BEFORE THE
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PARKS, HISTORIC
PRESERVATION, AND RECREATION
ON S. 745
My name is D.J. Schubert. I graduated from Arizona State University with a bachelor of science degree in Wildlife Biology in December 1983. I am employed as a wildlife biologist with the public interest law firm of Meyer & Glitzenstein in Washington, DC. I appreciate and thank Chairman Campbell and the members of the Subcommittee for an opportunity to testify on behalf of The Fund for Animals, Defenders of Wildlife, The Humane Society of the United States, Friends of Animals, the Jackson Hole Land Trust, and Partners in Parks (hereafter the "Bison Coalition"), representing a combined membership of over three million, on S. 745 today.
Since 1990, on behalf of The Fund for Animals, I have been intimately involved in the controversy surrounding the management of bison/cattle/elk/and brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA). (Footnote 1). I have spent an enormous amount of time engaged in efforts to stop the unnecessary killing of Yellowstone's bison.
Summary of S. 745:
S. 745 is an inappropriate and unnecessary response to a perceived threat of "disease" transmission between bison and cattle outside of Yellowstone National Park (YNP).
S. 745, if passed, would require the National Park Service to capture, test, slaughter or sterilize Brucella abortus exposed bison, quarantine non-exposed bison, and shoot any bison who could not be captured over a three year period with the intended objective of eradicating the Brucella abortus bacteria from Yellowstone's bison. Though sterilization of exposed bison is offered as an alternative to slaughter, the logistics and cost of conducting sterilizations efficiently and humanely on all exposed bison bulls, cows, and calves effectively prohibits the use of this alternative on all but a token number of bison. (Footnote 2).
S. 745 also mandates the National Park Service to maintain Yellowstone's bison population 500 animals below a maximum number to be defined by a team of range management scientists. Such a Congressionally dictated limit runs completely counter to the statutes, regulations, and policies governing Yellowstone National Park and bison management. Moreover, never before in history has Congress specifically dictated a population size limit for any species in any National Park.
While the Bison Coalition shares the concern of many over the pace of developing and implementing a management plan to define and appropriately address this perceived threat, it is adamantly opposed to S. 745 because it would:
History of Bison in America and in Yellowstone National Park:
Few examples of wildlife exploitation in America can surpass the massacre of American bison in terms of severity and cruelty. Within two short decades between 1865 and 1883, market hunters, government agents, and western settlers virtually wiped out America's wild bison herds, reducing their numbers from an estimated 60 million to only a few hundred. In one of the most deplorable chapters in American history, the U.S. Congress evidently believed that by exterminating the bison, it could gain control over Native Americans whose lives were so inextricae this risk, many industry and agency officials have clamored to conduct a test and slaughter program for bison inside of Yellowstone National Park. S. 745 would mandate the initiation of such a program.
There are two principal reasons why the livestock industry and its affiliated agencies may support S. 745. First, since the 1930s, there has been a state-federal campaign underway to eradicate brucellosis in America's domestic cattle herds. As progress has been substantial in achieving that goal, the state and federal livestock agencies have reinterpreted the goal of this program to apply to wildlife. As a consequence, these agencies are now strongly advocating the elimination of Brucella abortus from bison and elk in the GYA. For the most part, these agencies are not concerned about how this goal is achieved. S. 745, despite the lack of scientific evidence to justify its mandates, its drastic impacts and dangerous precedent, provides a mechanism to achieve this new goal.
Second, the livestock industry and its affiliated state and federal agencies are concerned that emigration by Brucella abortus exposed or infected Yellowstone bison may jeopardize the brucellosis-free status of GYA states, namely Montana and Wyoming. This status permits livestock producers to freely market their cattle without being subjected to testing requirements. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, in December 1994, threatened, without legal authority (Keiter and Froelicher 1993), to ree this risk, many industry and agency officials have clamored to conduct a test and slaughter program for bison inside of Yellowstone National Park. S. 745 would mandate the initiation of such a program.
