Weekly Updates from the Field 2007/2008

(1998)

1. There are about 1.3 billion cattle on Earth (almost 100 million of these are in the U.S.). They take up almost one fourth of the landmass of the planet. There are approximately 250,000 North American Bison on Earth. Most of these are ranched bison confined behind fences.
   
2. Yellowstone bison are one of only 3 bison herds in the country not confined by fences. They have roamed freely for longer than any others.
   
3. Yellowstone Park bison have lived with the disease, brucellosis, for 80 years. The disease has no effect on the population.
   
4. No bison have died from the disease, but several thousand bison have been killed because of it.
   
5. Although it is theoretically possible for bison to transmit the disease to cattle, in the many decades Yellowstone bison have lived with the disease, they have never done so.
   
6. Cattle and bison have co-mingled in Grand Teton National Park for 40 years. Cattle are allowed to graze inside that park. A greater percent of those bison test positive for the disease compared to Yellowstone bison. Just as in Yellowstone, they have never transmitted the disease to cattle.
   
7. These long-term case studies suggest the risk that bison will give the disease to cattle is extremely small. Dr. Nicoletti, a well-known authority on the disease, states, "Perhaps few situations in life are risk-free, but this one seems near". In the highly unlikely event that cattle were to contract the disease from bison, straightforward measures could be taken to address an outbreak.
   
8. It would be much more cost-effective to deal with isolated outbreaks of the disease in cattle than to eradicate the disease from all organisms that carry it, including bison, elk, deer, moose, coyotes, bears, etc..
   
9. Given this reality, people have questioned whether the killing of more than 1,000 Yellowstone bison last year (1996/97) was motivated by science or politics.
   
10. Notwithstanding the concerns of people across the nation, 1,084 Yellowstone bison, or 1/3 of the oldest free-roaming herd, were killed last year on the insistence of the State of Montana.
    
11. Montana's Department of Livestock (DOL) directed the slaughter of Yellowstone National Park bison. That department has no expertise in wildlife. It is charged with promoting Montana's livestock industry.
    
12. Bison bulls and calves cannot transmit brucellosis. Yet, almost one third (341) of all bison killed last year were bulls. 146 calves were shot or sent to slaughter.
    
13. There are 25-30 times more elk than bison in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Elk also have the disease. Unlike bison, elk have reportedly transmitted the disease to livestock (there are six cases). Although bison continue to be slaughtered, elk are ignored. Elk hunting is a major money earner for Montana, earning the State $11 million/year from sale of licenses and permits alone.
    
14. Many people believe that bison are being killed not because of disease, but because they are perceived as a threat by the cattle industry. Sheep were once also considered a threat by the cattle industry. 53,000 sheep were killed during the cattle/sheep wars.
    
15. Largely unaware of the senseless nature of the slaughter, taxpayers are now paying to kill the animal Americans struggled to save only 100 years ago.
    
16. Montana's livestock department sold the carcasses of the bison killed, advertising them as "Property of the Department of Livestock". They kept all proceeds ($185,763 in 1997). They donated carcasses when they could not make money from selling them. Many tribes consider the killing disrespectful and several have refused to accept the carcasses.
    
17. The effect of brucellosis on beef cattle is minor. If cattle contract the disease, they typically abort one calf, after which they tend to birth normally. Cows abort for many reasons, including eating too many pine needles.
    
18. Even though a vaccine for cattle is available, Montana does not advocate mandatory vaccination of cattle against brucellosis. To protect cattle from the disease, only female calves would have to be vaccinated, once in their life. The cost would be $6/cow. Oddly, although Montana claims any threat of brucellosis is "too great", it does not insist that ranchers vaccinate against the disease. Instead, Montana demands that non-ranching taxpayers pay to "protect" cattle by killing bison.
    
19. Almost 20% of Montana is owned by farm and ranch corporations . A mere 10% of the cattle operations in Montana own 50% of all the cattle in the State. The livestock industry is a powerful lobby in the State even though Montana has less than 3% of all cattle in the country, and only 1% of the total cattle operations in the country.
    
20. Not all ranchers agree with the extremist approach adopted by Montana. Many do not consider brucellosis a threat to their cattle.
    
21. Many are outraged that Montana insists on killing the nations' natural heritage in the name of protecting livestock, livestock that are being grazed by large-scale landowners with heavy subsidies on publicly managed land designated as wildlife habitat. The public demand to cancel these subsidies may grow as people become more aware of what is happening.
    
22. Yellowstone Park is high country. Some bison leave the Park in winter to move to lower lands. Many bison were shot last winter when they moved onto lowland they traditionally used during severe winters -- land now owned by a religious cult, the Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT). The Church moved from California to what is the most intact ecosystem left in the continental United States. They have constructed huge bomb shelters on this land. They have not welcomed the original inhabitants, bison, on the land. The Church decided to graze hundreds of cattle on its land during the height of the bison-cattle conflict.
    
23. More bison have been killed on land owned by the Church than anywhere else. This land forms part of a U.S. Forest Service livestock grazing allotment. The priority use of this land according to the Forest Plan is for wildlife.
    
