Thoughts from the Middle of Nowhere

I had some thoughts and questions about the recent Brucellosis issue in Montana.

I was really wondering if the seven cows that tested positive were vaccinated for brucellosis? This was the case in Wyoming when they originally discovered cattle near the park had Brucellosis. It was in all ready vaccinated cattle. Yesterday evening I had the answer to this question delivered to me so it was a question no more. I've heard a little more about the situation from the proverbial horse's mouth. My source of information informs me that the cattle that tested positive were vaccinated against brucellosis. So this leads to another question, why the hell do we bother to vaccinate if the vaccine isn't very effective? I realize that there are quite a few people in Montana that don't vaccinate but there are a lot of people, including me, who do. Why do we bother if apparently the vaccine has a failure rate of 35%? Something to think about.

Another question, why is it necessary to destroy the whole herd of cattle for a few cows testing positive? This doesn't make a lot of sense. When they originally eradicated brucellosis in the state they took blood sample from all the cows and only destroyed those that tested positive or tested suspect twice. Why can't they do that here? Why not bleed all the cows and only destroy those who test positive? Wouldn't this make more sense than randomly destroying all the cows for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time? It sure would to me. The government doesn't look at it that way though. Killing them all is just easier. They are going to destroy this whole herd of cattle and the owner more than likely will get no compensation for it. They vaccinate their cattle for brucellosis and still will have to sacrifice them to the all powerful government because it is easier on them. This should change.

The cattle that tested positive for brucellosis had been in the Paradise Valley near Emigrant. According to the information I've heard, the cattle were a lot closer to Yellowstone National Park than Emigrant so it sounds to me like the reservoir of brucellosis infection that is Yellowstone National Park is more than likely to blame for this little outbreak we are now having. Whether this infection comes from the bison or the elk, I don't care. The problem is the reservoir of infection that is allowed to exist in the Greater Yellowstone Area. I don't have an answer on how to clear up the brucellosis problem in the park. Between the elk and the bison in the area, there are too many wild animals spread over too large of area to control. Ignoring the problem of the brucellosis infection in the Park will not make it go away. It just prolongs the problem and costs people like the ranchers who cattle are going to be destroyed a lot of money and heartache.

Question everything. Maria Mitchell

Updating the brucellosis story, comes this story which has some very interesting facts.

The cattle testing positive came originally from a herd near Emigrant which is located in Paradise Valley, South of Livingston. Paradise valley is a natural corridor for animals coming north out of Yellowstone Park.

The Governor Assures us the Brucellosis does not come from Bison out of Yellowstone Park. How can he be so sure of this? With this occurring in Paradise Valley it is very easy to imagine the bison could be at fault. Don't get me wrong, there could be a lot of explanations for how this happened but I would like to know how the Governor is so sure it's not the Bison.

The really scary thing, is that a second herd near Emigrant is also being tested and all it takes is two separate herds testing positive for brucellosis in a 12 month period for the brucellosis free status Montana has to be lost which could really hurt cattle producers. Om a quick personal level, this doesn't really affect me because the only animals I ship out that might be affected by testing are my dries and they are going straight to slaughter usually and don't need tested.

We are in a wait and see mode now about the second herd. Hopefully the tests are negative. This really highlights the concerns I have about the Federal Governments reservoir of Brucellosis they maintain in Yellowstone National Park. Why is it the they require me to control brucellosis in the animals under my control but they don't have to under animals under their control?

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. Benjamin Franklin

"For Yellowstone bison to be involved in the big picture of bison conservation, they've got to be brucellosis-free," said Tom Roffe, a wildlife veterinarian and biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. And that's why the animals here are being corralled and handled, poked and prodded.

Roffe has been pushing his agency for the past year to take a new approach to the way it manages the handful of bison herds on refuges around the West.

"We're just starting to broach that topic," he said. The goal is not specifically to create more bison, but to ensure their genetics are diverse and preserved, to keep the species healthy, to keep the options open if the time comes to open more land for bison.