There are two principal reasons why the livestock industry and its affiliated agencies may support S. 745. First, since the 1930s, there has been a state-federal campaign underway to eradicate brucellosis in America's domestic cattle herds. As progress has been substantial in achieving that goal, the state and federal livestock agencies have reinterpreted the goal of this program to apply to wildlife. As a consequence, these agencies are now strongly advocating the elimination of Brucella abortus from bison and elk in the GYA. For the most part, these agencies are not concerned about how this goal is achieved. S. 745, despite the lack of scientific evidence to justify its mandates, its drastic impacts and dangerous precedent, provides a mechanism to achieve this new goal.
Second, the livestock industry and its affiliated state and federal agencies are concerned that emigration by Brucella abortus exposed or infected Yellowstone bison may jeopardize the brucellosis-free status of GYA states, namely Montana and Wyoming. This status permits livestock producers to freely market their cattle without being subjected to testing requirements. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, in December 1994, threatened, without legal authority (Keiter and Froelicher 1993), to revoke Montana's brucellosis-free status based on the mere presence of Yellowstone bison in Montana. Moreover, the basis for this threat is inconsistent with the USDA's regulations and policies delineating the specific criteria necessary to rescind or downgrade a state's status, which clearly require that brucellosis be detected in domestic livestock. (Footnote 3).
The mere threat of losing this status provoked several states to impose testing restrictions on Montana cattle, Montana to file a lawsuit against the federal government (The State of Montana v. United States of America, No. CV 95-6-H-CCL (D. Montana Nov. 20, 1995) (Slip op.), and may have provided significant momentum for the preparation and introduction of S. 745.
Contrary to the unsubstantiated claims of livestock industry and agencies regarding the threat of bison to domestic cattle, the available scientific evidence demonstrates that the perceived risk that bison pose to cattle, if there is any risk at all, has been enormously exaggerated. If any risk exists, there are a number of actions that can be taken to further reduce the risk which are far less draconian, far less ecologically disruptive, and far more humane, than the "solution" dictated in S. 745. In short, though the livestock industry and agencies believe that Yellowstone bison pose a "problem" to domestic cattle, it is difficult, using the available evidence, to determine what precisely the "problem" is, let alone understand why a drastic Congressionally-mandated solution is appropriate or necessary.
SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN S. 745:
S. 745 is Inconsistent With the Intent of the Yellowstone National Park Enabling Legislation and the National Park Service Organic Act:
Yellowstone National Park, by its establishment act of March 1, 1872 (17 Stat. 32), was "dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people" and "for the preservation from injury or spoliation, of all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities or wonders ... and their retention in their natural condition."
In 1916, the National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et. seq.) was signed into law. In the Act, which supplements the Act establishing Yellowstone National Park, Congress established the National Park Service and charged it to "conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." (emphasis added)
Bison management in Yellowstone National Park has, as its goal, the maintenance of "a truly wild, free-ranging population subjected only to the influences of natural regulatory processes" (see Yellowstone Natural Park Natural Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment) This objective is unique in the United States as nearly all other population of bison are controlled by hunting or cropping, and are fenced.
S. 745, with its mandatory capture, test, slaughter or sterilize, or quarantine actions, is woefully inconsistent with these statutory and management principles governing Park and bison management.
S. 745 Would Nullify Ongoing Administrative Processes Which Will Result in a More Humane and Scientifically Sound Solution to this Issue in the Near Future:
Rather than requiring new, expensive, and detailed management actions, Congress should allow existing Congressional policy to be implemented by federal and state officials. Congress should resist the temptation of ordaining a particular management solution when individuals and agencies with specific expertise in bison and cattle management and brucellosis can more appropriately reach such solutions.
S. 745 would embroil Congress in future bison management decisions since a law can only be modified by additional Congressional action. We find it hard to believe that this Committee has the interest, time, or inclination to become, in effect, the official bison management agency -- yet that is precisely the micromanagement role into which S. 745 locks this Committee.
In any event, such a role is simply not necessary because two processes are already in operation to resolve the "problem."
Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee:
In July 1995, the governors of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior officially established the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee (GYIBC), through the completion of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Attached as Exhibit 1), for the express purpose of resolving this issue. The GYIBC is comprised of representative from federal (Footnote 4) and state agencies (Footnote 5) who are directly involved in wildlife and/or land management in the GYA. The goal of the GYIBC is to "protect and sustain the existing free-ranging elk and bison populations in the GYA and protect the public interests and economic viability of the livestock industry in the States of Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana." To accomplish this goal, the MOU delineates a set of objectives, including to "maintain numerically, biologically, and genetically viable elk and bison populations in appropriate areas within the GYA," "base brucellosis-related management recommendations and decisions on sound science and factual information while encouraging and integrating new advances and technology," and "plan for the elimination of Brucella abortus from the GYA by the year 2010."
Recently, at its February 1996 meeting in Bozeman, Montana, the GYIBC Executive Committee voted to prepare a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), on the eradication of brucellosis in the GYA. The scope of the proposed programmatic EIS is substantially broader than S. 745 as it should, if it complies with the requirements of NEPA, include a comprehensive and scientifically sound discussion of Brucella abortus in bison, elk, and cattle, the statutory and regulatory authority of the various state and federal agencies involved in this issue, and a thorough objective analysis of all reasonable alternatives for the resolution of this issue.
A draft task directive prepared by a working group of the GYIBC on this project reveals that what it refers to as an "adaptive management framework" is likely to be relied upon in resolving this issue. Such a framework is intended to be flexible and responsive to changes in technology and advances in scientific knowledge, ensuring the bison, elk, and cattle management under the programmatic EIS will always be consistent with the most up-to-date technology and science. The task directive indicates that the programmatic EIS can be completed within four years. Moreover, and perhaps most important, the GYIBC has properly elected to emphasize public participation in the programmatic EIS process. But if S. 745 is passed, no environmental impact analysis will be required and the public will be excluded from having any voice in the management of Yellowstone's bison.
While members of the Bison Coalition may not agree with all of the GYIBC decisions, its procedures, if it complies with the requirements of NEPA, would provide for an honest and open discussion of the relevant issues. Moreover, decisions made by the GYIBC, unlike decisions made by Congress, will not exclude the public from participating in the decision-making process. Unfortunately, passage of this legislation would significantly compromise the operation and existence of the GYIBC, probably causing its demise.
Because of the formation and operation of the GYIBC, this legislation is completely unnecessary. In addition, especially in light of the current emphasis on reducing the size and influence of the federal government, and in avoiding resource management decisions being dictated by Congress, this issue provides Congress with a golden opportunity to allow a federal-state entity to devise an appropriate solution. Congress can aid the GYIBC in accomplishing its mission, goals, and objectives by appropriating adequate funds to complete the necessary interim plans and studies to facilitate the preparation and completion of the programmatic EIS.
Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Long-Term Management of Yellowstone Bison in Montana:
In addition to the programmatic EIS process recently initiated by the GYIBC, a second EIS specifically focusing on the long-term management of Yellowstone bison emigrating into Montana is underway (hereafter the "Montana EIS"). The National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the State of Montana are responsible for the development of the Montana EIS. Though the preparation of this EIS has been slow, based on the Court approved settlement agreement in Montana v. United States of America, No. CV 95-6-H-CCL (D. Montana Nov. 20, 1995) (Slip op.), the final EIS is scheduled for completion by July 1997. Significant agency personnel time and funds have already been expended in preparing the EIS, all of which will be wasted should this legislation pass.
In addition, S. 745 would also short circuit the existing public participation process for the EIS, as is required under NEPA. Indeed, instead of providing the public an opportunity to participate in the decision-making and review process that is currently underway, the legislation would exclude environmental impact analysis entirely, including any opportunity for public input.
These processes (GYIBC and Montana EIS), if allowed to proceed, may ultimately define a solution to this issue which would likely be less draconian, more humane, more acceptable to the public, and more scientifically sound than the actions mandated in S. 745.
The Bison Coalition encourages Congress to resist the temptation to address this issue by attempting to legislate a perceived solution. Instead, we encourage them to allow the existing processes, which are already well underway, to continue. Such processes, if they comply with federal law, allow those with specific expertise and those interested members of the public to openly and objectively resolve the many complex biological, ecological, social, and legal factors that are relevant to this perceived conflict between bison and cattle.
