Montana Elk hazing like European Ghettos

[katqanna]

I don't know if y'all are aware of the European origins and application of the word ghetto, but it was an isolated, restricted, segregated area, primarily of Jews, later with other ethnic applications, which carried over here in the US.

Well, the ever persistent elk brucellosis working group met here in Bozeman this summer, which I could not attend and document because of work. I thought it was going to me their normal bs, I was mistaken. I was digging through a bunch of legal documents this week for some contract work I had to finish and didn't open the FWP agenda for this Thursday until last night. I am too tired, I have been on the phone with a lot of sportsmen around the state, so I am just going to copy what I mailed out on the newsletter to explain what FWP is proposing on doing primarily to our Region 3 elk this fall and the future.

What is being proposed by FWP, this coming Thursday, August 11th (agenda link), is just what I began warning about over 2 1/2 years ago, and our sportmen's dollars are going to pay for this unscientific debacle. Proposed Elk Work Plan link. Think unethical German and Japanese internment camps that rounded up people even born here in the US, just because of their ethnicities, didn't matter how many generations had been born here. Didn't matter if they were patriotic citizens. Think political fearmongering Scarlet Letter "B" being applied to all elk.

Below is a map of Montana's Designated Surveillance Area, called the DSA. This is the area under control by the Board of Livestock to manage brucellosis. The DOL & APHIS have been trying to get the same jurisdictional control of our elk that they currently have over bison, even though there has never been a challenge study or natural case of wild bison transmitting brucellosis to cattle. So keep in mind the bison hazings around Yellowstone as you read this.

At the annual elk brucellosis workgroup meeting, towards the end, DOL brought up this elk hazing plan, which would take place from Jan. 15 to June 15, originally wanting lethal control measures to keep elk within the DSA, totally IN the DSA, preventing them from going out and commingling with elk outside. Joe Cohenour, representing the RMEF on the workgroup, opposed this proposition. The work group, mostly comprised of ag/ranching interests then adopted this illogical hazing proposal.

Supposedly, this is to keep elk that have been "exposed" to brucellosis from commingling with elk "not exposed" to brucellosis. There are a number of scientific, logistical and ethical problems with this scenario.

• You can't tell by looking at an elk if they have ever been exposed to Brucella abortus, the bacteria that can infect mainly cattle, bison and elk, primarily from an abortion event.
  
• If an elk gets an infection, the majority of the time, they simply develop antibodies to it, an immunity, not remaining infected or infectious, they don't walk around being Typhoid Marys.The MT DOL State Vet, Dr. Marty Zaluski testified,

  "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 (cattle) 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 a lot 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."

• You can test the blood to see if they test positive for antibodies (seropositive), but not for current infection. To test for infection/infectious, you have to kill the animal and see if they CULTURE positive. Too bad for the dead elk if they weren't positive, kind of like the old witch trials, sink or float tests. No one who is innocent survives the sinking.
  
• You can't blood test thousands of wild elk in the DSA, and again, an antibody positive does not mean they are infected or infectious, simply that they were exposed at some point and majority of the time have an immunity.
  
• There is no guarantee that some elk outside this imaginary boundary do not already test positive for brucellosis antibodies. Radio collar data has shown elk migrate back and forth between Wyoming (home of 23 disease breeding elk feedgrounds) and Montana.
  
• Unnaturally congregating these elk to remain in the DSA could increase disease transmission, including other diseases.
  
• How are you going to control thousands of wild elk to remain in this area and keep the supposedly "unexposed elk" from entering? Down here in Region 3, where most of this DSA is located, our 2016 population count was about 62,100 elk! And this hazing would be during their pregnancy and birthing periods.
  
• FWP plans on implementing this nightmare this fall - hunting season, as soon as they pass this proposal, which FWP is endorsing.
  
• And while the plan states, "DoL has no authority to prescribe wildlife management actions," that means FWP is going to bear the social brunt of this, just as YNP has to bear the result of the DOL and APHIS demanded actions with the bison.

On Page 5 of their plan, FWP states,

"Given the wide and nearly continuous distribution of elk throughout much of Montana to include the areas in and around the DSA, this tool has high potential to fail if only because all elk interactions cannot possibly be monitored, identified, or influenced. This is in stark contrast to the human awareness, monitoring, and geographic finiteness of wintering livestock. Further, the logistic of adjusting the distribution of potentially thousands of elk across a wide expanse is overwhelming by any measure and at some level is likely to erode support by wildlife advocates for brucellosis risk management. For these stated reasons, misapplication of this tool has large potential to expend considerable resources with little or no definitive or long lasting return and limit current levels of broad-based public support or tolerance."

And yet they are still endorsing this and will be using our sportsmen's dollars to do so.

This is just off the top of my pissed off brain. I am sure, just as soon as I hit the send button, a number of other bullet points will come readily to mind.

 

[MTGomer]

Hard to come up with words that express how I feel about this, that are appropriate for a PG-13 website.

I hate to side with certain groups, but perhaps ending public grazing altogether isn't such a bad idea. Starting with cattle in elk country and sheep in Bighorn country.