24. The public is increasingly questioning whether the Forest Service is doing an adequate job at managing this land, i.e., the "Park" grazing allotment, for its intended purpose, wildlife. The Forest Service alone is responsible for managing livestock grazing on this land -- on both the Church's private land, as well as the public lands within the allotment. The government could, therefore, modify the livestock grazing permit to reduce conflicts between wildlife and livestock on this land, or they could terminate the permit, recognizing that livestock grazing is not compatible with the primary designated land use. They have taken no action.
    
25. Because of the Church's silent endorsement of the slaughter of bison on land where they graze cattle at highly subsidized rates, some taxpayers have objected to subsidizing the Church -- the largest private landowner in the area. Currently, the Church is permitted to graze cows on public lands at 91% less than the going rate on private lands. (It costs $1.35 to graze cows on National Forest lands compared to $15 for a cow/calf "unit" per month on private lands in the area.)
    
26. Compensating landowners for losses attributed to bison (such as broken fences) would be much more reasonable and cost-effective than the current scheme.
    
27. The social and cultural concerns of traditional Native Americans, some of whom consider the buffalo sacred, have been ignored. Tribal nations have passed resolutions calling for the killing to stop. Thus far they have been ignored. Native peoples gathered to pray for the buffalo on the Park boundary. During the ceremony, and within earshot of those praying, Montana killed bison.
    
28. Because Montana cattle are free of the disease, the federal agency in charge of animal disease control, APHIS, has designated Montana as a "brucellosis-free" state. Contrary to popular belief, the mere existence of brucellosis in a wildlife, not domestic, animal, is not sufficient cause for APHIS to downgrade a state's brucellosis status. There must be an outbreak of brucellosis in either cattle or other domestic livestock before APHIS could downgrade a state. Thus, infected bison (which are wildlife, not livestock) do not pose a threat to the brucellosis status of the State.
    
29. . Because Montana is designated as brucellosis-free by the federal government, some people question whether it is legal for other states to impose sanctions on Montana cattle -- as some have. Oddly, Montana has not challenged these states, but has instead used the threats to justify the continued killing of bison.
    
30. State Veterinarians may pose the biggest threat in the brucellosis conflict. Individual states can threaten the livestock industries of other, sometimes competing, states by restricting the import of cattle from states classified by APHIS as brucellosis-free. No scientific justification is required from the State Vets who impose such sanctions. Many people believe the powers of the State Veterinarians should be limited to preclude the possibility of abuse of their powers.
    
31. Numerous State Veterinarians wrote letters to Montana threatening to restrict the import of Montana cattle into their states. These letters were all sent within the brief period of nine days, all covered the same points, often in the same order. Some have questioned whether this was mere coincidence, or an orchestrated campaign to have states threaten to boycott Montana cattle in order to justify the continued killing of bison. Others have challenged the logic of asking non-ranching taxpayers to incur costs of expensive actions to address threats when the livestock industry is apparently threatening itself.
    
32. A risk-assessment to determine the risk that bison would transmit brucellosis to cattle in the Yellowstone area has never been done. This is normal procedure in cases where costly actions to avert risk are considered. Such an assessment promotes wise use of tax monies.
    
33. Montana has yet to adopt the modern concept of determining scientifically-based acceptable levels of risk, and continues instead to insist on the antiquated zero risk approach -- regardless of whether it is cost-effective or not.
    
34. Millions of buffalo were slaughtered in the 1800's in attempts to subjugate Indian people. Today, little more than one hundred years after the first massacre, buffalo are once again the target, and, just as before, the reason for the slaughter is political.
    
35. The plan for killing bison is still in place today, March 20, 1998. The facts suggest that something other than a disease is the real issue. What is the livestock industry really worried about? Does this struggling industry feel threatened? Is that why they are killing bison? Do they feel threatened by the disease, or by the bison? The many years over which no transmission of the disease has occurred, and the surveillance system in place, attest to the risk being extremely small. This suggests the consequences are not likely to occur.

Even if the risk that bison would transmit brucellosis to cattle was much greater than it is, the potential consequence, i.e., downgrading of the State's brucellosis status, does not warrant the radical approach that has been adopted by Montana, and could be avoided altogether by:

• 1) curtailing the power of State Veterinarians so that they can't impose sanctions on cattle from states designated by the federal government as brucellosis-free,
• 2) modifying Montana's "zero-tolerance" policy to one more consistent with modern disease management,
• 3) acquiring additional winter range for bison outside the Park, and,
• 4) removing privately owned cattle from public lands. The bison slaughter is unnecessary for disease management purposes, but many believe bison are being killed for a different purpose, i.e., to show that the West still belongs to cattle and to cattlemen, and that buffalo and the movement for a more ecological approach to land use have no place there.

Perhaps this violent and explicit demonstration will prove to be wrong. There is no reason why the West cannot be shared by both cattle and bison -- unless people are forced to choose between the two. In this case, those who wage war on bison may well lose the war they wage on the West. Will the livestock industry allow a few wild bison to share the range with the 99.5 million cows in the country, or will Americans be forced to choose between preserving the symbol of wildness or producing more cows.

Compiled by: Virginia Ravndal P.O. Box 364, Gardiner, MT 59030

Top of page