MT Bison Slaughter Plan

[thecrittergitter]

I wish I could say that I have an extreme in depth knowledge base of the full issues here but I don't. I rely on a couple people that pretty much live it and breath it to keep me updated on the bison issues here in Montana. I was notified today that they are planning another "slaughter and test" program issued by the biggest dipshit group in America, the DOL. I'm sending my letter to Bullock today voicing my opinion to NOT put another bison slaughter on our Yellowstone herd. This is friggin ridiculous!
I say if this goes through, we have a hunt talk blanket party for the DOL when they show up to blast a bunch of bison.

When you have a governor being informed of ridiculous data by DOL like 50% of Bison having brucellosis, things are going to get scary for our Montana Wildlife.

Please send your comments to Gov Bullock!

Hopefully this link works......

http://www.emwh.org/issues/brucellosis/Bullock Wild Bison Vaccination Email.htm

 

[Ben Lamb]

Give 'em Hell Matt.

Other folks should too. We'll never get any significant changes to the IBMP until people stand up and are counted.

 

[thecrittergitter]

My letter sent.....


Governor Bullock,

I have been a Montana Resident my entire life and am a very avid outdoor sportsman. I'm not going to sit here and claim I know every single detail of the issues at hand with Brucellosis but I can tell you that I have done enough homework to know with certainty that you do not have your facts correct. And if you make decisions for our Montana wildlife with uneducated information, you will be contributing to the decimation of a truly amazing species of animal that ...as you stated....are an important part of our history and land. I would like to know where you get the numbers you are stating in your email. Thousands of hours and hard work by many people have proven time and time again that your numbers don't even make sense. The accurate percentage for brucellosis in the bison is less than 0.5 percent. And that is giving you the benefit of the doubt because to my knowledge, I still don't believe there has been ONE SINGLE case of proven brucellosis transmission from a bison to cattle. I believe you likely get your information from the Department of Livestock (DOL) which appears to me has one mission.... and that is to wipe the bison out.

As you may know, last year the DOL was notified of a LONE BULL BISON, which has absolutely zero possibility to transmit brucellosis as the only way it can be transferred is from the afterbirth of a female bison. The DOL , like they always do, want to show how powerful they are so they trespassed on Private Property with no penalty, went to a lone bull bison and shot it and LEFT IT TO ROT! This is utterly absurd no matter how you look at it! Unacceptable behavior. And this is the type of group you feel has reliable information? That is called poaching in anybody's book. An animal that had zero threat whatsoever, and gets gunned down and left. I'm certain that I would have had the book thrown at me for such actions.

Calling for a slaughter of animals for testing when the percentage is so low is ridiculous. I'm sure you wouldn't choose to go through chemo if there was less than a 1/2 percent chance you had cancer.........

Please step out of the politician mind set here for a while and try some common sense. If you are truly working for all the people of Montana, you would be wanting to make sure our next generations got a chance to enjoy a landscape where this iconic animal as a part of it.

I understand you have a big job and many issues on the table at once. But this in no way should allows you to take one issue less serious than the next and I feel you are doing that here. Now it could be that you had someone else write the email that is severely uninformed, but since you signed it, I'll assume it was you.

Please reconsider this slaughter program since based on the facts, the chances of actually finding one that has brucellosis is nearly zero.

And also, in case you need to refresh your memory on the numbers you absurdly stated in your email, I have attached it below....

Thank you for your time and please take the time to know the facts before you kill off another bunch of animals.

 

[katqanna]

Ben, this isnt just the bison and the IBMP, which is outdated from the science perspective anyway. This is about our elk, deer and moose as well, but most especially our elk.