For decades, people have called for restoring bison, for returning them to their natural role on the prairies. But the shaggy giants are never going to repopulate the American West, Roffe said. They'll never again wander from Texas to Montana and back.

There are just too many roads, fields and people now. But that doesn't mean there are no places for the bison, although those places haven't been identified yet. And if bison from the park are to play a part in any of that, they've got to be free of brucellosis.

I enjoyed this article. It's good to hear a federal official admit that Brucellosis is a factor in the Bison picture of Yellowstone Park. The Federal Government requires the states to control Brucellosis it is only right for the Federal Government to control the Brucellosis in the herds it controls.

You will note that what the article talks about is not a proposed solution to the Brucellosis problem in the park. It's to be used to get Brucellosis free Bison out of the park to other areas. I'm not opposed to this at all, it sounds like a decent plan. I do question where they want to start up new herds.

Are these areas where cattle do not run? If they want to keep the bison genetically pure, no cattle genes, how are they going to keep the bison from interbreeding with cattle. They are genetically similar enough to breed together. I've been told that the last bison in my area were hunted down for just this reason, they were breeding with the cattle.

This whole thing is interesting but the most interesting thing was the feds admitting that Brucellosis is a problem. It's nice to hear.

Hear reason, or she'll make you feel her. Benjamin Franklin

Animal Health Committee Asks USDA to Maintain Brucellosis Surveillance Program

Upon referral of a resolution from its Animal Health Committee – chaired by Missouri veterinarian Max Thornsberry – the R-CALF USA Board of Directors has adopted interim policy dealing with the continuance of the Brucellosis surveillance program. The organization also sent a formal letter to Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns that outlines the organization’s position.

“There is a significant problem with Brucellosis in elk and bison – particularly in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming – which is becoming a problem for independent cattle producers in those states, and potentially in adjacent states,” said Thornsberry, who also serves as R-CALF USA Vice President and Region VI Director.

The first part of the Animal Health Committee’s resolution states that R-CALF USA supports Brucellosis testing of bison in the Yellowstone Ecosystem in an effort to eradicate the disease, but Thornsberry emphasized brucellosis is not just an issue for Western states. On a recent trip to Central America, Thornsberry discovered that Brucellosis continues to be a problem for the cattle industry in those countries, as local veterinarians estimated the incidence of the disease to be above 10 percent of the population of breeding-age cattle in some areas.

I'm glad to see R-Calf taking a stand on this issue. There is a problem with Brucellosis in the elk and Bison population of Yellowstone Park and the Federal Government needs to get a handle on the issue. They require the States to control Brucellosis in their boundaries, it is only fair that the Feds control Brucellosis in their boundaries. Now lets all watch the Feds ignore the situation, they seem to be good at that.

When you take a stand out of deep conviction, people know. They may not even agree, but they ask, 'Do I want someone who is willing to take a hard stand and someone I can trust to do that when the chips are down?' They want that. Barbara Boxer

I found an interesting article out of Britain that seems to have lost something in translation.

The emptiness (of Montana) is populated by bison, buffalo and horses that seem to roam wild and look upon their human guests with gentle curiosity.

First off, I though bison and buffalo were the same critter, why are they listed as two separate critters here? Second thing about this statement is the fact that the stock of "wild" bison/buffalo is exceedingly sparse in Montana. That has to do with the Brucellosis issue and keeping Montana free from it. So where did this reporter see all these "wild" bison/buffalo?

Like a traveling circus the governor, his dog and Eric - the bedraggled right hand man - flew us to a place called Judith Gap.

Here in a sweeping valley framed by the Crazy Mountains, 90 giant wind turbines revolved lazily in the robust Montana wind, providing the state with all the electricity it needs - with plenty left over.

Now I know for a fact that my electricity doesn't come from the wind farm at Judith Gap and a little looking around informs me that the wind farm produces 180MW of power which is enough to supply approximately 50,000 households with electricity. Census figures show that there is over 365,000 households in Montana. So where does this reporter get the information that the Judith Gap wind farm is "providing the state with all the electricity it needs - with plenty left over?"

