APHIS brings sanctions against NW Wyoming Counties
While most of the controversy last winter was over the bison slaughter in Montana (an APHIS-initiated conflict, but one that Montana Governor Racicot's' gunners took up with enthusiasm once underway), APHIS has now turned its attention to Wyoming, where there are about 300 bison and perhaps 80,000 elk. The brucellosis infection rate in the elk is much higher than among the bison, quite possibly because of the elk concentration on winter range at the National Elk Refuge at Jackson and the various Wyoming Game and Fish elk feeding grounds throughout western Wyoming. It should be noted that elk infection rates are much lower in Montana and Idaho where the state wildlife departments do not feed elk.

The beginnings of the present conflict last winter
During the midst of the bison controversy last winter, which focused mostly on Montana, two states (Oregon and Alabama) unilaterally put sanctions on the shipment of Wyoming cattle to their states. The number of cattle involved was no big deal because very few Wyoming cattle are shipped to these two states, but it was symbolically very important. As a result, Wyoming agreed to submit to a "station review" by APHIS. A station review is a review of the status of brucellosis in the state.

The station review
Most ranchers in NW Wyoming (where lies Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and much adjacent scenic and wild outdoor country) have voluntarily vaccinated their cattle against brucellosis.  Perhaps, as a result (but perhaps not) there has only been one case of brucellosis in Wyoming livestock since the state achieved "brucellosis-free" status in 1985. Whether this one case (near Dubois, Wyoming) came from exposure to infected elk or bison remains an unsettled and controversial issue.

Wyoming was optimistic that it would get a clean bill of health from APHIS. Instead, last month APHIS said that Wyoming cattle from Teton, Park, Fremont, Sublette, Lincoln, and Hot Springs counties would have all have to be vaccinated, and, yet quarantined before shipment out of these counties. This imposes a big cost on cattle producers. This was the result they feared.

The APHIS report reeked of incompetence and factual error, even going so far as to say there were 320 free roaming bison living in Star Valley, Wyoming which hasn't had any free roaming bison for a hundred years. Further, while the report requires vaccination of the cattle, but any cattle that have already been vaccinated by conscientious ranchers might test "positive" for brucellosis. Seems like a Catch 22 to me.

Wyoming ranchers are very upset and Wyoming politicians are fumbling for a way to blame the federal government without blaming APHIS, a federal agency that traditionally escapes their wrath.

U.S. Senators Enzi and Thomas blame the National Park Service
One of the first reactions came from Wyoming's two senators. It was their traditional reaction -- blame the U.S. Park Service. They criticized the NPS for "failure to manage wildlife in the Parks." This mantra, repeated much last winter, seems to mean "they failed to kill most of the elk and bison in the national parks." In this case, however, facts intruded on the senators' knee-jerk reaction.

  1. The problem in Wyoming (if there really is an problem) is in the elk, not the bison. Brucellosis transmission is probably facilitated among elk by Wyoming Game and Fish's policy of feeding elk on their winter ranges. These winter feeding areas concentrate the elk. This makes the transmission of any infectious disease easier.
  2. A large portion of the elk in NW Wyoming do not use Yellowstone or Grand Teton National Park as their primary range.
  3. The hunted elk herds in most hunting units in most of NW Wyoming are above the size desired by Wyoming Game and Fish. Applying the senators traditional argument then would also indict a Wyoming governmental entity.
  4. There are lots of elk hunters in Wyoming and many ranchers make money outfitting for elk in the fall. The senators need to be careful not to incur their wrath.
Cattle producers relatively silent so far
The Wyoming Stockgrowers (except) sheep have been relatively silent. Wyoming cattle growers have not been able to come up with unified position, probably because it is not clear how federal bashing will aid their situation (APHIS is a federal agency). Most of the noise has come from the Wyoming Woolgrowers Association which wants Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer to "aggressively pursue litigation against the federal government for any and all monetary damages and harm to the Wyoming beef industry arising from the mismanagement of wildlife on federal lands within Wyoming." I sense a hidden agenda here. Note that this statement comes from the woolgrowers, not the cattle growers. Sheep do not get brucellosis. My guess is the present situation gives the woolgrowers a pretext to rail against the NPS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the hated wolf recovery and efforts by the U.S. Forest Service to assure environmental compliance in sheep grazing on Forest Service lands.

The state agriculture director has also weighed in and asked the governor to sue the Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to force them to do more to control this disease. I assume this means to kill lots of elk and bison or step up vaccinations of wildlife. The later is biologically risky.

Nevertheless, in response the Park Service says it is willing to vaccinate elk and bison if it can be done safely and effectively. However, efforts to create a safe and effective vaccine for bison have failed so far. Conventional wisdom is that elk can be vaccinated with about the same effectiveness as cattle, but this is now under question.  Wyoming Game and Fish is presently reviewing their records on the success of elk vaccination. The elk are vaccinated differently than cattle.  Cattle are injected. The elk are vaccinated using "bio-bullets".  The effectiveness of bio-bullets is not known. There is a great irony about vaccinating cattle . . . there are very few cases of brucellosis in the United States among humans -- about a hundred cases of undulant fever a year. Most of the cases of human brucellosis are among veterinarians who acquire it as they vaccinate cattle.

Some biologists and game managers are concerned that if the National Elk Refuge and/or the Park Service is pressured into use of vaccine on elk and bison prematurely, it might actually make these animals much more infectious than they are now. At the present, it is obvious that they are not very infectious. One final point, while brucellosis is a mild almost symptomless disease among elk and bison, it is 100% fatal in moose.  Were the elk and bison to be made artificially more infectious, it could wipe the moose in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem as well as infect cattle.


 by Ralph Maughan