Farm bill provision worries wildlife advocates; brucellosis threat could lead to elk

[katqanna]

Rob Chaneys article in the Missoulian came out.
Farm bill provision worries wildlife advocates; brucellosis threat could lead to elk slaughter

He misquoted me being an elk hunter. I have not had that pleasure yet here in Montana with the ripped rotator cuff and muscles, I did process my husbands (now ex), though he lied about shooting it (I helped him choose the rifle and I bought the bullets. The one I pulled out was not the same caliber of the ones I bought.). He was trying to impress me. He had not hunted before.

At any rate, As I told Rob, I had been following the money trail when I decided to pull up the Farm Bill this mid Nov. to see if the same funnels were in it that I had found in previous bills. It was, in addition to another section 7104 dealing with APHIS VS grants which is part of the brucellosis industry - the academic papers mostly geared towards eradication of brucellosis in wildlife. So I let some people know about this and kept digging into it. Contacting the legislators seemed kind of pointless, since they ( 3 GYA states federal senators and reps, a bipartisan effort) have been sponsoring these efforts all the way back to 2007 that I have looked. I doubt they would actually go against their own sponsorship just because some of us are pissed about what their plans for our wildlife are.

Not so sure RMEF thought this was just for livestock, "RMEF spokesman Mark Holyoak said his group’s understanding was 'the funding will develop a better vaccination for livestock' as a way to avoid the slaughter of wildlife to prevent spread of the disease." Not trying to dis RMEF, but there are other factors going on.

While all roads lead to APHIS, as far as whose driving this tank, of the 3 GYA states involvement, Wyoming seems to be the epicenter of all this activity, especially multiple organizations created to continue driving this brucellosis eradication in wildlife. In fact Montana's own FWP website, concerning elk brucellosis working group, links to Wyomings Game & Fish Brucellosis page, where they showcase the many brucellosis management plans for each area.

There is a CABS program, out of Wyoming, where this Farm Bill section came from. The Consortium for the Advancement of Brucellosis Science. From their website, they state on their fact sheet, The ultimate goal of the CABS is to conduct stakeholder outreach and partner with state and federal policy makers to fund research initiatives that will work toward successful brucellosis disease control and prevention in free-ranging bison and elk in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA). The GYA is the last remaining reservoir of brucellosis in the United States." They link to documents from APHIS that I have on my APHIS Brucellosis Eradication Agenda page.

I will get these pages uploaded right now, then put the links back here, so that y'all can see for yourselves. As I see it, there is no way RMEF could not have known CABS was being used for wildlife vaccination. I will explain why after I load the pages.

 

[katqanna]

Okay, here are the documents that show what CABS is all about, the Consortium For the Advancement of Brucellosis Science. You can see all the APHIS driven goals connected with it, for the eradication of brucellosis in wildlife - elk, bison.

The reason why I state there is no way RMEF could not have known CABS was being used for wildlife vaccination is the CABS Team page. Page 2 lists, Stakeholder Advisory Team member - Rick Pallister, Wyoming Regional Director, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

This is not the first time RMEF comes up in my brucellosis research, which has me concerned. One of the other Wyoming Brucellosis Coordination Team minutes discussed some matter concerning RMEF, then in the next paragraph stated RMEF was contributing money towards Brucellosis Management (April 2010), but didnt state the context.

 

[katqanna]

Here is the update on the Farm Bill which just passed the senate and is on to the president, brucellosis research...

The amended Senate Bill 954 had passed in July 2013. In October 2013 a conference was held and the Farm Bill was amended again, language changes, becoming HR 2642, which passed the House on Jan. 29, 2014. Feb. 4, 2014 it passed the Senate and is on to the President to sign into law. Changes that were made was the exclusion of the specific provision, detailed 12101, Wildlife Reservoir Zoonotic Disease Initiative, which was promoted by CABS, which would have funded $35 million dollars over 5 years for a variety of zoonotic disease research, including brucellosis in wildlife reservoirs (elk, bison).

So I downloaded HR 2642. What is in the current HR 2642 is Section 6405. Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act. This section states, "(a) Extension. - Subsection (b)(11)(A) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)(11)(A)) is amended in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking '2012' and inserting '2018'." HR 2642 does not list a dollar amount for the research, which is broad and general. So I looked up that grant act. Code of Federal Regulations 7 (Agriculture) 450i "(11) Authorization of appropriations (A) In general There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $700,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012, of which—"

So instead of the specific S. 954 Sec. 12101. Wildlife Reservoir Zoonotic Disease Initiative of $7,000,000, a year, for 5 years, totaling $35,000,000 (which included brucellosis in wildlife reservoirs), they resurrected the generalized Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act. This section states, "(a) Extension. - Subsection (b)(11)(A) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)(11)(A) for $700,000,000 a year, for 5 years, totaling $3,500,000,000. Much harder to track their intentions towards our wildlife in that general mess.

