SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REACHED IN STATE OF MONTANA V. UNITED STATES

November 6, 1995

In early November 1995, the State of Montana entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Government in response to a lawsuit filed by the State in January over the management of Yellowstone National Park (YNP) bison. The settlement mandates a revision in the existing interim bison management plan to permit, among other things, the capture, testing, and killing of Yellowstone bison near the western and northern borders of YNP.

Specifically, near the northern boundary of YNP, practically all bison, irrespective of sex or testing results, will be killed. On the west side, all pregnant bison, regardless of test results, and all test positive bison, regardless of sex, will be killed. Test negative, non-pregnant bison will be marked and released and will not be killed unless they roam onto private land. The settlement also sets aside three public land areas outside of YNP -- only one of which is regularly used by bison -- on which bison will not be tested, captured, or killed.

Bison who enter private land will be shot either by State and Federal officials or, as authorized by the State Legislature in 1994-95, by the landowner. On the northern border of YNP, where park land abuts land owned by the Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT), the capture facility will be established on YNP lands, theoretically eliminating bison use of CUT lands.

The settlement specifically authorizes these actions as an interim measure only until an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the long-range management of Yellowstone bison emigrating into Montana is completed. The settlement mandates that the EIS, which has been under preparation since 1989, be completed by July 1997.

The Fund for Animals believes that the settlement agreement, while preferred over a zero-tolerance policy which had been advocated by the Montana Department of Livestock, does not establish a bison management framework which is consistent with the scientific evidence regarding the potential transmission of Brucella abortus from bison to cattle under natural conditions. As a consequence, hundreds of bison will be killed with little to no scientific evidence to justify their slaughter. The Fund for Animals, therefore, opposes the settlement agreement in principle, while recognizing that the alternatives could have been worse.

Moreover, in regard to the slaughter of bison on private land, The Fund believes that those who reside near YNP and who benefit in so many ways from the spectacular scenery and wildlife which inhabit the area, must recognize that wildlife is part of the landscape, must assume the risks associated with wildlife, and must accept responsibility for tolerating wildlife on private lands.

While The Fund supports the provision in the settlement which permits test negative, non-pregnant bison to use public lands outside of YNP without being killed, this allowance, in comparison to bison management on public lands in previous years, is a step backwards. Between 1991 and 1995 bison who used public lands outside of YNP were, for the most part, left alone. Now, most of these animals, specifically the bison who traverse the western boundary of YNP, will be subjected to capture and testing before a determination is made as to the animal's use of public lands. The Fund believes that there should be no restrictions of bison use of public lands outside of YNP.

In addition to ignoring the scientific evidence regarding transmission risk, the settlement also fails to address the grooming of snowmobile trails -- a principal factor influencing bison population dynamics, distribution, and movement -- within YNP. These two issues -- the risk of bacteria transmission and snowmobile trail grooming -- were the principal issues that The Fund for Animals raised in its motion to intervene filed with the Court in May 1995. The Court has never ruled on the motion to intervene.

Among many other issues, the EIS, currently under preparation, must discuss the issue of transmission risk and the impact of snowmobile trail grooming on the bison population. The partial or complete closure of YNP to snowmobile use should be analyzed as an alternative in the EIS and would, if implemented, represent a significant step in resolving this issue. A failure to provide an adequate, honest, and scientifically valid discussion of the bacteria transmission risk and the role of snowmobile trail grooming on bison population dynamics, may result in litigation.

The scientific evidence collected to date demonstrates that the risk of Brucella abortus transmission from bison to cattle represents more of a perceived threat than an actual threat. Despite this, the livestock industry and state and federal agriculture agencies, have utilized a campaign based on fear, speculation, and paranoia to force the unnecessary destruction of Yellowstone bison who emigrate from YNP to protect livestock interests.

To summarize, the available evidence indicates that:

• There has never been a documented case of Brucella abortus transmission from bison to cattle under natural conditions.

• In cattle, Brucella abortus is primarily transmitted through susceptible animal contact with an infected aborted fetus, contaminated birthing materials, and/or contaminated forage.

• In bison, if the same transmission mechanism exists, the likelihood of transmission is extremely remote since, as indicated by the available evidence, bison do not experience abortions. Only four abortions have been documented in bison in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in the past 75 years. It is unknown if any, or all, of these abortions were the result of Brucella abortus infection.

