, albeit with some kicking and screaming by those who feel their ox is getting gored.
Point of all this being, this hunt is a gift to OYOA, allowing us to show hunters how important this bison/brucellosis issue is to the future of elk abundance in MT, WY, and ID. As if we did not have enough problem with wolf reintroductions, now we have this emerging problem, a problem more complicated than wolves in many respects.
I hope hunters realize that the time to jump into this issue is at hand. We are the one group who can bring enough political pressure to bear, across the entire country, to make a difference that will remove elk and deer from the crosshairs of those who think we will eradicate this disease that was introduced to wildlife by domestic animals.
There is huge national level politics involved in bringing forth any change. Imagine how it is when MT loses its Brucellosis-free status and now MT livestock takes 25% hit when sold on the cattle markets. Even though the seller has a completely disease-free herd, because he is in some pre-defined geographic boundary, his cattle are now worth less than before. If a stockyard in NE, KS, TX can buy disease-free cattle from MT at a 25% discount, as a result of these old APHIS rules, then turn around and sell them for going market rate, he will make even more money on account of these stupid rules. Do you think the Congressional delegates who represent those stockyard owners want to see a change in these rules? Not hardly.
This is a lot of information to try fit into a hunting discussion, but hunters are about to be sized for an XL asshat if we don't get involved and start fighting back on this issue. The response of ag producers is an expected response, given these rules continue to place all the economic burden on them.
We need to work with landowners/ag producers to find ways to change these rules and change the long-standing and misguided notion that we will eradicate this disease, forcing them to start managing the disease and working on better vaccinations for cattle.
Lots to talk about in this episode, all of which I hope will result in more pressure to change how this disease in managed, allowing for more bison to eventually be tolerated on the landscape and for elk to no longer be a target of those stuck on the fantasy notion that we can eradicate this disease.
Gonna be a great hunt and a great episode. Might have to make it another two-episode series.