Back in 2008, when the last infected cases came up in Montana, genetics had advanced to the point that they were able to determine that the Brucella abortus responsible for the infection was not the bison biovar and isolate, but an elk biovar 1 and isolate, which is almost identical to the cattle (separated by only 1-2 mutations). So the livestock industry turned the machinery in place against bison, to include elk. APHIS took advantage that the 3 GYA states had lost their Brucellosis Class Free Status, to get control over the elk. So they required each state to sign on to a Brucellosis Management Plan and annually sign a Memorandum of Understanding that conforms to APHIS goals of eradication of brucellosis in the wildlife (ELK) in the GYA. The governor has to do this, as well as the departments of livestock and because this involves the wildlife agencies, our Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Thats how APHIS got control of our FWP and is getting control of our elk, for eradication of brucellosis.

The last few years, APHIS has been setting pieces in place to begin the mass eradication process of test and slaughter of elk. WY and ID had their BMP's public, but not Montana, ours was hidden from the public, especially the hunters. I tried to warm MWF and other hunting groups, as well as the RMEF, about this elk brucellosis program this last spring and summer, but they preferred to view the messenger as an "aggressive female", rather than deal with the data. "Quentin wouldnt do that, he's our inside guy." As well as comments that McDonald and Hagener wouldnt do this, but they have. So it was all ignored and I was told this September not to mention Quentin Kujala or FWP anymore, it would be taken care of.

Good thing for the wildlife that I dont play politics and did not listen, because my continued research showed that there were nine violations of MCA and ARM in the 2013 elk brucellosis management plan. We got a senator to request a legislative inquiry that found, "Based on a review of the foregoing information, it appears that there is no specific reference in the Montana Code Annotated regarding the Department's authority to manage elk for purposes of reducing or preventing the transmission of brucellosis between elk and livestock." The FWP commission ignored all the info, because FWP in Helena was recommending that the program be passed, contrary to the required MEPA being needed in order to make such changes to the Elk Statewide Management Plan.

So now these rancher working groups in each of the areas, as of Jan 1st, can implement the lethal objectives of the 2014 Elk Brucellosis Work Plan, killing off elk in the DSA, which most HD are under objective and have been in a decline for about a decade, all for the bullshit claim that the elk are major disease carriers of this livestock disease brucellosis. DOL's Dr. Marty Zaluski, stated in Texas when he was defending MT cattle from further restrictions, that the threat that any one MT cattle could get brucellosis from elk was 0.00024%. The bison were not even mentioned because the bison dont transmit - different genetic isolate. These elk work groups are also submitting to the FWP commissioners changes to increase the lethal objectives of the 2014 work plan, like increase the cut off period to May 30th for kill permits and elk removal hunts, as well as increasing the fencing description from stack fencing, paid for with sportsmens dollars with no requirement of public hunter access like game damage, to include miles of high and possibly electric fencing to supposedly keep elk out. Rep. Alan Redfield mentioned his high fencing that it cost him $5000.00 a mile. They want sportsmens dollars to pay for this fencing. We are talking game ranching here. Redfield showed me on the map where his property was and how many elk he has (herd of 20-40) because of his fencing, the outside elk cant get in unless he wants them to. I taped the meeting. These were all things listed in the APHIS strategic plans, in various documents.

Part of the reason for the hunter samples is to build the genetic database to show areas of seroprevalence (simply means antibodies present, does not equal infection or infectious), because that gives APHIS/DOL control there and if there is a genetic match to a cattle infection, they can point to wildlife and make sportsmens dollars pay, like with predator compensations. They had academic papers written up to advise policy makers on how to sell the elk reductions to hunters, telling them that out of state licenses will have to be increased because they bring in more revenue to compensate the loss of resident licenses that will be lost to less elk being available on public lands; that public hunters should hire a guide on private lands to increase their chances of success.

I have file boxes on all this. And despite the intentional obstruction by Montana agencies in getting this documentation, I have been getting it by other means and it aint pretty. These few paragraphs dont even come close to reflecting the full enormity of what is going on. Dont deceive yourselves that this is a bison issue and who really gets a chance to hunt bison anyway - this is a 4u<@ing elk issue and the sooner the hunters wake up to this, the sooner we can get control of this situation and stop it.

 

[katqanna]

the chances of actually finding one that has brucellosis is nearly zero.

