|
Brucellosis in Yellowstone National Park By Dr. Michael J. Gilsdorf Many of you already know me and therefore know that I have worked with the brucellosis eradication program for over 20 years. I have worked with the brucellosis problem in Yellowstone for the last five years. During that time, I have been the APHIS representative working with Yellowstone National Park officials, Forest Service and the State of Montana in developing a Bison Management Plan (BMP) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for bison movements. It has not been an easy task because each agency has different philosophies about handling animals, about brucellosis and they have different legislative mandates. It is important that you are aware of these activities because they are not just local issues. Studies have shown that cattle from these three States are shipped to more than 35 states which could impact your state if brucellosis was transmitted through exposed cattle. But even more importantly, decisions on which option to implement are based on PUBLIC COMMENT and support for an alternative. That means that your collective imput can make a difference! Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee (GYIBC) During the winter of 1988-1989, 569 bison were shot as they migrated out of Yellowstone National Park. The large public outcry over the shooting prompted the park to develop an Environmental Impact Statement/Bison Management Plan (EIS/BMP). It was anticipated that it would be completed in 1992. Scope of the EIS Purpose and Need - to develop a bison management plan (BMP) for nondomestic bison (Bison bison) in YNP and adjacent lands in the state of Montana. The plan accommodates the legal mandates of the involved agencies and the concerns of the public. Scope - This EIS/BMP only addresses the movement of bison moving into Montana. It does not address movement into Idaho or Wyoming and it does not address elk. Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register
in May, 1990 EIS PARTICIPANTS The National Park Service (NPS) U. S. Forest Service (USFS) Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) Montana Department of Livestock (MDL) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) __________________________________________________________________ The draft EIS was sent to participating agencies for comment in January, 1995. Agency responses were requested by February 28, 1995. The intent is to send the EIS out for public comment later this year. EIS ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 -
Alternative 2 -
Alternative 3 -
Alternative 4 -
Alternative 5 -
Alternative 6 -
Alternative 7 -
________________________________________________________________
Alternative 1 is the Preferred Alternative because it is the only one that addresses the mandates of all agencies. Criteria for a Preferred Alternative Addressing Agency Mandates The management plan will: 1. Address bison population management, including
control. (MFWP, MDL, NPS) Proposed BMA’s (These would involve regulation changes by APHIS) Horse Butte - an area within Gallatin National Forest on the west border of YNP. (See Figure ) Eagle Creek - an area within Gallatin National Forest on the North border of YNP, just east of the town of Gardiner, Montana. (See Figure ) Stephens Creek - an area within YNP’s northern border and on Gallatin National Forest land, just west of the town of Gardiner. (See Figure ) The proposed BMA’s are also possible sites for quarantine facilities. Restrictions: All bison management activities would occur in the BMA’s including managing for a very low-risk of brucellosis transmission. All bison entering the BMA would be captured and tested for brucellosis. All test-positive bison would be slaughtered. All test-negative bison would be eartagged and released back into the BMA, held in quarantine, or slaughtered to control bison numbers. Other controls include baiting, herding, hazing, limited fencing, or shooting. Bison would only be allowed to occupy the BMA’s during established dates (October to May). After that date they would be moved back into the park or slaughtered. Maintain a 30-day separation between bison leaving and cattle entering a nearby grazing allotment. A maximum number of bison would be specified annually for each BMA. Research activities could be conducted in the BMA’s. APHIS Response to Draft EIS "The EIS as presently constituted, focuses on
bison management practices and deals only tangentially with eradication of
brucellosis from the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem... the preferred
alternative should be revised to incorporate measures that will ultimately
lead to the elimination of brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone
area..." (This EIS does not adequately address eradication either
within YNP or from the GYA, which is part of the agreement signed by NPS,
FS and APHIS on January 10, 1995). The five agencies working on the EIS are not the only ones involved in trying to solve the problem. The Governors of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho initiated an effort for agencies to cooperatively work on a solution to the brucellosis problem in elk and bison of the GYA while protecting the livestock and wildlife of the area. They formed the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee. Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee The States of Wyoming, Idaho, Montana U.S. Department of Interior (NPS, FWS, BLM) U.S. Department of Agriculture (APHIS, FS) _________________________________________________________________
GYIBC OBJECTIVES Recognize state and federal authority Maintain viable elk and bison populations in the GYA Maintain States Brucellosis Free Status Eliminate brucellosis related risks Coordinate management activities Encourage research Seek Public involvement and communication Eliminate Brucella abortus from GYA by 2010 __________________________________________________________________ GYIBC A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was developed. However, because of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, USDA and USDI could not sign the MOU as written. The NPS rewrote the MOU and established the GYIBC as their advisory committee. The states became upset because they felt the federal government was taking over. Congress passed a the unfunded mandate bill into law which changed everything and allows the Federal government agencies to enter into intergovernmental groups like the GYIBC as originally drafted. Therefore, the MOU is being redrafted. __________________________________________________________________ Grand Teton Park also has brucellosis affected bison and they have drafted another Environmental Assessment for that bison herd. Grand Teton National Park Environmental Assessment (EA) Objectives To maintain a self sustaining population Native American Requests Native American tribes have requested live, sexually intact, YNP bison for breeding and religious purposes. USAHA passed a resolution establishing minimum requirements for a quarantine facility for YNP bison in a Class Free State. If approved, this facility would allow Native Americans to receive YNP bison without compromising the nations brucellosis transmission concerns and would allow the states to have an alternative to shooting bison as they leave YNP. It would involve changing APHIS regulations and the Brucellosis Eradication Uniform Methods and Rules. ___________________________________________________________________ Research Activities A new brucella vaccine is being evaluated. It was developed by Dr. Gerhardt Schurig at the Virginia Institute of Technology. It appears to be effective in cattle, elk and bison but does not interfere with diagnostic tests. RB51 Trials in Cattle, Bison and Elk are being conducted. APHIS is funding several of these trials in cooperation with Louisiana State University, North Dakota/Texas A&M and Wyoming Game and Fish. In addition, the Agricultural Research Service is also conducting trials in cattle and bison. There is a proposal to study live bison in Yellowstone National Park. The objectives of the study are to:
The YNP proposed study would utilize "knockdown collars" which are collars similar to ones currently being used in the park on other species. The collars have satellite and aircraft transmitters built in, as well as, an electronically controlled anesthetic syringe. A limited number of bison would be anesthetized and followed for several years. ___________________________________________________________________ Conclusions The scope of the current EIS involves only the movement of YNP bison into Montana. The scope of the GTNP EA involves bison only. No Environmental Assessments have been initiated for the GYA elk. When these documents are distributed for public comment, your comments are important!! A broader EIS will have to be completed before area wide eradication activities can begin. We have enough knowledge to eradicate the brucellosis from the GYA at this time. Current research activities will assist in further modifying brucellosis eradication procedures to address agency mandates for wildlife. Through cooperative activities, like the GYIBC, brucellosis will be eliminated from the GYA.
|
