Yellowstone Bison Experiment

Yellowstone National Park has given permission to APHIS and the USDA to experiment on 100 bison the effects of GonaCon. This is a pesticide contraceptive approved by the EPA. GonaCon is a single-shot immunocontraceptive vaccine. It is effective for 1-5 years. (These people need to use it.)

Buffalo w/Calf along Hebgen Lake. photo by Eva Vincent

 
As part of its program to develop tools for managing populations of overabundant wildlife species, NWRC [National Wildlife Research Center] scientists have developed a new GnRH immunocontraceptive vaccine (named GonaCon™) that shows great promise as a wildlife infertility agent. (Technical discussion on how GnRH immunocontraception works)

GonaCon was originally made to reduce white-tail deer populations, which the EPA has classified as a public health pest.

To read a PDF fact sheet on GonaCon click here.

Bison Abuse in Yellowstone

This is a good opinion article by Dr. Brian L. Horejsi. A Wildlife Scientist and long time Yellowstone user. He lives in Calgary, Alberta

Harsh criticism is increasingly justified in todays world of National Park and public land management, a world in which regulatory retreat from principles and regulation is the new norm and "gut and grab" politics seem to be an every day threat. One such issue deserving of harsh review is the continuous persecution of bison in the Yellowstone ecosystem. What is happening on Yellowstones borders is no less offensive than the corralling and clubbing of dolphins in Japan, the clubbing of seal pups off Canada's coast, or the indiscriminate slaughter of African elephants that eventually led to massive population declines barely a decade ago.

 http://www.counterpunch.org/horejsi02172011.html

TAKE ACTION to SAVE BUFFALO

I just wanted to post the links to where you can submit letters to Ken Salazar and Montana government agencies.

• Defenders of Wildlife pre-written letter

          https://secure.defenders.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1991

• Natural Resource Defense Council pre-written letter

          https://secure.nrdconline.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2129& s_src=fb

• If you're feeling creative and/or want to tell Montana's government what to do and where to go, here is the link to email legislators and the committees.

          http://leg.mt.gov/css/sessions/62nd/legwebmessage.asp

Young bulls at West Entrance

Action Needed to Help Yellowstone Bison!!!

(The following is from BFC)

Stop APHIS from Harming Wild Bull Bison

Without adequate notification to the public, in late-February, the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) department of Veterinary Services (VS) released an Environmental Assessment that outlines their intention to immobilize bull bison in the field in order to study their semen and blood. Their purported reasons for undertaking this study are to determine if bull bison can transmit brucellosis. APHIS intends to dart and immobilize wild bull bison - up to 50 individuals - on Gallatin National Forest lands north and west of Yellowstone's boundary. APHIS has not disclosed the immobilization chemical they intend to use on bison. APHIS also wishes to conduct another phase of this study inside Yellowstone National Park, on bull bison during the rut (mating) season. Yellowstone has flatly denied APHIS's requests for permits, demonstrating that this study is undesirable and unnecessary.

It is already widely accepted that bull bison pose a zero risk of transmitting brucellosis to domestic livestock, and there has never been a documented case of any wild bison transmitting the livestock disease brucellosis back to cattle. APHIS is also under the false impression that wild bull bison would actually choose to mate with domestic cows, however, in the history of cattle being on the buffalo's landscape, this has never happened. Artificial insemination is the only means by which to cross Bison bison with domestic cattle.

Buffalo Field Campaign is adamantly opposed to this study as it is unwarranted, poorly thought out, lacks critical information as well as the necessary permissions APHIS needs to carry it out. More importantly, it will be dangerous to bulls and possibly other buffalo, and will result in absolutely no benefit to wild bison. APHIS also put forth minimal effort to notify the public that this Environmental Assessment was available for public comment, so Buffalo Field Campaign has requested an extension for public comment, but currently there is very little time in which to act. APHIS's comment period ends on Tuesday, March 23, 2010. However, everyone who cares about wild bison should continue to send in comments even after the closing of the public comment period.

Take Action Here: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2426/p/dia/action/public/index.sjs?action_KEY=2676

Download and read APHIS's EA.

Who is APHIS?

Elk to Blame for Past Decade of Brucellosis Infection

I was reading an article in the HelenaIR (Irresponsible Record), the most HIGHLY censored newspaper in MT. Once again the ranchers blame wildlife, namely elk, for all infections of brucellosis over the past decade. MT seems to conveniently & arrogantly forget that this disease originated in European cattle that were imported into the U.S. and then the disease was transmitted to the wildlife in Yellowstone. Today there are an estimated 2.6 MILLION cattle in MT. This is 2.5 times the state population!! Whereas there are close to 3,000 buffalo, 95,000 elk and 34 breeding pairs of wolves. These numbers are waaay too high for the ranchers who'd like to see them down to 0.