Considering the unique value of Yellowstone National Park, and the scientific, aesthetic, historical, and cultural importance of the bison to Americans, excluding the public from participating in what, by law, is required to be a fair and objective decision-making process to determine an acceptable long-term resolution of the perceived conflict between bison and cattle is unfair, inappropriate, and contrary to the democratic principles upon which this country was built. If for no other reason, this legislation should be defeated.
S. 745 Would Result in the Unnecessary Killing of Thousands of Yellowstone National Park Bison Based on a Perceived but Baseless Threat of "Disease" Transmission to Domestic Cattle.
The actions mandated in S. 745 are based on a presumption, not supported by any valid scientific evidence, that the Brucella abortus bacteria can be readily and easily transmitted from bison to domestic cattle under natural conditions. This bacteria causes brucellosis in cattle. Its symptoms generally include spontaneous abortion of the first calf post-infection, a retained placenta, reduced milk production, and, in some cases, sterility.
Lack of Abortions in Yellowstone's Bison:
The available evidence demonstrates that few bison, unlike cattle, ever experience an abortion or display other symptoms consistent with brucellosis (Meyer and Meagher, 1995) (Attached as Exhibit 2) (Footnote 6). In fact, in more than 75 years, there have been only four abortions, not all of which were conclusively determined to be caused by Brucella abortus, recorded in bison who inhabit the GYA. (Footnote 7).
In addition to the virtually complete lack of abortions in Yellowstone bison, additional evidence demonstrates, contrary to the assertions by the livestock industry and agencies, that Brucella abortus behaves differently in bison verses cattle (Meyer and Meagher, 1995). This difference may be partially a result of the long-term (over 75 year) relationship between Yellowstone bison and Brucella abortus which has, according to some experts, permitted the vast majority of bison to develop an immunity to genital infection, including abortion (Pers. Comm. with Dr. Margaret Meyer, 1996). Infection may still be detected in some bison, but, according to the available evidence, in only very rare circumstances, will it be detected in the animal's genitalia.
In order for a bison to potentially transmit the bacteria to cattle, the bacteria must be present in the reproductive tract where it can be expelled in the event of an abortion or live birth. Transmission of the bacteria between cattle, and, theoretically, between bison and cattle is principally through oral ingestion of the bacteria by a susceptible animal as the result of contact with an aborted fetus, contaminated birth materials, or, through consumption of contaminated feed. For an infection to occur, however, enough of the bacteria have to persist under variable environmental conditions and be consumed by a susceptible animal.
Though research has shown that Brucella abortus can survive in a frozen state indefinitely, in direct sunlight the bacteria is killed within hours (Ferlicka, 1990). Moreover, due to the presence of a large number of mammalian and avian scavengers in the GYA, the likelihood that an aborted fetus, afterbirth, or a non-viable calf will persist for even a moderate amount of time is rare. Considering these factors, along with the rarity of abortions in Yellowstone bison, the risk of bacteria transmission is extraordinarily remote, if even possible. Not surprisingly, there has never been a documented case of B. abortus transmission between bison and domestic livestock under natural conditions.
Inaccuracy of the Testing Methodology to be Used to Determine the "Disease" Status of Captured Bison:
The available evidence demonstrates that the blood test, which was designed on and for domestic cattle, is not accurate in assessing the "disease" status of free-ranging bison.
Detection of the bacteria in bison is done through the use of blood and tissue testing. The blood test detects antibodies to the bacteria. A positive blood test on a bison means that the animal was exposed to the bacteria at some time in the animal's life. Sampling of Yellowstone bison for the past several decades has revealed that approximately 50 percent of Yellowstone's bison have been exposed to the bacteria.
While there is a high correlation between bacteria exposure and infection in cattle, no such correlation exists in bison (Meyer and Meagher 1995). A positive blood test in bison does not demonstrate whether the animal is infected or infectious.
