# New brucellosis 'hot spots' found in Yellowstone area



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

New brucellosis 'hot spots' found in Yellowstone area
By Matthew Brown

Associated Press Writer

Updated: 04/24/2010 12:29:10 PM MDT

BILLINGS, Mont. » The animal disease brucellosis is emerging in new "hot spots" around Yellowstone National Park, according to new research that could complicate efforts to control transmissions of the disease to cattle.

Feeding grounds where food is left for elk as well as herds of bison inside the park have long been considered the main sources of brucellosis, which causes pregnant animals to abort their young.

But Paul Cross with the U.S. Geological Survey said a third source is now emerging: Blood tests indicate large elk herds living far from the feeding grounds have brucellosis exposure rates ranging from 10 percent to 30 percent.

That means containing the park's bison and getting rid of the feeding grounds might not be enough to stop brucellosis transmissions to cattle in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.

The Yellowstone region has an estimated 100,000 elk and is the nation's last reservoir for the disease. Over the last decade, cattle infections have appeared in all three states bordering the park.

"It's no longer appropriate to say bison and the supplemental feed grounds are the only sources of contamination," Cross said.

Cross was the lead author of a USGS study published online Friday by the Public Library of Science.

Co-authored by researchers from Wyoming Game and Fish, Montana State University and USGS, the study was based on more than 6,000 blood tests collected from Wyoming elk between 1991 and 2009.

Since the testing began, Cross said disease rates increased dramatically in two "hot spots" -- north of Dubois, Wyo. and northwest of Cody, Wyo. Both of those areas are far from the state's 23 artificial feeding grounds.

The study comes on the heels of another USGS report in March that found brucellosis rates on the rise across the region. Prevalence rates increased from between 0 percent and 7 percent in 1991-1992, to between 8 percent and 20 percent in 2006-2007.

Wyoming's feeding grounds were established decades ago to keep elk separate from cattle in the winter. By providing elk with a guaranteed food source, it was hoped they would not eat hay left out for cattle.

But the feeding grounds also facilitated the spread of disease.

Montana does not allow feeding grounds. Yet state veterinarian Marty Zaluski said the same problems result when large elk herds congregate on private lands off-limits to hunters.

Zaluski compared the trend with colds and other viruses that spread quickly through facilities such as day-care centers.

"You put any animals in close concentration, you're going to exacerbate these disease issues," he said.

Representatives of the cattle industry -- backed by members of the Montana Legislature -- have pushed for the state Livestock Department to take more control over elk management.

They argue that would be the only way to stem infections that can result in severe restrictions against out-of-state cattle exports.

Livestock officials so far have declined the calls to intervene, saying elk fall under the jurisdiction of Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks.

In Wyoming, wildlife managers have driven down brucellosis rates for elk in some areas through a pilot program to capture, test and kill disease-positive animals at three feeding grounds.

Where those efforts were successful, brucellosis exposure rates have dropped as low as 5 percent. That's versus 35 percent or more historically, said Brandon Scurlock with Wyoming Game and Fish.

Expanding the program across the region would carry a steep price tag.

The five-year pilot effort cost $1.3 million and removed 197 brucellosis-positive elk. That comes out to about $6,600 per animal.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I'm impressed you posted USGS research. 

I think it would be extremely expensive to control, but I think most of Yellowstone is bordered by federal land. If they created a buffer strip of about five miles it would cut costs. Of course for a few years they would need to keep cattle out of that area. It would be hard to convince ranchers who have the grazing rights and consider it "their land".


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman,

As usual you only look at things with your anti-landowner bias. A buffer strip has been tried in the past and as soon as the bison wandered into it they were shot. This brought howls of protest from the enviros who didn't want them killed. They wanted larger set backs and quarantines. They wanted the bison saved. Even if it means turning them from public property to private property.