• If transmission can occur, bison and cattle must occur in the same place at the same time, or the bacteria must persist long enough in the environment to result in exposure to a susceptible animal. No domestic cattle are maintained on public or private land near West Yellowstone from late October through early June, making the likelihood of bacteria transmission from bison to cattle in this area extremely remote. Furthermore, the available evidence suggests that the bacteria are killed within hours if in direct sunlight and non-freezing conditions -- conditions common in YNP in mid to late spring before cattle are returned to public grazing allotments.

• The blood test used on bison and cattle to determine whether an animal has been exposed to the bacteria, was designed principally for use on cattle. In cattle the blood test accurately predicts infection.

• In bison, the blood test does not accurately predict infection. Though approximately 50 percent of Yellowstone bison blood test positive for exposure to the bacteria, the available evidence indicates that only approximately 12 percent are infected. Moreover, according to the results of sampling conducted during the winter of 1991-92, less than one-half of one percent of Yellowstone bison were infectious.

• During the winter of 1991-92, tissue and blood samples were taken from 218 bison killed outside of YNP by State and Federal officials. Of these 218 animals, the bacteria could only be cultured from the tissues of 27; 19 males and 8 females. Since the primary route of bacteria transmission is through contact with an aborted, contaminated fetus and/or contaminated birthing materials, and based on the best available scientific evidence, the risk of male or bull bison transmitting the bacteria is virtually nonexistent. Of the 8 females, the bacteria could be cultured from the reproductive tract of only one, a non-reproductive yearling. Consequently, of the 218 bison sampled, not one, at the time of their death, were capable of transmitting the bacteria to cattle.

• Based on the data collected during the winter of 1991-92, The Fund for Animals estimated in the fall of 1994 that only a maximum of 38 pregnant bison, out of a estimated herd of 4,200 bison, could potentially be infectious. The actual number of infectious pregnant bison who may pose a risk to cattle, if any, is significantly less because not all infectious pregnant bison will leave YNP and few, if any, infectious pregnant bison will abort.

• An infected bison, one from whom the bacteria can be cultured from a tissue or organ, poses no risk of transmission unless it is infectious. An infectious bison -- primarily a female from whom the bacteria can be cultured from the reproductive tract -- may be able to expel the bacteria into the environment through an abortion or calving event. Considering biological, spatial, temporal, and epidemiological factors, however, the likelihood of an infectious bison expelling the bacteria resulting in infection in domestic cattle is extremely remote.

• The blood test, while inaccurate in predicting infection, is substantially more accurate in determining whether an animal has been exposed to the bacteria. A negative blood test nearly always indicative of an animal who is not infected.

• Even assuming that an infected bison can transmit the bacteria (which is not possible), since the blood test to be used to determine which bison live and which bison die is inaccurate, three out of every four bison who test blood positive, will be killed unnecessarily.

• All pregnant female bison, regardless of blood test results, will be killed. Since a negative test result is nearly always accurate, there is no justification for killing blood-test negative pregnant females. Assuming that a positive blood test is indicative of infection and/or infectiousness (it is not), it is, in fact, these blood-test negative animals who should not be killed if the objective is to eradicate the bacteria in bison. Though a negative animal may convert into a positive animal as pregnancy progresses, there is no evidence in YNP bison to substantiate this claim. Moreover, on the western side of YNP, a negative pregnant bison who converts into a positive animals as pregnancy progresses would pose no risk to cattle during the winter since no cattle are in the area.

• All blood-test positive bison will be killed. Since the principal route of bacteria transmission is through contact with an infected aborted fetus, male bison pose virtually no risk of transmission, if they pose any risk at all. The only way a male bison could transmit the bacteria is if he dribbled bacteria-laden sperm on land occupied by cattle and if enough of the bacteria persisted in the environment to cause infection in a susceptible animal. This prospect is so extremely remote that the killing of bull bison cannot be justified.

• Even if bacteria transmission between bison and cattle were possible, the lack of Brucella abortus caused abortion in YNP bison, the minute rate of infectiousness in YNP bison, the spatial and temporal relationship between cattle and bison, and the inability of the bacteria to persist for any extended amount of time in direct sunlight, do not justify the proposed capture, test, and slaughter program for any YNP bison.

| Return to Home Page |