Infection is principally determined through the culture of the bacteria from an animal's tissues (i.e. lymph nodes, reproductive tract, organs) (Meyer 1992). Culture data from bison sampling conducted during the winter of 1991/92 demonstrates that only approximately 12 percent of Yellowstone's bison culture positive to the bacteria in any tissue.
An infected animal, however, may not be infectious (i.e. capable of expelling the bacteria at the time of death) unless the bacteria can be cultured from the reproductive tract. Based on the results from the 1991/92 sampling effort, the bacteria could be cultured from the reproductive tract of only one female bison (< .5 percent) of the 218 bison sampled.
Risk of Bacteria Transmission:
Though the lack of abortions in Yellowstone's bison reveals an insignificant risk of bacteria transmission to domestic cattle, sampling data collected on bison killed during the winter of 1991/92 provides additional evidence of the minuscule risk.
Of the 218 bison killed during the winter of 1991/92 from whom blood and tissue samples were removed for analysis, the bacteria was only cultured from the tissues of 27 bison. Of these 27, 19 were males for whom there is no evidence demonstrating a risk of transmission under natural conditions (Williams et al., In Press) (Footnote 8). Of the 8 remaining female bison, the bacteria was only cultured from the reproductive tract of one animal, a non-reproductive yearling. Therefore, of the 218 bison sampled, not one was determined to be capable of transmitting the bacteria at the time of death.
Using the percentage of infected female bison obtained from the 1991/92 testing results, and estimates of the sex and age breakdown of the Yellowstone bison herd in the fall of 1994, Schubert et al. (In Press) determined that a maximum of 38 Yellowstone bison out of a herd estimated to number 4,200 at that time were potentially infectious. This was a maximum estimate because not all 38 bison were likely to emigrate from Yellowstone National Park during any one winter and virtually none of those who do emigrate will abort. In reality, considering these limitations, the number of infectious bison in Yellowstone is probably close to zero.
Based on these results, thousands of bison will be killed unnecessarily if S. 745 is passed. Moreover, these results clearly reveal that the fear attributed to the potential threat of bacteria transmission from bison to cattle under natural conditions has been greatly exaggerated by the livestock industry and its affiliated state and federal agencies.
Despite the vanishingly small risk of transmission, S. 745 will mandate the extermination of the bacteria at great financial, ecological, and humane cost. However, due to the potential for reexposure to the bacteria through bison association with exposed and infected elk, the objective of S. 745 may not even be attainable. While the percentage of free-ranging, Yellowstone elk known to be exposed to the bacteria is only one to two percent, compared to nearly fifty percent of the bison, the larger number of elk in comparison to bison would suggest that elk, purely from a disease perspective, pose at least as great a threat to domestic livestock as bison (Dobson and Meagher, In Press). (Footnote 9). The legislation, however, does not address the risk of elk transmission, presumably because it has not received the same level of publicity as the bison "problem," and because of the public outcry that would ensue from the proposed decimation of even more of Yellowstone's wildlife.
S. 745 would cause the near decimation of the Yellowstone bison herd, including the extermination of a reproductively and genetically viable bison population for an extended period of time.
The combination of test and slaughter, sterilization, and quarantine will, in short order, practically exterminate Yellowstone's bison herd. Indeed, even if a token number of sterilized bison are allowed to remain in the Park, S. 745 would result in the complete extermination of a reproductively and genetically viable Park bison population.
Moreover, as a consequence of the rigorous testing criteria in the quarantine protocol, depending on the individual bison, the duration of quarantine may last 6 months to several years. Even if quarantined bison are eventually released back into the Park, it will take years before a reproductively viable population of bison exists in Yellowstone. A genetically viable herd of Yellowstone bison, however, may never be reestablished due to the substantial loss of unique genetic stock as a result of the slaughter of thousands of Yellowstone bison.
S. 745 Would Result in the Quarantining of Thousands of Yellowstone Bison at Great Cost, for an Extended Time, Yet With no Guarantee of Success.
