Montana's proposed action would cause further harm to a majority of wild buffalo migrating in the Gardiner Basin. Wild bison would be harassed in winter range necessary for their survival, captured, tagged, crowded and confined into traps for extended periods - including during calving - fed hay in feedlot conditions worse than Wyoming's harmful elk feed grounds, vaccinated with a livestock vaccine that was never developed nor licensed for use in wild buffalo. Montana falsely claims that their proposed objective is to "maintain a wild, free-ranging population of bison." Their words and proposed action are incongruent. The government's language is intended to indoctrinate the public into accepting a gross contradiction of reality.
The environmentally preferred alternative is absent from this proposal. While it exists, it has been blatantly ignored by the government since 2000. This sensible alternative is overwhelmingly supported by the public and calls for managing wild buffalo as valued native wildlife, conservation of historic migration corridors, additional habitat acquisitions, and managing livestock where wildlife/livestock conflicts exist. This alternative has been ignored or rejected by Montana and other government agencies involved in the highly controversial Interagency Bison Management Plan since 2000, but it should be brought to the forefront and adopted immediately. (quoted from BFC website)
An agreement was made between state and federal agencies and American Indian tribes in MT to allow bison to roam North of Yellowstone. The area includes 75,000 acres within the Gardiner Basin. Sound to good to be true? There are catches of course...
Bison that move beyond the newly opened habitat and head north into the Paradise Valley will continue to be shot to protect livestock
"We need to get rid of 400 bison on an annual basis. Hunting is the most palatable option," Zaluski said.
Livestock Industry and Gov. B.S. have proposed a special hunting zone that would straddle the park's boundary, to make sure bison could be reached by hunters when mild winters allow bison to find food in park. Yellowstone Spokesman, Al Nash responded "No. Federal law prohibits hunting in Yellowstone National Park. Our job is to manage Yellowstone for the public according to federal law." (Manage it like Suzanne Lewis did? Rounding up bison and slaughtering them INSIDE Yellowstone.)
Bison fencing will be put up to keep bison in basin.
If you're in Gardiner April 14 a meeting will be held to explain the plan to the public.
I was talking with someone today about MT and the buffalo and I remembered this letter I wrote to Suzanne Lewis-YNP Superintendent in 2009. Here's a copy past from the email I received from Lewis.
Dear Ms. Vincent, Please see Superintendent Lewis' responses to your questions in red below. Thank you for your interest in Yellowstone National Park.
I have a few questions regarding how brucellosis is to be managed. First, the article states, "Lewis said federal researchers are expected to unveil later this year a new study looking at ways of remotely vaccinating bison against the disease. She said all entities in the debate should rally around developing better vaccines and better ways of administering them to wildlife." My question is, why administer it to bison when there has been no evidence of bison transmitting brucellosis to cattle especially when there are no cattle present in the areas the bison roam? This measure will indirectly lead to greater tolerance for bison on low elevation winter ranges in Montana (i.e., on areas outside the jurisdiction of the National Park Service), through reducing the seroprevalence of brucellosis in bison.
Under natural conditions, the risk of transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle is low (only because of our current management practices). The Interagency Bison Management Plan has committed human resources to keep cattle and bison separated, especially during the third trimester of pregnancy and through the end of the birthing season for bison. This measure virtually eliminates the probability of bison to cattle transmission of brucellosis. However, transmission of brucellosis from naturally infected captive bison to cattle has been documented in North Dakota on a range were bison and cattle commingled. Bison to cattle transmission has also been documented under experimental conditions when the two species were contained in pens at Texas A&M University. Bison to cattle transmission is a situation that Yellowstone bison managers can not allow to happen, but is quite likely if bison were to colonize currently vacant ranges outside the national park. Check out these publications for more details about bison to cattle brucellosis transmission:
Flagg, D. E. 1983. A case history of a brucellosis outbreak in a brucellosis free state which originated in bison. Proceedings of the U.S. Animal Health Association 87:171-172.
Davis, D. S., J. W. Templeton, T. A. Ficht, J. D. Williams, J. D. Kopec, and L. G. Adams. 1990. Brucella abortus in captive bison. I. Serology, bacteriology, pathogenesis and transmission to cattle. J. Wildlife Diseases 26 (3):360-371.
Davis, D. S., J. W. Templeton, T. A. Ficht, J. D. Williams, J. D. Kopec, and L. G. Adams. 1995. Response to the critique of brucellosis in captive bison. J. Wildl. Dis. 31 (1):111-114.
To probe even more of the details of interspecies transmission, read "Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area," by Norm Cheville and Dale McCullough, published by the National Academy Press in Washington D.C. You can read portions of the book at the National Academy of Sciences web site.
In order for the state partners to feel more secure about allowing more bison onto low elevation winter ranges in Montana, The NPS needs to make progress toward reducing the brucellosis prevalence in the bison (a part of the agreement settlement from 2000). The goal of a vaccination program would be to break the infection cycle and eventually reduce the impacts of this disease on our wild bison population. This in turn should open up more space for bison on low elevation areas that are outside our management jurisdiction.