But I prefer to look at the grant requests, grant funding reports, programs and the papers produced from such to see what they are really about. Like Sept. 2013, University of Wyoming, Seeking Solutions article (I saved it in html in case they take it down). Jeff Adamovicz, a CABS science member from the University of Wyoming stated, "Adamovicz seeks development of a vaccine for elk and also looks at current vaccination procedures for cattle. Ph.D. student Amanda Dougherty is studying elk response to infection, 'Cows aren’t elk, but what’s different in the elk’s immune system? 'I’m currently using techniques to assess the immune function in elk in response to brucellosis,' says Dougherty. 'The immune system is poorly understood, and one of the goals of the governor’s task force was to look at the immune function in elk.'

Former Gov. Dave Freudenthal created the Brucellosis Coordination Team in 2004 to chart a course for brucellosis management. Frank Galey, dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, chairs the group.

Elk have a different response to the disease, but no one understands why. Dougherty is also identifying genes of Brucella important during infection in elk."

Point number 4 of the adopted Wyoming Brucellosis Coordination Team Report & Recommendations is 4) Reducing, and eventually eliminating brucellosis in wildlife, specifically addressing
winter elk feed grounds. Their concluding statement is, "Eliminating the disease
in wildlife is a worthy long-term goal."

Just so no one thinks this is just from 2005 and not applicable to today, I looked into the State of WY 2013-2014 Biennium Budget Request. Brucellosis management is there in the WGFD and Livestock Board budgets. As well as the 2013-2014 Biennium Budget Request of the University of Wyoming, specifically mentioning the hope of eliminating the disease in the Greater Yellowstone Area and the Laramie Agenda.

Y'all can call me paranoid, but paranoid is when you "think" they are after your wildlife.

 

[katqanna]

Sorry, no edit button after a certain time or I would just amend my previous post. In my rush, helping the journalists out before their deadlines, I forgot to post the addition to the HB 2642 (Farm Bill), section 6405, that is specific to elk, bison and deer...

"(C) by adding at the end the following new clauses:‘‘(ix) the research and development of surveillance methods, vaccines, vaccination delivery systems, or diagnostic tests for pests and diseases (especially zoonotic diseases) in wildlife reservoirs presenting a potential concern to public health or domestic livestock and pests and diseases in minor species (including deer, elk, and bison);"

 

[Ben Lamb]

Vaccinating elk is throwing money down a hole.

Stupid provision in the Farm Bill.

 

[jryoung]

Vaccinating elk causes retardation.

 

[katqanna]

What a lot of people dont realize, besides all the economics, lack of effectiveness for Strain 19 (a cattle vaccine), the fact that this cattle vaccine does not prevent infection, it only reduces some of the abortion events, etc. of vaccinating elk (or in the case bison with RB51), is that APHIS calls their sterility (immunocontraceptives) drugs they are using on wildlife (elk and bison) - vaccines, as if wildlife fertility was something that you had to prevent like a disease! They dont mention it is not USDA approved for food use so you cant consume this meat as hunted.

This is a huge issue I will be typing up soon, but my point is, that when they say "vaccine", they are not just talking about Strain 19 or any other infection vaccine, they are also referring to sterilization. And both of these actions require you first capture the population, blood test to see if they are positive, slaughter the positives and "vaccinate" the negatives. They are destroying the natural and acquired immunities of these wildlife.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Vaccinating elk causes retardation.

It causes a false sense of "doing something."

Elk don't respond to brucellosis vaccines in any meaningful fashion. If they want to take that $35 million and uswe it for cattle vaccinations and fencing to stop elk-livestock intermingling then great. The only proven, effective method of keeping livestock from getting brucellosis is spatial and temporal separation. It's a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to fence cows in than it is to try and keep elk out.

The entire chit-storm is caused by APHIS. They refuse to abandon the 1930's when it comes to brucellosis. We're dealing with regulations that were in place before widespread use of pasteurization.

You want to talk about pork and wasteful gov't spending - here it is. $35 million could have helped fund the cuts to conservation elsewhere, but APHIS needs that sugar.

 

[Ben Lamb]

This is a huge issue I will be typing up soon, but my point is, that when they say "vaccine", they are not just talking about Strain 19 or any other infection vaccine, they are also referring to sterilization. And both of these actions require you first capture the population, blood test to see if they are positive, slaughter the positives and "vaccinate" the negatives. They are destroying the natural and acquired immunities of these wildlife.

I have not seen anywhere where they are talking of slaughtering the positives. Elk test & slaughter is not a part of this as I understand it.

 

[Big Fin]

No doubt that trying to vaccinate wildlife is a stupid idea. I think everyone agrees on the futility and waste of that idea.

As to the Farm Bill appropriation, as overly inflated as that number is, I still can't connect the dots as to how this bill specifically states this appropriation is guaranteed to be used to vaccinate, or test and slaughter, elk. I understand Kat's concerns, but so far nothing shows a directive that this money will be used for test and slaughter or vaccinate elk. Vaccinating wildlife is a dead idea in the minds of all but a very few who have careers invested in disease eradication, and who are fortunately the minority of the smart minds on the topic.