I know the British speak the English language But something was lost in translation here. I don't know where the breakdown was, but it is apparent.

I want my words to survive translation. I know when I write a book now I will have to go and spend three days being intensely interrogated by journalists in Denmark or wherever. Kazuo Ishiguro

UPDATE: I see in todays Billings Gazette that they list the Judith Gap wind farm at 135MW which is even less than I found making it even less likely to power Montana.

The bison skull design won. I am glad for that, that is the one I liked. The bison skull has a long tradition as a symbol in Montana, starting with C.M. Russell, and I think it displays well on the coin. The supporters of buffalo roaming free in Montana infecting cattle with Brucellosis might not like the image, they will say it just represents Montana's blood lust to kill all the bison, but they just need to get over themselves. Tradition is tradition and the symbol has tradition behind it.

Livestock groups turn up opposition to Schweitzer's bison plans

Two of the state's largest livestock groups are turning up their opposition to Gov. Brian Schweitzer's proposals regarding the management of bison that leave Yellowstone National Park each year.

The Montana Farm Bureau issued a new study that maintains the threat of the spread of the disease brucellosis to cattle is too great to allow bison any extra room to roam outside the park. And the Montana Stockgrowers Association separately issued a policy statement saying it opposes removing any cattle from areas outside the park to accommodate wandering bison.

The documents outline positions both groups have expressed previously. Members of those groups and others have concerns about allowing park bison to roam outside the park, for fear the animals could spread brucellosis to cattle and threaten the state's brucellosis-free status.

I am glad to see the Farm Bureau coming in on this issue like they are. I didn't expect it. The Stockgrowers doesn't surprise me, it's there job to protect Montana's livestock industry and that is what they are doing, protecting us from a proposal that could cost us a lot of money.

Losing the state's brucellosis-free status would cost the ranching industry somewhere between $4 million and $16 million in extra expenses, mostly for labor and disease testing, the Montana Farm Bureau report concludes.

In addition, because brucellosis carries such a stigma among ranchers, the presence of the disease could reduce cattle prices by somewhere between $5 million and $26 million, the report says.

Be truthful, if you were facing a proposal that had the potential to cast you this kind of money, you would oppose it to. If the Federal government would just do something about their animals carrying the disease, this wouldn't be a problem. Until the Federal Government owns up to the problem, we ranchers are faced with dealing with the situation. The funny thing is, the reason ranchers so fear Brucellosis, is what the Federal Government will do to us if it's found in the state.

So, they will punish us if it's in the state, but won't do anything about animals under their control who have the disease and have the potential to pass it to animals in the state. It's a catch-22. They're bound and determined to give us the disease but yet will punish us for having the disease around. The only solution? Keep the animals out of the state until the Federal Government fixes the problem either by fixing the Brucellosis laws or cleaning up the Brucellosis problem in their herd.

Everybody blames the ranchers for this problem. People need to look at the Federal government avoiding the issue as the problem. If the Feds would work on their end of the situation this would have a lot easier solution.

You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today. Abraham Lincoln

Governor's bison ideas irk ranchers"

If Montana continues its current approach to bison that leave Yellowstone National Park, eventually Brucellosis will be transmitted to cattle, according to Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

"I don't want to be the governor of Montana when we lose our Brucellosis-free status," Schweitzer said.

So, Schweitzer doesn't want to be the Governor that loses Montana's Brucellosis-free status. His solution so that it doesn't happen? Let more Brucellosis infected bison wander around in the state potentially spreading the disease. How is this going to accomplish anything but infect Montana cattle with Brucellosis. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE BRIAN. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth as usual.

I see a new proposal in this article that I have never seen before.

He has also suggested that a quarantine area could be set up for cattle outside Gardiner where cows would have to be tested for the disease as they enter and as they leave and would not be used for breeding in Montana or any other state.

