APHIS wants to add elk to the bison slaughter plans - IBMP meeting.

[katqanna]

Brucellosis Seroprevalence Reduction Slaughter Plans

As I have been warning, APHIS' objectives have been to go after our elk, treating them as they currently do the bison. DoL is currently planning on capture, test and slaughtering as many bison as they can this Feb., then vaccinating those that are negative. The vaccination does not prevent infection, only reduce the possibility of abortions, but not when they are planning on doing this - winter and mid-gestatation (that increases it). Vaccinating the bison is fubar on many levels. And by their own science bison are not the transmitters to the cattle anyway, nor are they the vector to the elk who do transmit to cattle (0.00024% chance here in Montana).

APHIS' Don Herriott stated about elk, "To address the issue of the elk, we've had conversations recently where we want to attempt to broaden the conversation, which is not part of the IBMP, to include elk, in our 3 states partners too, evaluate, come up with a plan of what we can do to decrease the risk, decrease the prevalence of these species in wildlife, both elk and bison. So theres ? that we would like to do, that we are prevented from doing, but I think we need to do those things."

Now, I have been researching their program plans and papers, as well as the economic trail they have been producing, one of which from Wyoming, plans to kill about 50% of the elk population, sell this as a good thing for livestock and spin it to the hunters that the way they can increase their hunter success rates is to hire an outfitter on private land. They plan on reducing the elk on public lands, increasing the special non-resident elk licenses to make up for lost revenue to the state from decreased resident licenses.

 

[Dinkshooter]

Can't be true, I just saw on the BGF video thread that ranchers and farmers are some of the greatest conservationist in the world.

 

[katqanna]

"In 2008, WGFD sold >60,000 elk licenses, which generated >$6 million in license revenues, and approximately 6.3 times that ($38 million) in other hunter expenditures (e.g., hiring guides, staying at local motels and lodges, purchasing food and other goods). If a 50% decrease in elk population occurred, the decrease in WGFD license revenue alone would be nearly $83,000...These losses to the hunting or outfitting industry and regional economies are small relative to the estimated $3.5 to $7 million in losses associated with a recent brucellosis outbreak."

This paper was produced for the "policymakers". And what they are not saying about any losses to livestock, based on the latest economic study done, and this was done in Wyoming, based on 3 herds there, the estimated cost of a brucellosis outbreak of a herd of 400 (Index herd: 400 bred cattle (368 successfully calve), 80 replacement heifers, 280 yearlings,
and 23 bulls) is $146,299. This involves herd tests, quarantines, etc.

But the management costs of test and slaughter for elk are so bloody high, to reduce the seroprevalence by only 1%, you would have to have costs of a cattle herd brucellosis outbreak necessary just to break even of $107.1 million. It is far cheaper to reimburse the rancher for the cattle than to try and go after he wildlife to eradicate any that show antibodies, may not even be infected, and slaughter them. This does not even account for the additional $8 million to vaccinate the negatives.

It took me 6 months to get a hold of this study, I had to put in a foia, which APHIS still has not complied with. Not trusting that I would get it any time soon, I put in a request from another agency that was at the conference where it was presented in Oct and got it. They dont want people to know what the hell is really going on and what they are planning.

 

[theat]

Sounds about right...lets get the elk out and the cattle back in the national parks and forests where they belong.

 

[katqanna]

Sounds about right...lets get the elk out and the cattle back in the national parks and forests where they belong.

This very much ties in with grazing on public lands, removing the competing grazing ungulates from the landscape. But it also ties in with the marketing, not just on a state level, but an international level, of that grazing beef. Brucellosis Class Free Status for each state, the card APHIS holds over the states to force them to capitulate to their brucellosis eradication plans in the wildlife, was utilized on an international level as a marketing campaign for US beef. US Brucellosis Class Free Beef gave an edge over other countries in the market, that is, until the outbreaks in the GYA states of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. Those outbreaks caused the US to lose the status for a bit, even delaying some trade negotiations with another country.

So the fix was to cook the books to make it look like the US was still brucellosis class free. They had painted themselves into a corner. To do this APHIS created the Interim Rule, which enacted Designated Surveillance Areas for each state, thereby allowing each state to regain their Brucellosis Class Free status - basically what happens in the DSA, stays in the DSA. With those states Class Free once again, the US was also Class Free again. But the way for each state to receive their class Free status was to capitulate to a Brucellosis Management Plan, sign a Memorandum of Understanding and it is this plan that throws our elk and bison under the USDA APHIS eradication of brucellosis in the wildlife bus.

USDA News Release - Feb. 1, 2008, United States Achieves Cattle Brucellosis Class Free Status - " 'This tremendous achievement could not have been accomplished without the combined efforts of state and federal agencies and industry,' said Bruce Knight, under secretary for USDA's marketing and regulatory programs mission area. 'But our work is not done. We must now focus our efforts on eradicating brucellosis from the free-ranging elk and bison populations in the Greater Yellowstone Area in order to protect our national cattle herd against future outbreaks of this disease.' "