Matt, the chances of them finding actual brucellosis infection are higher, the thing is, the transmission risk to cattle is 0.0-0.3% chance, based on an academic papers, one of which the DOL's Marty Zaluski was part of. The only reason they added the 0.3% is a "cover my ass" measure just in case a wild transmission from bison to cattle should ever occur. But it hasnt, even in the Jackson Hole area where cattle ranchers had been running cattle next to bison for over 30 years with no brucellosis. Those ranchers stated as such to the US president, trying to get APHIS off their ass.

Seropositive simply means a blood test is taken and it registers whether or not there are antibodies in the blood, showing that at one time the animal was exposed to brucellosis. A positive just means yes, there were exposed, not that they are currently infected or infectious. Seropositive can simply represent an immunity. You have to kill the animal and culture the bacteria from certain organs or the birthing material to see if it is an active infection or infectious, that is the test and slaughter part of what is going to happen. Its just like humans with chicken pox (though chicken pox is a virus, not a bacteria. Id use tetanus, a bacteria, as an example, but most are not exposed to tetanus like chicken pox). I would be seropositive for chicken pox. That does not mean that I am currently infected, nor infectious, just that I now have an immunity to it.

The elk and cattle biovar 1 is almost identical, separated by 1-2 mutations. The bison biovar is different and separated by about 20 mutations. It was just an assumption that bison, being a bovine, were the logical vector to another bovine, domestic cattle, when in fact they werent. The elk are the primary vector.

But not all cases of brucellosis infections in the cattle or domestic bison herds, here in Montana, as well as the other states, including Texas, have been from elk. This is the other messed up thing in this situation. According to the epidemiology papers and reports, some of the cases of infection have shown the cattle biovar 1, as well as the RB51 and Strain 19 vaccinations biovar 1. Those are cases where vaccination became active causing infections. So not every case in Montana was due to elk. DOL listed on their website when it was a biovar 1 elk transmission one time. Then all they have to do at other times is list biovar 1 and everyone that does not know that biovar 1 also includes cattle and the two cattle vaccine strains RB51 and 19, assumes it is elk. Personally, I think that was intentional to further inflame the war against the elk.

So while bison have a higher seroprevalence than elk, and while they have a higher infection rate than elk, they are not the transmission vectors to cattle. But while DOL still has legal control over bison here in Montana through 81-2-120 (brucellosis), they are not going to stop going after the bison unless forced by a repeal, now that we know the science, or through the governor.

 

[bigskyblueman]

Critter and Kat you are spot on. The state statute that gives the DOL legal power over our wild bison has to be repealed. All the repugnant and inhumane behavior by the DOL flows from this state law and until we vote out the cretins in the Legislature who support this law it will be very difficult to restore wild bison hunting in Montana.

 

[Big Fin]

If you are interested in elk and elk management in the areas around Yellowstone National Park, read what is being posted here. Whether in MT, ID, or WY, this issue is going to impact your elk hunting in the near future.

It is not a toothy canine that has elk herds in their clutches, rather some very archaic rules about Brucellosis and some hyper-reactive legislators who think they are going to save the world. Their efforts to save the world will come on the backs of elk, hunter opportunity, and hunter dollars.

Thanks for the info.

 

[thecrittergitter]

Kat,

Yes, slightly misstated on my part, they may find a slightly higher amount infected but the odds of it being transferred, nearly zero. ITs what I meant to say, just didn't

I agree, this is much more than a bison issue, it is without question an elk issue. and I hope more people get on board here and start getting a voice out. I believe you have likely done more research on this issue than about anybody and I applaud your efforts. Thank you for bringing some of the "Real Data" to the table.

 

[katqanna]

Matt, I just wanted to help clarify what you meant so no one would jump on your ass, as I was doing to whoever wrote that canned Bullock email.

Thank you for understanding the time and research involved here. I have been at this for over a year now, nearly full time. And thank you for writing Bullock.