So, set up a Brucellosis check station and confirm to all the world that Montana believes there is Brucellosis in the state. All this will accomplish is other states not accepting Montana cattle without being tested for Brucellosis. We will be Brucellosis-free state while at the same time, spending all the money for testing as if we weren't Brucellosis-free state. This accomplishes nothing and hurts the whole cattle industry in the state.

Another question, how is he going to make sure these cows aren't going to be used for breeding? Who made Schweitzer God and able to tell people with perfectly healthy cattle what they cannot do with them. I thought our government was supposed to protect private property, not confiscate it and tell us what we can and cannot do with it if there is no health risk associated with it.

The solution for this problem is for the Federal Government to acknowledge that they have a problem with their animals and to do something about it. That's not going to happen though. They require us private citizens to maintain a Brucellosis-free herd under penalty of law, but they don't have to follow that same requirement. Typical Government hypocrisy. Responsibility is the solution, to bad the government isn't responsible.

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. Ronald Reagan

Schweitzer explains bison ideas to ranchers

Gov. Brian Schweitzer is proposing an expanded bison hunt and payments to ranchers who remove their cattle from the Yellowstone National Park area, saying he won't "roll over for the federal government" and let Montana be put at risk of losing its prized brucellosis-free status.

I think letting Brucellosis infected bison wander around the state of Montana is a mistake. I'm in the minority here, I know, but the precedence involved by doing it could be bad. To protect the cattle industry the Governor wants to pay ranchers who run cattle near Yellowstone park to move their cattle. Where is the money for this to come from?

Schweitzer made clear that he wasn't talking about Montana "reaching into our pockets" to pay. He suggested the federal government take the money it would be spending on hazing and slaughtering and use it on annual payments to ranchers.

Since when does Schweitzer speak for the Federal Government and set policy for them? We can't get the Feds to do anything about the brucellosis problem and he thinks they are going to pay ranchers to move their cattle? Fat chance of that happening. The Feds don't care about people, just whatever policy they feel like following whether it hurts people or not.

Of course ask a rancher who is being asked to move his cattle and what response do you get?

Mike Manship, owner of Red Creek Ranch on Hebgen Lake, said bison should be placed in their natural environment in Eastern Montana or at least moved to public land somewhere.

Basically, "not in my backyard, put them somewhere else, anywhere else, where they won't bother me." I can't say that I blame him. So what's our Gov going to do if a rancher doesn't want to move his cattle so his "plan"might work? Seize the cattle through eminent domain and make him move them or just let the bison roam free and possible infect the cattle and cause the whole cattle industry in the state to be quarantined by the Federal Government? If the producers in the area aren't willing to do this the whole "scheme" that Schweitzer has dreamed up fails.

I will give the Governor that he is trying on this issue, this at least sounds a little better than his idea to kill all the bison in the park to eradicate the problem, but speaking for the ranchers in the area and the Federal Government when he has no authority to do so isn't real smart. By saying these things certain people will take them as gospel and think it's a done deal when it isn't. Oh well, that's our Gov for you, speak first and consider the consequences later.

Nothing dies harder than a bad idea. Julia Cameron

Isn't the decision those in power make just wonderful sometimes. The federal government tells ranchers they have to control brucellosis or face severe restrictions on their abilities to move cattle across state lines like our friends in Idaho and Wyoming recently found out. Yet Gov. Brian Schweitzer decides that letting possibly infected bison roam lose in the State and put our whole cattle industry at stake of severe restrictions from the Federal Government.

With agriculture being the number one industry in our state how smart is it to endanger a large part of that industry in such a callous way? Idaho and Wyoming have both discovered domestic cattle can get brucellosis from wild animals, are Montana's cattle somehow immune from this happening to them too? I don't think so. This might be a politically popular decision for someone to make who has Presidential ambitions but it is a poor decision to make for the state of Montana. Schweitzer needs to take care of our state first and not his and Sirota's political ambitions.

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. John Adams