BISON HEADED FOR TURNER RANCH

By Matthew Brown

Associated Press

Billings, Mont - Billionaire Ted Turner is getting 88 Yellowstone National Park bison from a faltering Montana program that was supposed to put the disease-free animals on public or tribal lands.

The animals were spared several years ago from a periodic slaughter of bison leaving Yellowstone because of worries about animal disease.

They now are in a joint federal-state quarantine compound in southern Montana's Paradise valley but could be moved to Turner's Montana ranch within weeks, state officials say.

Montana turned down requests from a Wyoming state park and at least two American Indian reservations that said they wanted some or all of the bison.

Turner will care for the animals for five years and in return, wants 75% of their offspring, an estimated 188 bison. He already owns more than 50,000 bison but wants the Yellowstone animals because of their pure genetics.

Montana would get an estimated 150 bison back.

Conservation groups, a group of tribes, and U.S. Departmment of Agriculture veterinarians had criticized the proposal because it privatizes public wildlife.

"There were a lot of people that wanted them on public lands. We're not ready," says Montana wildlife chief David Risley. "The Turner option, all it does is buy us time to come up with a long-term solution."

Guernsey State Park in Wyoming had sought 14 of the animals. Tribes on Montana's Fort Belkanp Indian Reservation and Fort Peck Indian Reservation also asked for some of the bison but were denied.

Turner had said that if some of the animals went to Wyoming, Montana would get fewer bison back because he needs a certain number to justify his expenses.

The bison will be kept on 12,000 acres on Turner's Flying D Ranch south of Bozeman.

The ranch already has about 4,500 commercial bison and thousands of elk that are hunted by paying clients and some members of the public.

Turner's representatives say the Yellowstone bison are too valuable to hunt and will be mixed with a herd being conserved on another ranch he owns in New Mexico.

Plainsman,

Turner said they are too valuable to "hunt." YEA RIGHT. You can bet at some point he is going to "hunt" them. In Montana.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Hey Dwight,

Now there's some typical gov economics for ya. They could depopulate those elk for the price of a bullet and replace with with bruc., tb, and cwd certified free farm elk for what, something less than $1000 a head. Hang in there dg, between the wolves and disease, they are going to need your elk yet. Gov/public management of anything is usually a wreck.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> I'm impressed you posted USGS research.
> 
> I think it would be extremely expensive to control, but I think most of Yellowstone is bordered by federal land. If they created a buffer strip of about five miles it would cut costs. Of course for a few years they would need to keep cattle out of that area. It would be hard to convince ranchers who have the grazing rights and consider it "their land".


Plainsman, without eradicating the disease, what good will a "buffer strip" do??? The diseased animals will simply move out your 5 miles and you still have the same problem correct? Unless you put up a fences to prevent this! :wink:


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

I agree with GST there should be a fence put up. SInce wild free roaming animals are expected to travel wherever they want and can't read trespassing signs the cost of the fence should be held to the ranchers that want to protect their cattle herds from wild animals. Why should the govt foot the bill to protect domesticated herds from wild free ranging herds?

I'm sure some enviro nut job group will have a complaint about the "natural migratory routes" of the elk and bison. The animals will adjust and the ranchers need to protect thier investments.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

My whole post just disappeared and when I went back to edit I edited swifts post, but I have it corrected now.

I'll try to construct mine.
DG just a little advise, when someone complements you don't dump on them.

Sorry, I'll have to clarify my first post. The five mile buffer I would kill everything inside of it, and if I had my way that would include wolves. I think Turner is interested in money not buffalo and what he does for the buffalo he does with visions of dollars dancing in his head. I also don't like the fact that a single individual is getting most of the benefit when hundreds of hunters could control populations within that five mile buffer.
Nope DG I am not against the landowners. The landowners in this case is the government, but I am not against the ranchers grazing it either, even if they are getting it at basement bargain prices. You see I think grazing is a good management tool when grazing is moderate. I would strictly enforce the animal unit month allotment for each grazing parcel, but I would let them graze.


----------