S. 745 mandates that captured, non-exposed bison be maintained in a quarantine facility until they can be designated as free of Brucella abortus. The proposed amendment to S. 745 recently introduced by Senator Burns specifies that the quarantine protocol to be followed is to be established by the Secretary of Agriculture in consultation with the State Veterinarians and the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee. This draft protocol permits the construction of a quarantine facility in Grand Teton or Yellowstone National Park or within the States of Wyoming, Idaho, or Montana. Moreover, the protocol establishes different quarantine criteria for bison of different ages, sex, and pregnancy status.
Under the protocol, the absolutely shortest duration of time that any bison can expect to spend in quarantine is six months. The longest duration of quarantine will probably exceed three years.
The cost of construction and operation (i.e. feed, water, veterinary care) of a quarantine facility to handle a large number of Yellowstone bison, including separate pastures for animals who fit the various age, sex, and pregnancy classifications outlined in the protocol, will be exorbitant and certainly not consistent with the level of risk. In addition, such a facility, regardless of where it is constructed, will result in substantial environmental impacts as a result of the concentration of a large number of animals for an extended period of time. Ironically, by concentrating bison in such a manner the quarantine facility will provide exactly the conditions that contribute to the spread Brucella abortus, tuberculosis, and other wildlife diseases. The quarantine of Yellowstone bison, therefore, may produce or aggravate hazards to the health of the bison, cattle, and the public that are otherwise insignificant.
Given the extended time bison are likely to spend in quarantine, the concentration of the animals while in quarantine, and the rigorous quarantine testing requirements, there is no guarantee that any bison will ever be released from quarantine for return to Yellowstone National Park.
Finally, while in quarantine, a vaccination program is intended to be used to increase bison resistance to the bacteria. At this time, however, there is no effective vaccine for bison. Studies on the efficacy of the standard cattle vaccine -- Strain 19 -- in bison were not successful. In fact, instead of preventing abortions, Strain 19 in bison appears to promote abortions. Safety and efficacy studies involving new vaccines, however, are ongoing.
S. 745 Would Inappropriately Dictate the Number of Bison to be Maintained in Yellowstone National Park:
S. 745 implies that the current bison population far exceeds the number Yellowstone National Park can support. The legislation requires the establishment of a team of range scientists -- individuals who are not likely to be knowledgeable about wildlife ecology or the statutes and regulations governing National Park management policy -- to determine the Park's appropriate carrying capacity for bison. The Park, after the bacteria is eradicated from the bison population, would be mandated to manage for 500 fewer bison than what the range scientists determine is an "acceptable" number.
The Bison Coalition does not know of any valid scientific evidence demonstrating that the number of bison who currently reside in Yellowstone National Park have caused significant, long-term damage to the range.
Moreover, considering that the Park management philosophy is one of natural regulation, it is inconsistent, from an ecological and biological perspective, to attempt to define a carrying capacity for bison or any other species.
S. 745 Would Cost Millions and Would Threaten the Public's Use and Enjoyment of Yellowstone National Park:
Despite the enormous mandates imposed on the National Park Service by S. 745, the bill does not appropriate additional funds to facilitate compliance. The logistical difficulties and financial cost associated with capturing, testing, slaughtering, or sterilizing blood test positive bison, establishing a quarantine facility for blood test negative bison, and shooting bison who are not tested, are enormous.
Considering the continued decline in appropriations for the operation and maintenance of America's National Parks, Yellowstone National Park does not have the funds necessary to satisfy the requirements of S. 745. Consequently, S. 745 would result in a decrease in visitor services in Yellowstone National Park, including reductions in law enforcement, medical services, nature interpretation and appreciation, and facilities management thereby compromising visitor use and enjoyment of Yellowstone National Park.
Bison Do Not Pose a Health Risk to Humans:
Attempts to deflect criticism of current bison management policies in Montana or promote support for the passage of S. 745 based on a public health argument are disingenuous. If anything, the passage of S. 745 would put more, not fewer, people in position to be exposed to the bacteria because so many bison will be slaughtered. There would be less risk if the bison were simply left alone.
Even if transmission to cattle were possible, only slaughterhouse workers would be in a position to possibly be exposed to the bacteria, yet even they would reduce the risk of exposure by employing techniques, such as using rubber gloves, to prevent exposure.
THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES TO FURTHER REDUCE THE ALREADY INSIGNIFICANT RISK OF BACTERIA TRANSMISSION:
The inappropriateness of one Congressionally-ordained "solution" is even more obvious in light of the existence of alternative ways of reducing the already insignificant risk of bacteria transmission by bison to cattle. All of these alternatives will presumably be studied as part of the National Environmental Policy Act processes discussed above.
Modify Winter Use Management Practices in Yellowstone National Park to Permit Natural Regulation of Bison Population:
Despite its purported natural regulation policy, Yellowstone National Park has facilitated snowmobile use by actively grooming snowmobile trails since 1970. These trails, according to Dr. Mary Meagher, the Park's own bison biologist, have provided energy efficient travel routes for bison during the winter, resulting in decreased winter kill, increased survival, and increased productivity among the Park's bison (Meagher 1993) (Footnote 10). These impacts, in turn, have led to changes in the movement and distribution of bison during the year. Dr. Meagher has estimated that snowmobile trail grooming in Yellowstone National Park may have resulted in a doubling of the Park bison population (Meagher 1994) (Attached as Exhibit 3).
Though other natural factors, such as climate, can also influence bison productivity, snowmobile use in the Park is the one factor which influences the size of the bison population which is directly under human control.
Greater regulation of snowmobile use of Yellowstone National Park would make emigration of bison from Yellowstone National Park more difficult and would: (1) reduce the size of the population through increased winter kill; (2) reduce the productivity of the bison population by increasing stress and decreasing energy reserves; and, (3) place less pressure on individual bison to emigrate from the Park in search of accessible food as the population size decreases. As a result, fewer bison would be likely to emigrate from the Park thereby reducing, even further, the already insignificant risk of bacteria transmission to domestic cattle. In addition, by more strictly regulating snowmobile use in Yellowstone, the National Park Service would reestablish natural regulation as a viable mechanism for the control of the size, distribution, and movement of the Yellowstone bison herd.
Modify Livestock Industry and Agency Management Practices:
This issue has been elevated to Congress because of the unsubstantiated concerns of the livestock industry and its affiliated state and federal agencies. The industry and agencies have, for all intents and purposes, manufactured a "problem" that only they believe is substantial. Despite their self-created crisis neither the industry nor the agencies have modified their practices or regulation to further minimize whatever insignificant risk exists, including:
S. 745 Must be Defeated to Protect Yellowstone National Park and Its Bison:
If this legislation passes, thousands of bison will die because of unsubstantiated fear and speculation generated by the livestock industry and its supporting agencies. Despite the inevitable bloodshed that would ensue from the legislation, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the actions imposed by it would prevent reinfection of the surviving bison from other animals, particularly elk, who may harbor the bacteria.
Simply put, the passage of S. 745 to resolve the perceived, yet completely unsubstantiated, conflict between bison and cattle outside of Yellowstone National Park is like using a bazooka to kill a flea. It is unnecessary. It is excessive. It is inhumane. And, its results would be ecologically disastrous.
If U.S. Congress intends to undo over 120 years of protection provided to Yellowstone National Park and to mandate that Yellowstone bison -- the descendants of the few survivors of the massive bison slaughters in the 1800s -- be managed like a herd of cattle, rather than as wild animals, for no valid or demonstrable reason, then this legislation should be passed. If, however, the U.S. Senate wants to retain Yellowstone National Park as the world's foremost national park and wants to protect Yellowstone's wildlife for the enjoyment of future generations, and recognize that the proposed "cure" embodied in this legislation is significantly worse than the perceived problem, then this legislation must be defeated.
Instead, Congress should permit the Montana EIS that is already underway and scheduled for completion in July 1997 to be concluded and the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee (GYIBC) to continue its efforts, including the preparation of a programmatic EIS on this issue.
Footnotes:
1. The Greater Yellowstone Area includes Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks, seven National Forest, three National Wildlife Refuges, and other federal, state, and private lands.
2. Sterilization of Yellowstone bison is completely contrary to the management policies of the National Park Service. Moreover, though some bison may be sterilized under this legislation to preserve a token number of bison for observation by Park visitors, ecological impacts will remain substantial.