Ag/livestock comprise 5% of the Montana population. They hire about 7% of the population. So why is a backroom deal being done to let 12% of the population's industry special interest (not founded on science - it doesnt have to be an either/or) override the remaining 88% of Montanan's who never got a chance to weigh in on this issue?

For anyone interested -
I know this is a seriously complicated issue (not just the politics) involving some science, so here are three charts to make it a wee bit easier on the eyes and brain.
Brucellosis Taxonomy chart (biological classification)

Elk Brucellosis Transmission chart This chart was created by Dr. Mark Albrecht (Montana hunter, veterinarian) and Dr. Tom Roffe (Montana hunter, retired US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Chief of Wildlife Health), showing the small risk transmission from elk to domestic cattle here in Montana is 0.00024%. In WY this will be higher because of the feed grounds.

Understanding Brucellosis Seropositive / Seroprevalence chart

 

[MHMT]

Thank you for all, for fighting the fight. I have been learning a lot about this lately. It is amazing they are attempting to do what they are. You would think they would realize when a closed, private system like the Flying D tests, vaccinates, and slaughters for brucellosis and still have seropositives every year that it will not work, especially on public land. I really hope they don't try to do the same with elk.

 

[bigskyblueman]

Any elk that test positive for brucella will be headed to a landfill, not back into the wild. We just won't hear about it

 

[rmyoung1]

This is yet another threat to an elk herd that can ill afford another threat.

Katqanna, question for you.... I know there is quite a bit of overlap between cattle ranchers and elk outfitters in the Greater Yellowstone area either through ranchers outfitting their own property or leasing the hunting rights to an outfitter. Has there been no dissent within the ranks of the livestock owners?

 

[Rimrock]

The Gallatin Wildlife Association, and numerous other groups have multiple requests in for a meeting with Bullock, and/or his staff about this, and to my knowledge NO ONE has had a call or e-mail returned.
At least Schweitzer would respond to such requests, and we met repeatedly with his staff on these sorts of issues.
It appears that not only does Bullock not get these wildlife issues, but he's given the the Dept of Livestock free rein (or is it reign?). So some of us are heading to Helena Monday, when the Board of Livestock might be pulling the plug on the Bison Habitat EA. Maybe they'll also declare elk "vermin and heathens!".

 

[katqanna]

This is yet another threat to an elk herd that can ill afford another threat.

Katqanna, question for you.... I know there is quite a bit of overlap between cattle ranchers and elk outfitters in the Greater Yellowstone area either through ranchers outfitting their own property or leasing the hunting rights to an outfitter. Has there been no dissent within the ranks of the livestock owners?

Rmyoung1, From all the meetings in Park County that I have gone to, whether the elk brucellosis management or other wildlife meetings, as well as one elk management in the Madison, the ranchers want the elk numbers down, they say they want them off their property, that they are a disease threat and they are eating their grass. They say this when they want the free fencing, kill permits and after Feb. 15th hunts on their lands. So far, to my knowledge, none of the ranchers have objected to any of this. Now, I recently had an anonymous email from non ranching property owners in Paradise Valley objecting and asking what could be done, because they dont want the elk migratory patterns cut off by all the miles of high fencing. They love the elk.

Heres the kicker - if you take the Private Lands Where Landowners Authorize Licensed Hunting Outfitters To Operate Map (you will have to hit the plus button like 5 times, scroll to the bottom and look at the are just above Wyoming at that corner, that is Park County, HWY 89 - its a high res map so it will take a few minutes to load up) you will see all the outfitting leases through that area. Then compare it with this years Block Management map for Region 3. There was only 1 BM participant up HWY 89, closer to Livingston. All of these ranchers that are complaining about the elk since the beginning of the elk brucellosis program, that are receiving free stack fencing from sportsmens dollars, hazing, kill permits and dispersal hunts after Feb. 15th, all without any requirement of public hunter access during the general season, none of them participated in Block Management to move the elk off their lands back to public lands.