 

[.280 Remington]

So they are going to do what with the elk once they round them up?

 

[JMG]

What a joke and waste of taxpayer money. It will be like herding cats. I suppose if the elk don't cooperate, they'll shoot them.

 

[Schaaf]

That's enough to make a man's blood boil.

 

[hank4elk]

Looks like MT needs to utilize what was known as a Slow Elk hunt in old days on public lands.

 

[katqanna]

Because of the Work Plan language, they state, if adopted, that all the actions are available in the immediately adjacent areas if there is confirmed movement of elk from inside the boundary to outside. They also say that though the formal window is Jan. 15-June 15, these actions can be applied outside this window. They also state lethal removal will be considered only after nonlethal means have been deemed insufficient.

This gives them very broad powers to do what they want.

At one of the work group meetings I attended and taped, then Park County Commissioner, Jim Durgan, a rancher, stated concerning the elk, "Shoot them at any time, really."

That is what they are working towards, when you factor in the kill permits for each landowner, the EMRs (Elk Management Removals), the boundary hazing that can move to lethal, the elk shoulder season hunts, that is a hell of a lot of elk kill potential outside the general season.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So what's the solution?

People have been wrestling with this for a long time. While the recommendations from the group aren't good, hunters better find a way to work with landowners on how to keep elk and cattle separate.

 

[katqanna]

1. Concerned ag/ranchers could mobilize and throw their political weight behind closing those 23 disease breeding feedgrounds in Wyoming that have cause the rise of brucellosis in wildlife.

2. It doens't matter if Brucella abortus is on the agent select list to make a more effective vaccine. They have the complete cattle genome mapped, as well as the bacteria. They have everything they need to make the vaccine more effective than the current 65% efficacy. When I spoke with a virologist that deals with vaccine development here in the US, he said no one will make it because it is a niche market here, they would not be able to make money off of it, which is why no one is working towards that. Ranchers could push for the development of a better vaccine.

3. The infections that began in Paradise Valley, began with rodeo stock that does not have the same movement regulations as beef and cattle stock. I used to regularly attend all the Board of Livestock meetings, so I know the waivers they gave to rodeos, exhibitions, even Canadian imports and they have brucellosis up there and in their wildlife as well. Why aren't the ranchers demanding the same measures across the board?

4. One of the Montana infection cases from rodeo stock that began in the Paradise Valley spread because the rancher, when the cow first aborted, ignored it, bred her again, she aborted again, then they sold her to a sale barn, where she was sold to Iowa, where the MT vet that signed off on the state transfer papers falsely approved it as passing the brucellosis test before the results came back in, exposing more cattle that had to be killed and gave MT a black eye. The ranchers and ag industry could follow their own regulations and accept responsibility for it when it happens, rather than try to lay it on the wildlife.

5. One of MT's infection cases in domestic bison came from an RB51 vaccine infection, not wildlife. It happens from time to time. Honestly explain that, don't use it to fearmonger, falsely blame it on wildlife and drive a wedge between ag and wildlife for political gain.

6. USDA could stop requesting billions of federal taxpayer dollars for wildlife vaccine development and test and slaughter objectives, funneling massive amounts into research all across the county in a giant study/academic paper mill industry, instead focusing our taxpayer dollars to the development of a more effective cattle vaccine where it is actually manageable and achievable. That would be something respectable.

7. When Texas sought greater restrictions against our MT cattle imports, MT's State Vet, Dr. Marty Zaluski went to testify before the Texas Animal Heath Commission. He stated the science, the reality of the statistics, but you won't hear the same statement and statistics from him , his office, nor the ag community here in Montana. Again, the political fearmongering prevails. Additionally, Dr. Zaluski took with him letters from ranchers and the ag industry, stating what little threat there really was. If real, truthful, mature conversations were being had, I think it would go along way towards outside the box brainstorming for additional solutions.

Montana Stock Growers Alliance, "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?"

These are just a small handful of things that can be done, which I believe would receive wide support from all stakeholders.

 

[MTGomer]

Is there anyway to put a dollar amount on the cattle lost to brucellosis?

As they say 'time is money'.

I'd wager to bet that more money is being lost in time worrying and bickering about this, than is being lost from diseased cattle.
The occasional brucellosis killed cattle could be made a tax write-off, or just the cost of doing business on highly subsidized range land.

 

[katqanna]

Is there anyway to put a dollar amount on the cattle lost to brucellosis?

As they say 'time is money'.

I'd wager to bet that more money is being lost in time worrying and bickering about this, than is being lost from diseased cattle.
The occasional brucellosis killed cattle could be made a tax write-off, or just the cost of doing business on highly subsidized range land.

MTGomer, I am glad you brought that up. There was actually a study conducted on just that subject, at the University of Wyoming, Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Reduction in Elk Brucellosis Seroprevalence in the Southern Greater Yellowstone Area, they found for a herd of 400, the outbreak cost would be $146,299. The costs to achieve APHIS goals of eradication of brucellosis seroprevalence by 1% (blood antibodies, not actual infection) in elk, using Test and Slaughter was $107.1 million dollars. To vaccinate the elk with Strain 19, which doesn't work, even by Wyoming Game & Fish statements, it would cost $8 million dollars. To continue low density feeding, which is actually contributing to this problem, $4.9 million dollars.