In 2007 there were 2 herds that became infected. This was NOT caused by wildlife as the HelenaIR wants you to believe. Both these herds were made up of Corriente cattle. This is a Mexican breed that is popular for rodeo roping events and are often imported from Texas.
According to Robert Hoskins, an independent Wyoming conservationist. "There is no scientific proof that elk were the cause of last year's brucellosis outbreak and good circumstantial evidence that the cause was imported Corriente cattle. A year after that incident, we still have no published epidemiological report from APHIS. Is that not suspicious?" (quote from a BFC press release, 2008)

Now that MT is brucellosis free again it can export its cattle. Blood testing will continue in the 7 Yellowstone area counties for 6 months.

The billion $ industry continues. All the while wildlife suffer.

Montana is Brucellosis Free

Today, APHIS changed MT's status to "Class Free". There hasn't been a single case of brucellosis in cattle in the state since May 2008. Now, in order for MT to keep its status is for cattle to remain brucellosis free for 12 months. Why then have the buffalo continued to be hazed and slaughtered?

Call with your comments to the director of APHIS Wildlife Services (WS) John Steuber 406-657-6464.

Currently MT has devoted 60 million acres for ranch and farms, yet there are less than 1 million people in the state!!

Some interesting facts I found on Montana WS State Report from 2008:

"All Montana livestock producers contribute funding to support WS’ livestock protection efforts through a State per capita tax."

"The MDL has given WS full authority to administer the Department’s aerial operations [now MT is copying Alaska] as a tool to protect livestock from predators such as coyotes and red foxes. In addition, the MTFWP has authorized WS to conduct wildlife damage management activities to protect agricultural resources in the state from big game species such as black bears
and mountain lions."

One thing interesting in this report there is NO mention of buffalo.

SB 337 Update

SB 337 doesn't allow the relocation of buffalo within the state of Montana.

Currently, there are 81 buffalo in quarentine due to breeding over the past few years. FWP, APHIS, and MTDOL are wanting to relocate 41 of the quarantined buffalo in April to the Eastern Shoshone Wind River Reservation in Wyoming. The other 40 might be relocated in 2010 to Fort Peck and Fort Belknap reservations of northeast Montana. The buffalo relocating to Fort Peck would be in "roaming distance" of the home of Sen. John Brenden, R-Scobey who supports SB 337.

Schweitzer's natural resources adviser, Mike Volesky, says the purpose of the relocation program was to create disease-free herds of buffalo. (yeh, out of 81? The current number of buffalo in Yellowstone-fewer than 3,000- already shows signs of inbreeding with twisted horns.)

Groups who do want to take the buffalo are being told by FWP they can have them on the condition that they go into quarentine (again) "for a few more years."

Montana doesn't want disease-free buffalo. They don't want buffalo period.

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2009/02/28/state/101st_090228_bison.txt

Call for end to USDA's wildlife killing agency

That's the title of an AP article I just found.
This is good news for wildlife and all of us who are sick and tired of the Department of Livestock slaughtering native species!

The article is from last week and states that "115 environmental groups signed onto a recent letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack urging him to abolish the U.S. Agriculture Department's Wildlife Services."

Currently tax payers are subsidizing a "$100 million program that kills more than 1 million wild animals annually, a program ranchers and farmers have defended for nearly a century as critical to protecting their livestock from predators."

Who oversees Wildlife Services? APHIS (surprise surprise)

What are some stats from this program? In 2007 121,524 carnivores were killed at the request of ranchers. As well as, "Hundreds of thousands of other animals, including ravens and raccoons, also are killed through the program." Black bears and endangered gray wolves are also among these according to the article.

Carol Bannerman, a spokeswoman for the USDA says that when they are given a request they review each individual project "and move ahead only if there would be no long-term negative impact on the environment." What does this mean? Like they haven't had a "long-term negative impact on the environment." The whole industry is a negative impact. They've been killing buffalo and wolves for 200 years to get land for their livestock.

As stated in 1874 by U.S. Representative Conger,
"They (buffalo) eat the grass. They trample upon the plains upon which our settlers desire to herd their cattle and their sheep. They range over the very pastures where the settlers keep their herds of cattle. They destroy the pasture."