BTW, after this last legislative session, when the bill to gut Habitat Montana for Block Management came up, I asked FWP about the Region 3 Block Management map to see if Rep. Kelly Flynn was a Block Management participant - conflict of interest. They told me that after hunting season, that information was no longer available. So this year, I downloaded every map and property owner listing for all of Montana so that the information would be available should anyone need it.

This late summer, after reading the 2004 Montana Statewide Elk Management Plan (woefully outdated), I saw charts on Game Damage complaints by regions. So I contacted FWP and got a chart of the complaints for Region 3 and specifically Park County, for the last 6 years, - Region 3 Summary Tables game damage - up to the beginning of this elk brucellosis program, for comparison to all the complaints that had been coming in since it began. I highlighted the Park County columns with elk. There was one GD complaint in 07, 3 in 08, none 09, 1 in 10, none in 11 and 12. So for 6 years, there were 5 elk complaints, and only 1 in the last 4 years prior to this bloody program, when all the sudden, there are numerous complaints and demands for kill permits and dispersal hunts after Feb. 15th with no public hunter access requirement.

Now, based on some articles, the more the elk population declines, the more the rancher/landowners and the outfitters will be able to charge for hunts. Supply and demand. The rarer bighorn sheep hunts are far more expensive than a white tailed deer hunt. In addition, based on a Region 3 FWP produced paper - Effects of Hunter Access and Habitat Security on Elk Habitat Selection in Landscapes With a Public and Private Land Matrix, which deals with the Northern Yellowstone elk herds in Park, Gallatin and Madison counties, public herds are becoming private herds through public access hunter pressure, the elk seek security on the less hunted private lands and are becoming habituated to this pattern.

You add all this to the recent elk working group meeting in Park County of the ranchers, they are now wanting sportsmen, and again, with no requirement of public hunter access during the general season, to pay for miles of property fencing that will restrict elk movements. This smacks of the beginning of game ranching to me and we are footing the bill for it to boot.

 

[rmyoung1]

Thanks for all of the info, Kat. I find this issue disappointing and somewhat surprising given the fact that the elk herd is in miserable shape and down 75% since the mid-90s. Why are all these measures now surfacing when elk numbers are at historic lows? How can they even defend their position with a straight face?

Also, a public hunting access requirement as a prerequisite to game damage payments seems more than reasonable. Such requirements are in place in other states, right?

 

[katqanna]

Also, a public hunting access requirement as a prerequisite to game damage payments seems more than reasonable. Such requirements are in place in other states, right?

Rmyoung, you're welcome. Public hunting access requirement is a part of our Montana Game Damage. That is the problem here. Helena FWP, with Ken McDonald and Quentin Kujala, created this elk brucellosis management plan, and Quentin would repeatedly, publicly stress that this program was not Game Damage, even though the forms all borrowed from Game Damage. I brought these points up to the FWP commission, that what they passed should have required public hunter access and if it was an oversight in the 2013 Proposed Recommendations that they passed, to amend it, they could add it to the current plan, they didnt.

Since I had emailed the commission on all this and made numerous public comments, the night before the October commission meeting, I was looking through the Montana Code Annotated to see if there was something with the FWP Commission rules that might force their hand to manage for wildlife, instead of livestock. Thats when I found that they were in violation of MCA for this elk brucellosis program altogether. I researched all the code, wrote a list up of the 9 MCA and ARM violations I found, which I read out during the public comments portion of the commission meeting, asking them once again, to not pass this 2014 Elk Work Plan, but they did anyway.

So I got a lawyer to force them to comply with the law and manage for wildlife as their own biologists have pointed out. I have had to do all this as an individual since spring 2013, because GWA's president, did not even want me to send a complaint letter to FWP after the public meeting obstruction, as a individual. When I suggested that he send a public information request, he said no, so I said I would do it personally, that we needed that information, there was serious mismanagement of this program. He tried to talk me out of it. Then in Sept., he called, stating he had talked to MWF and Dan Vermillion, and told me not to speak of Quentin Kujala and FWP anymore. Thats when I broke off my membership with GWA. MWF has not responded to any of the email alerts I send out on these issues. I am not going to play politics, our elk and bison need to be protected from APHIS/DOL. FWP needs to be allowed to managed according to the North American Model of wildlife management, based on science, not landowner livestock European management.