3. Indeed, in Parker Land and Cattle Company v. United States of America, 796 F. Supp. 477 (D. Wyo. 1992), the Court ruled that the "Uniform methods and rules for brucellosis eradication, a policy statement of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), was intended to apply only to domestic livestock and could not be extended to cover wildlife under the control of the federal government." Id. at 478 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Court ruled that "Regulations contained in Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations do not apply to wildlife, as it would not be physically possible to regulate wildlife in accordance with those directives." Id. at 478.
4. Federal members of the GYIBC include the National Park Service, USDA/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest Service.
5. State members of the GYIBC include the State Veterinarians and officials of the state wildlife agencies of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho.
6. Technically, therefore, it is inaccurate to characterize Yellowstone bison as diseased or afflicted with brucellosis.
7. The annual productivity of the Yellowstone bison herd also suggests that abortions are extremely rare (Meyer and Meagher 1995).
8. Despite the complete lack of evidence, S. 745 would result in the destruction of a significant number of bull bison.
9. There also is evidence (Toman 1994) that elk who winter on the National Elk Refuge, where bacteria prevalence is high due to the concentrated conditions of elk in response to supplemental feeding, summer in Yellowstone National Park where they may come in contact with Yellowstone's bison.
10. In a February 28, 1996 news release (Attached as Exhibit 4) issued by the National Park Service it was reported that, for the first time in recorded history, three bull bison have wandered out of the southern entrance of Yellowstone National Park and have entered Grand Teton National Park. This migration, according to Grand Teton National Park biologist Steve Cain is "not natural, in that they almost certainly would not have occurred in the absence of plowed roads and groomed snowmobile trails."
Literature Cited:
Dobson, Andrew and Mary Meagher. In Press. The Population Dynamics of Brucellosis in the Yellowstone National Park.
Ferlicka, D. 1990. The Use of Time in Brucellosis Premises Decontamination. Montana Department of Livestock.
Keiter, Robert B., and P.H. Froelicher. 1993. Bison, Brucellosis, and Law in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Land and Water Law Review. University of Wyoming College of Law. Volume XXVIII, Number 1.
Meagher, Mary. Winter Recreation-Induced Changes in Bison Numbers and Distribution in Yellowstone National Park. DRAFT. 1993.
Meagher, Mary. In Press. Bison in the Greater Yellowstone Area: Status, Distribution, and Management. National Brucellosis Symposium. Jackson Hole, WY.
Meyer, Margaret. 1992. Brucella abortus in the Yellowstone National Park Bison Herd. Report to The Department of the Interior, Yellowstone National Park.
Meyer, Margaret and M. Meagher. 1995. Brucellosis in Free-Ranging Bison (Bison bison) in Yellowstone, Grand Teton, and Wood Buffalo National Parks: A Review. J. of Wildl. Diseases, 31 (4):579-598.
Schubert, D.J., A. Rutberg, and P. Knight. In Press. Brucella abortus in the Greater Yellowstone Area: The Animal Protection Perspective. National Brucellosis Symposium. Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
Toman, Tom L. et al. In Press. Elk in the Greater Yellowstone Area: Status and Management. National Brucellosis Symposium. Jackson Hole, WY.
Williams, Elizabeth, S.L. Cain, and D.S. Davis. In Press. Brucellosis: The Disease in Bison. National Brucellosis Symposium. Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
(A copy of any of the cited papers can be obtained by contacting D.J. Schubert at (202) 588-5206.)
Exhibit List:
Exhibit 1: Meyer, Margaret and M. Meagher. 1995. Brucellosis in Free-Ranging Bison (Bison bison) in Yellowstone, Grand Teton, and Wood Buffalo National Parks: A Review. J. of Wildl. Diseases, 31 (4):579-598.
Exhibit 2: Memorandum of Understanding establishing the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee.
Exhibit 3: Meagher, Mary. In Press. Bison in the Greater Yellowstone Area: Status, Distribution, and Management. National Brucellosis Symposium. Jackson Hole, WY.
Exhibit 4: February 28, 1996 National Park Service press release -- "Yellows