Everything I have been told as a member of the RMEF Government Policy Committee is that the appropriation in the Farm Bill is to be used for research to improve the livestock vaccine.

As to the idea that CABS is calling all the shots on this issue and somehow going to direct the Farm Bill appropriation toward elk vaccines, that is in contrast to the stated position of CABS. CABS has stated that they have given up on the idea of a wildlife vaccine, as of 2012.

Below is a letter stating such, and a quote in a newpaper where they are quoted as having changed direction on that. Nothing decided by CABS precludes a member from going their own direction and working in a wildlife vaccine. If such an effort is undertaken by a member does not make it the policy of CABS.








This letter and the newspaper quote is in line with what everyone has been told the policy of APHIS will be with respect to managing this disease, though I share the skepticism of all here when it comes to agencies and the egos of some long-beards within agencies, being ingrained/vested in their past and struggling to follow a new path.

We need to be vigilant in our efforts to make sure APHIS does not use this funding to embark on a program counter to what was represented. Yet, we cannot continue to do nothing. We cannot continue to ignore the financial burden this places on livestock producers. The solution will not come without funding from somewhere.

If we all agree that a better livestock vaccine is the best solution for this issue, it seems funding is needed to see that happen. It does carry some risk that the money will be granted for purposes outside of livestock vaccine research. If that happens, when all respresentations were otherwise, that would be problematic and should result in serious outcry from the public.

As it stands, I am supportive of funding a better livestock vaccine. Some in APHIS have earned the distrust that exists, but that is not reflective of all people working on this issue. I think funding more research and making sure the money is used for such is a far better alternative than doing nothing.

If someone has a better idea of how to find a livestock vaccine, outside of funding the necessary research, let's hear those ideas.

If people think the current APHIS rules are fair to ag producers, I would disagree.

I can tell you this, if this money is used for test and slaughter or for a wildlife vaccine, rather than a livestock vaccine, as was promised to all who asked, there will be loud and steady protests.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Big thumbs up from me Big Fin.

Well done.

 

[What Map]

Kat, thanks for your research efforts. I appreciate them.
Big Fin, thanks for your clarifications. I hope my tax dollars go to development of livestock vaccine only.
There are of course many other solutions that include livestock management changes that I hope are considered too.

 

[katqanna]

As frustrating as this is for me, preferring to be thorough, never expecting anyone to just trust me, due to getting this elk working group audio transcribing done, I cannot upload and link to all the research I accumulated over 3 days (and I mean most of the day till evening, minus meals) of documentation on these CABS members. I dont have just one article (posted above) from Sept, 2013, which occurs after the date of the June 2012 "change". I have numerous papers from each of the CABS current science members (requested from Dr. Cook), their grant requests, papers in review, in publication, interviews, organization policies on brucellosis in wildlife, budget requests, etc.

Such as the NIFA grant (thats the division this Farm Bill funding goes through from USDA - our Federal Taxpayer dollars), Project start date October 1, 2012 through Sept. 30, 2015 - Brucella Abortus Strain 19 Caprine Challenge Model For Ruminant Brucellosis Vaccine Research, Project Director P. Elzer (CABS) of LSU. The project is testing Brucella abortus (not preferred reservoir of goats, but elk) Strain 19 (cattle vaccine strain being used on elk because they dont respond to RB51). So why are they testing Strain 19 on goats (brucella species preferring goats is melitensis)? Because an article by Elzer, stated goats were smaller, cheaper and easier to manage than larger ungulates. Only certain labs can handle large ungulates.

In an article published Sept. 24, 2012 (again, after the June 2012), at LSU, interviewing Elzer, quoting he is with CABS, pointing out once again this GYA remaining wildlife reservoir of Brucella abortus, Elzer states the brucellosis in the free-ranging bison and elk threaten the cattle industry. "A member of the consortium, Elzer was part of a group of experts who earlier in 2012 met to discuss and plan how the disease can be addressed in the wild (could this possibly be the same meeting?). Although all domestic cattle herds in the Greater Yellowstone Area have been vaccinated, experts believe brucellosis from wild bison and elk can still infect these animals. Because of this possibility, researchers are testing a vaccine in free-ranging elk and comparing their immune response with vaccinated cattle...If a vaccine doesnt work 100 percent, any animal with brucellosis susceptibility can cause a breach. 'Its in the wildlife,' Elzer said. 'We still need research to solve problems.' "

And just so y'all dont think I am dealing with guilt by association or misreading into his goat study, this is what it says at LSU's faculty page about his Caprine/goat studies, "A subunit brucellosis vaccine for potential use in elk and bison is being tested in the caprine model, and a non-select agent brucellosis challenge model is being characterized. Red deer could be used as a model for elk."

This is all after that June 2012 CABS meeting. This is about vaccinating wild elk. And these are our federal taxpayer dollars funding it.

 

[schmalts]

What is pathetic is that they even call this the "farm" bill. So what was most of the spending on???

 

[cowboy]

What is pathetic is that they even call this the "farm" bill. So what was most of the spending on???

Food stamps