The article states that you said the bison will not be 'rounded up and eliminated' in order to get rid of brucellosis. My next question is, then why have over 6,000 bison been slaughtered with 1,613 of those just this past winter?
The article states, 'Yellowstone ought to keep its bison herd to 3,000 animals.' 'Lewis said that number merely sets out how the animals will be managed; it does not require the park to limit the number of wild bison.' What do you mean by 'limit the number'? So far, they can't even reach 3,000 due to the slaughtering every year. Do you mean 'limit' as in lowest number that is allowed to live?
See the web sites listed above for information on the bison population. The current bison population estimate (June 2008) is approximately 2,800-2,900 animals.
I look forward to hearing back from you.
Sincerely,
Eva Vincent Descendant of former Acting Superintendent of Glacier National Park, Ray Vincent and of John Vincent a previous Foreman of Glacier National Park
Yellowstone Late Winter Estimate Shows 3,000 Bison
Yellowstone National Park recently completed a late winter bison population abundance estimate.
The population is estimated at 3,000 bison.
The aerial survey was difficult to conduct this year, due to low snowpack and the resulting bare patches of ground. These conditions are likely to have resulted in an underestimate of the population by as much as ten percent.
Fifty-six percent of the bison are in the Northern Range herd, with forty-four percent in the Central Interior herd.
Last year's late winter population estimate was 2,900 bison.
State licensed and tribal hunters removed four bison from the population this year. No other bison have been captured or shipped to slaughter, or otherwise removed from the population this winter. [What about the 87 that went to Ted Turner? Interesting that this was left out.]
This population estimate is used to inform adaptive management strategies under the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP). Specific management actions may be modified based on expected late winter population levels, as corroborated by the summer population estimate.
The IBMP is a cooperative plan designed to conserve a viable, wild bison population while protecting Montana's brucellosis-free status. [B.S.]
The five cooperating agencies operating under the IBMP are the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Montana Department of Livestock, and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
November 17 & 18 were the IBMP meetings to decide the fate of the last remaining genetically pure, continuously wild buffalo in this country. Below are the notes from these meetings written by Stephany Seay.
IBMP MEETING NOTES 1/17/09:
Three tribal representatives were at the table:
* ITBC - Christina Krocher
* Nez Perce - Brooklyn Baptise
* Confederated Salish & Kootenai - Tom McDonald
Good News First:
~AMP changes reflect there will be additional tolerance for bulls North of Duck Creek; expand suitable habitat for bull bison west of Cutler Lake and Cutler Meadow; expand suitable habitat for bull bison in the Maiden Baisen area off Little Trail Creek on east side of Yellowstone River (as outlined in IBMP Annual Report for 2008-2009 - see press release pasted below)
~ APHIS & Idaho Fish & Game want to study bull bison semen more closely to ensure the zero risk, and if that's what they find, bulls may be tolerated in Idaho.
*Adaptive Management / '09-'10 Operations:
~ DOL opened with expressing frustrating at "repeated breaches" of bison moving into Zone 3 via the South Side of the Madison River
~ Zaluski said that 250 on the Butte and 25 on the South Side ("flats" they called it) triggers breeches
~ DOL claims there's "no habitat" on the South Side (they forgot about the burn)
~ Zaluski proposed a change to the Adaptive Management Plan: NO BUFFALO ALLOWED on the South Side, or LIMIT the number of buffalo on Horse Butte
~ DOL wants to take immediate management actions if buffalo are on the south side: 1. Capture; 2. Haze back into Park; 3. Haze to Horse Butte
~ DOL claimed 13 "breaches" on the South Side last spring
"The bison did not behave like we hoped they would" ~ Mary Zaluski
~ Cattle arrived at Povah's on 6/17. Apparenty, he runs some cow/calf pairs, and also 200 steers (brucellosis proof livestock). He leases the land, so DOL says they "never know" what he'll have, since he's a private property owner and can pretty much do what he wants
~ Tierny and Zaluski claimed there were "a lot" of other producers affected by buffalo "breaching" into Zone 3, but they couldn't name any of the ranchers or places.
They proposed a change to the Adaptive Mangement Plan under 1.1 and 1.1A. to allow NO buffalo on the South Side. This was met with some resistance by Yellowstone and Gallatin.
~ "The triggers we've established are much too tolerant" ~ Marty Zaluski
~ Tierny kept expressing how difficult it is to haze bison from the south side and how much time, people and money it takes to continue to do it.
~ Suzanne Lewis and Mary Erickson were not in agreement with changing the plan to reflect zero buffalo on south side.
~ Lewis actually said that more habitat needs to be established outside the Park. Echoed, strongly, by P.J. White who really raised his voice for the buffalo this time.
~ Mary Erickson said that one year's worth of data is not enough to make such a significant change to AMP, and that if they don't allow buffalo on South Side, then that removes 1/2 of Zone 2
~ Everyone agreed they were in disagreement, and hence at a stalemate and would take it up again on Day 2 of the meetings.
