HomeNewsSportsMoreWeatherAnnouncementsClassifiedsMy Trib.ComMy CityJobsHomesCars
Advanced Search
 

Brucellosis focus shifts from bison to elk


Story Tools

Print this story

E-mail this story

Rate this story

Text Size

Share This Story:
del.icio.usdiggNewsVine




trib.popular


BILLINGS, Mont. -- Government agencies killed more than 6,000 wild bison leaving Yellowstone National Park over the last two decades -- the grisly result of efforts to contain a serious livestock disease carried by the animals.

But the crosshairs are shifting to a new target, elk, as the disease infects cattle in parts of Wyoming and Montana where bison haven't roamed for decades.

The disease brucellosis causes pregnant cattle to abort their young. To halt recurrent transmissions, state officials say elk from infected herds around Yellowstone must be culled.

That's an explosive proposition for a prized big game species that has thrived under the protection of a dedicated constituency of sporting groups. Nevertheless, pressure is mounting to kill or capture more elk in more places.

"We've got way too many elk," said John Scully, a rancher living in Montana's Madison Valley. "Clearly with so many elk, the risk rises. We need to reduce their numbers."

Outfitters and hunters are digging in against the prospect, concerned that too much hunting could shrink elk herds.They contend wildlife managers should focus on vaccinating cattle or eradicating the disease in bison -- not capturing and killing elk.

"I will fight that tooth and nail. As a sportsman, those wildlife are a public resource," said Bill O'Connell with the Gallatin Wildlife Association.

An estimated 95,000 elk populate the greater Yellowstone area in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Experts estimate only a small percentage carry brucellosis.

There is no effective brucellosis vaccine for wildlife, and cattle vaccines are only 60 to 70 percent effective.

Humans are susceptible to the disease, but cases are rare and usually limited to those who work with infected cattle.

Eradicated everywhere else in the nation, brucellosis surfaced seven times in the Yellowstone area this decade, including twice since mid-June. With the recent cases, Montana ranchers near Yellowstone face severe restrictions on out-of-state cattle sales and Wyoming ranchers could face a similar fate if another cow in the state tests positive for brucellosis in the next two years.

For bison, the strategy to prevent transmissions has been brutally straightforward. When deep snows prompt large numbers of the animals to migrate outside Yellowstone, they are rounded up and sent to slaughter or hazed back into the park.

An estimated $19 million has been spent on those efforts since 2002. Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer said the recent brucellosis infections exposed the program as a failure.

"Managing a disease means more than chasing buffalo back into the park," Schweitzer said.

As investigations into the cases continue, state officials say elk appear a likely culprit. However, addressing brucellosis in elk presents daunting challenges.

In terms of sheer numbers, the Yellowstone region's 25 elk herds dwarf the three herds of bison. And whereas bison stick together and travel in groups, elk move freely over the region's numerous mountain ranges, often alone or in small numbers.

Since late 2006, federal officials and the governors of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana have been negotiating for a sweeping brucellosis plan that would deal with the disease across borders and among different species.

A tentative proposal, drafted by federal officials, sets a goal of eliminating the disease -- not just controlling it in bison. It also puts new emphasis on elk.

Still, prospects for an agreement remain uncertain given the states' divergent approaches to wildlife.

Wyoming's controversial use of artificial feedgrounds, for example, remains a sticking point among the states. Researchers say the feedgrounds concentrate elk herds and foster the spread of disease.

Kurt Alt, a state wildlife biologist from Montana, said the feedgrounds perpetuate the problem by constantly "pumping brucellosis into the Yellowstone system."

But Wyoming officials say the elimination of the feedgrounds could make the brucellosis problem worse, if hungry elk scattered into areas where cattle range. Near Pinedale, the state has begun capturing elk and slaughtering any that show signs of the disease.

In Montana, state officials hope to increase elk hunting and hazing near Yellowstone and expand a testing program to gauge which herds are badly infected.

Once identified, the state could argue they have the right to access private land to manage elk -- a tricky proposition given Montana's tradition of individual property rights. Montana's governor cited a recent case in which the state removed a group of bison from private land over the owners' objections.

"There's a precedent," Schweitzer said, adding the state was considering all its options to deal with the disease in wildlife.

Associated Press writer Matt Joyce in Cheyenne contributed to this report.


Previous   Next
Handguns by hand   Qwest blocks access to known child porn sites

Article Rating

Current Rating: 0 of 0 votes!Rate File:

Reader Comments

There are 7 comment(s)

Comments to this story.