That is why a legislative inquiry was done, which showed, "Based on a review of the foregoing information, it appears that there is no specific reference in the Montana Code Annotated regarding the Department's authority to manage elk for purposes of reducing or preventing the transmission of brucellosis between elk and livestock." I am waiting on the legislative inquiry about the necessary environmental review, which is the last piece for the attorney, to hopefully get this program shut down and APHIS/DOL's hand off our elk. Meanwhile, I have been collecting individual hunters signatures that want to sign on to the suit so they have representation.

 

[Hunts]

Kat,

Awesome work on your part!!! Thanks for all your efforts!!

Steve Hunts

 

[Rimrock]

Missed work, and spent all day today at "government" meetings. Except the first one was work related, and actually went quite well. The Departments of Ag, Livestock and Health had a meeting here this morning regarding upcoming changes in food safety regs, seeking public input. We've worked fairly extensively with all of them in our various ventures, and while I know this is completely out of character, I have to say we think they're doing a fairly good job on that. Which we're still in the thick of...
Laura Lundquist was there, so watch for a story in the Chronicle tomorrow morning.
But then bailed early on that one, and went to Helena for the Board of Livestock meeting. Gads...
The simple version is they pulled the plug on an EA for expanded bison habitat around Yellowstone. We CAN'T have that, you know! In spite of a fellow bison citizen working group member, rancher and former BOL member pointing out that this is damaging their reputation in a big way, and they need to make some progress here...
Nope! Round file that one!!
Except now it appears we do have a meeting with the Gov & Co in the works, and his Natural Resource Policy advisor was there, & appeared not at all happy afterward. I'm not sure if anyone was, I think most see they're headed off into the ditch on this, but hey, hand 'em a shovel! They can be their own worst enemies...

 

[BBwheelgunner]

I'm pulling for you guys.

 

[katqanna]

I taped the Board of Livestock meeting this afternoon and will get the audio up tomorrow. There was more to this than the Bison EA, which the Board of Livestock had stated they would probably vote "No Action" at the August meeting. I didnt expect anything different from them. I was there for the "New" IBMP EIS comments, which they brought up and tied the Bison EA to. They complained about Yellowstone National Park, about "natural regulation". They complained about the wildness, what the wild animals ate and repeatedly compared all that to the livestock management system, not understanding wildness at all. They harped on the "numbers" of the bison, mentioning elk, wanting the bison numbers to be drastically reduced and that low number maintained that way.

Basically, this facade of a meeting can be summed up by the executive board member Christian MacKay, who brought up Yellowstone National Park, associating the expanded Habitat EA as being something that YNP wanted for more land, versus the State of Montana wanting the YNP to decimate the bison numbers, "I see this as a potential to start getting at some of that conflict, start getting - we want this from you, you want this from us. When you get to what we want (they kept bringing up low bison numbers), we can offer what we have."

So basically, the 78% of the Montana public that polled and wanted wild bison on Montana public lands, our wanting public trust bison as wildlife here in Montana is held hostage by the Board of Livestock because they want the YNP to kill off a bunch of YNP bison first before they consider opening up any expanded habitat here in Montana.

After that portion, Dol's Marty Zaluski and FWP Quentin Kujala discussed this years capturing of 100 elk in the elk brucellosis program. They are looking at the Tobacco Roots, believing that seropositive elk are over there, which will expand the DSA. This will be the 4th year of a 5 year program. Each year they capture 100 cow elk in a different location, test and those that are blood test seropositive for antibodies to having been exposed to brucellosis get collared. If they are pregnant, vits are inserted. At the end of the 5 years, all collared cows get killed and they test to see if any culture for brucellosis. This study is 80% funded by APHIS, whose objective is to eradicate brucellosis in wildlife.

Current DSA below:
FWP DSA Elk Hunting Districts Map
DOL DSA Geographic Map