From a 2007 GAO report on the costs of the Annual Bison management for brucellosis for all the agencies, including state was $15,932,288 from 2002-2007 - 5 years.

HR. 2642 (Farm Bill) - 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, then signed into law. Changes that were made was the exclusion of the specific provision, detailed below of 12101, Wildlife Reservoir Zoonotic Disease Initiative, which would have funded $35 million dollars over 5 years for a variety of zoonotic disease research, including brucellosis in wildlife reservoirs (elk, bison).

What is in the current HR 2642 is Section 6405 (pgs. 384, 385). 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. But when you look up that 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—"

They also added "(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);"

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, 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.

Personally, I would rather pay the rancher for any losses.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Kat,

#1 is dead in the water since WY's ag & sportsmen community by in large support the feedgrounds. Do you want Wyoming coming to Montana to tell us how to manage wolves? What about bears & baiting?

#2: It does matter because access to the strain is not as easy as when it's not on the list (which, IIRC, we're making progress on that) As you correctly point out, it's a niche market so without Gov't footing the bill, an improved vaccine won't happen because the few livestock producers that are effected don't have enough funding to find the better vaccine. So we need to get it off the list, and get funding (along with a new vet lab in Bozeman) or send $ to Wyoming so they can do the work in their lab, which is state of the art.

#3 & #4 - that's not a solution. That's searching to put blame somewhere other than elk. Regardless of where it came from in the past, we need to focus on solutions for the future.

#5 I'd be interested in seeing your data on that. I've not heard of this.

#6 Totally agree on Wildlife Services.

#7 My interactions w/ the State Vet have been honest and forthright. He has a different take on how to solve the issue than I do, but I won't denigrate him or try to imply that he's being misleading.

Here's a few more things to think about:

a.) The regulation on B. Abortus is from the 1930's, when pasturization of milk was still fairly new and we had cases of undulate fever. Reforming those regulations to account for modern dairy practices and the reality of Brucellosis in Wildlife would be a big stepin reducing the conflict. There is little in regards to actual human health concern from livestock or wildlife.

b.) The biggest issue isn't the disease. It's the way we handle it from the livstock producer's view. It took years to get from whole herd depopulaton to select animal depop. That's a massive hit on a producer who has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop certain traits in his cows, and it means that the producer has to start from scratch. It's a business issue for producers, not a wildlife issue. When we punish livestock producers for elk being elk, we set up a conflict without providing a way for people to stay on the land. I'd much rather have cows in the Paradise valley than condos.

c.) Stop vilifying the ranching industry and find a way to work with them. This is a business issue for them and it means the difference between selling the ranch and staying out in the country. It's their bottom line that is being the most impacted by this. Comparing elk hazing to herding Jews into Ghettos shuts down honest debate between interests and leads to more bad legislation related to test & slaughter, etc.

Gomer - a fund to help pay for the costs associated with the actions needed when a herd gets a positive would be a good measure, but it doesn't keep herds from getting infected. The best method is spatial & temporal separation. If we find more funding to do that, then it's a good investment, IMO.

 

[RobG]

Here is a link to listen to the meeting: http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/insideFwp/commission/audio.html

Ben, I can't help but think this is another attempt to drain MFWP of its resources with no chance of success. Maybe they should fund it out of the general fund or, better yet, the ag industry could set up a fund and hire people.

 

[MTGomer]

The livestock association should pay 100% of the costs if this is to be inplemented, which it shouldn't be.
Common sense says it will never work.

Did they decide last night whether or not to approve the plan?, if so what did they decide, if not when do they decide?

 

[RobG]

The livestock association should pay 100% of the costs if this is to be inplemented, which it shouldn't be.
Common sense says it will never work.

Did they decide last night whether or not to approve the plan?, if so what did they decide, if not when do they decide?

They are discussing it right now. http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/insideFwp/commission/audio.html#

 

[Ben Lamb]

I had a conference call during this discussion and missed the motion. What did they end up doing?

 

[Southern Elk]

I had a conference call during this discussion and missed the motion. What did they end up doing?

Damn work getting in the way of what's really important!

I'm curious as well. This has got to be one of the worst ideas possible.

 

[RobG]

I was half working/half listening. I believe the work plan was passed without the elk hazing idea. One person expressed disappointment that the department made them waste time discussing a plan that had no chance of working. They went beyond time limits and had to cancel some other content.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Snafu

 

[MTGomer]

Where is RMEF on this? Why does nobody hold Vermillion's feet to the fire?
This should not even be discussed at an FWP meeting.
The livestock association has enough money and lobbyists looking out for them, with out FWP being a de facto livestock advocate.
Next year they will be sniveling again about how license increases are needed too.
The idea of chasing elk with helicopters, on top of a six-month long hunting season makes it pretty hard to believe that FWP is interested, or in any way shape or form in conservation of elk.