Robert Hoskins wrote on Jul 7, 2008 6:57 AM:

" This is a poorly written story:

1. Brucellosis is not a serious disease; it causes abortions in young cows, but eventually abortions cease. It is not fatal.

2. There is no evidence whatsoever that elk are responsible for the brucellosis incidents in Montana cattle, and good reason to believe that the disease is due to Corriente cattle.

3. Wyoming's elk feedgrounds must be closed to prevent an epidemic of truly serious diseases such as chronic wasting disease.

4. Ranchers and the livestock industry, along with the Wyo G&F Department, are wholly responsible for creating the wildlife disease problem in Wyoming. Feedgrounds exist for one reason and one reason only--to keep elk away from forage ranchers claim is "reserved" for cattle. They could care less that feedgrounds are a hotbed of disease. If ranchers suffer "inconvenience" from closing feedgroudgrounds, too bad. It's about time that ranchers take responsibility and pay some of the cost for the problems they have created.

5. It's time that wildlife, not livestock, take priority in the Greater Yellowstone. "

Joe wrote on Jul 7, 2008 7:36 AM:

" Buy ranchers' grazing allotments out and close the feedgrounds. That would end this entire mess. It really humors me to hear ranchers crying too many elk and Wyoming officials crying that wolves have killed all the elk... "

Wildman wrote on Jul 7, 2008 11:22 AM:

" Brucellosis is not endemic to the wild elk and bison populations of the GYE, and was introduced by infected livestock years ago. Maybe the cows need to go.

As far as feedgrounds are concerned, the public needs to realize that if they do close they will have to live with greatly reduced elk numbers. Feedgrounds were a solution to a problem man created by brining in livestock to the GYE, blocking historic migration routes, and developing critical winter range. No easy solution here, and closing them don't won't be a fix everything answer. "

confused wrote on Jul 7, 2008 12:09 PM:

" I am beginning to think Wyoming does not want anything alive in its state other than cows. First all the wolves need to be gone because of the elk population, now all the elk need to be gone because of the cows?? "

Marion Parker wrote on Jul 7, 2008 12:56 PM:

" Given that spending millions to keep buffalo in Yellowstone Park and kill buffalo that left the park didn't work, it's pure craziness to try the same basic tactics on elk, which are 10 times as abundant as buffalo. The solution to the problem is for ranchers to keep elk and buffalo away from their cows, at their expense. Recent history shows that the public hates killing buffalo on public land leased to ranchers for cattle grazing; if ranchers start killing elk on public lands leased for grazing, people will go nuts, especially hunting outfitters. The obvious solution to the brucellosis problem is no cattle on public lands. If ranchers want to protect their cattle from contact with elk and buffalo, let ranchers go to the expense of fencing their cattle in on private property owned by the ranchers. "

Dewd wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:30 AM:

" Again I have to say it: the Wildlife have done nothing wrong. It's their domain and range , too. The alien exotic cattle are the interlopers, the squatters, the usurpers. The solution is a simple one...move the cows , or at least keep them away from Elk and Bison. What part of " cowboying" don;t the modern ranchers understand ? By the way , has anyone anywhere yet proven a case of B. Abortus being transmitted from Elk or Bison to Cattle in the wild ? I have yet to hear of a epidemiological smoking gun incident. I do recall an experiment where infected Bison were penned with cows to force a transmission of the disease that r esearchers could study , but it never transpired. This whole Brucellosis thing is one of the most hyperbolic foofawrahs in the West today. IF there were such a thing as "State of Origin" labelling on beef sold in supermarkets, I would refuse to buy Wyoming or Montana born beef till the ranchers pull their heads out of their....uh , hats. "

Ann wrote on Jul 10, 2008 7:13 AM:

" Hey, I think we are all starting to get on the same side. Why do they need to kill non-positive tested anything? Why is APHIS still treating Brucellosis as an Unknown? Why has it taken the individual rancher THIS long to start asking those questions? Good for the Wyoming Rancher that is now asking why. More Ranchers need to stand up and ask the same question. With life-KILLING diseases out there, Salmonella, E-coli, Mad Cow, CWD (?) Why are we more concerned with wildlife than we are with the way we treat our 'food-chain' meat? Cook your meat Pasteurize your milk and get on with it. Leave the wildlife alone. Let them stay WILD. "

Submit a Comment

We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
(optional)
   
Please note: We provide our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.