~ Lewis and Erickson said that even though the agents may have had to work hard, there was NO THREAT OF TRANSMISSION with having buffalo on the South Side.
~ Erickson & Lwewis told the DOL that they already had the tools and authority in the AMP to deal with these "breaches" yet they chose not to use them. DOL response was very confusing, but they disagreed.
~ Both Nez Perce and Salish-Kootenai reps said that 1) one year of data is insigificant and should not be the catalyst for such suggested changes; 2) The DOL should be aware of the producers and what they are bringing on to the landscape if they want to make good decisions
Royal Teton Ranch:
~ Fencing will now only be around RTR office; County will not let them put fencing along county access road.
~ Cattle guards have been eliminated
~ There will be a fence along Cinnibar Road to West end of RTR
~ Fence built on north side, south side fence under construction
~ Fencing should be complete 1st week of December
~ Hazing would take place where fencing will now be absent
Lawsuits:
~ DOL: No new action on Stockgrowers' lawsuit
~ NPS: Being sued. It's with Dept. of Justice. 60 days to respond. Likely NPS and GNF will not be able to speak so freely while suit is in progress.
1. I missed that one 2. Wildlife agencies in GYA are standardizing elk protocall
3. Suport creating of research facilities
4. Ask USDA to commit resources to swine brucellosis (brucella suis)
5. Removal of brucella abortus from (bio-terror) select agent list (a long shot)
Public Comments:
* A rancher from Paradise Valley
* Jim Bailey, GWA
* Glenn Hockett, GWA
* Stephany Seay, BFC
* Matt Skokland, NRDC
* County Commissioner, Paradise Valley
* Rancher, Paradise Valley
11/18/09 ~ ROUND TWO:
'09-'10 Operating Procedures Continued
~ Compromise on AMP changes: DOL wants 15 buffalo only, and only 2 "breaches" are allowed, after which management actions will be triggered.
~ Erickson and Lewis saw no difference then in keeping the number at the current 30, if dates remain same and DOL has authority to take management actions
~ DOL would like agencies to consider a population reduction/cap on Horse Butte (250 too many)
~ Dates bison would be allowed to be on South Side would remain the same as in 2008 AMP
~ DOL wants access to GNF lands that are closed to snowmobiles for management and monitoring.
~ Erickson said that they already have access for management. DOL said they want it for monitoring.
(Randy, GNF biologist feels very strongly that this is a BAD idea as he knows tourists will follow those tracks and he said he would recommend against it)
~ Erickson said that this would be a modification of their travel plan restrictions (the only good thing they've done)
~ Tierny, DOL said that if they can't use snowmobiles, they'll "have no choice" but to bring out the helicopter
~ Lewis agreed that it may be possible that allowing "unlimited" bison on Horse Butte is creating a "spillover" to the South Side
~ DOL wants to monitor and define population CAP on Horse Butte
** By the end of this discussion it appears (but was not clear) that they would continue to allow 30 buffalo on the Southside, dates would stay the same, but after two "breaches" management action would be taken. I asked them to clairify during my comment time, but the agencies will not answer questions from "the audience" as they call us.
DOL Contacting GNF for Authorization in Operations:
~ Erickson wanted to strike language in the AMP that said the DOL will "make a reasonable attempt to contact a rep from USFS to" and make it read: "the DOL will obtain authorization for the use of motorized vehicles on NF roads."
~ DOL moaned that they need to be able to do what they want, when they need to, especially at Duck Creek.
~ Tierny reminded Mary Erickson more than once that DOL "is a law enforcement agency" (IS THAT TRUE??)
~ Randy, GNF biologist said that there is always someone available for them to call and there's never been a problem in the past.
~ DOL (Shane Grube and Tierny) continued to complain and moan
~ Language will be reworked to satisfy both GNF & DOL
Brucellosis:
~ Brucellosis prevalance study was dropped from the agenda
~ Brief mention of Brucellosis Concept Paper (comments through 12/04)
~ Montana's Brucellosis Action Plan "sunsets" in January 11
~ National Brucellosis Zone being discussed/developed
~ There is a Comment Period Open for the Brucellosis Survelience Area through 12/16 (I have no info on this currently)
Quarantine:
~ Very brief report about agencies considering placement of bison. NO MENTION was made that they were recommending they go to Turner!!
Public Comments:
~ Rancher from Paradise Valley
~ Another Rancher from Paradise Valley (Ranchers complained that they had no representation at the table!!!)
~ Glen Hockett, GWA
~ Matt Skokland, NRDC
~ Mike Pearson, GYC
~ Stephany Seay, BFC
~ MIKE MEASE!!!! Had the last and most beautiful-to-the-point words. :)
*NEXT MEETING: April 18 & 19 @ FWP in Bozeman
NEWS ARTICLES & IBMP Press Release:
11/18
Bison get more tolerance in Montana, but fix elusive (B.S.)
