And now:Sonja Keohane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Something that I think has been known for a long time...a quote
from the article below: "This isn't a disease management issue, it's a
battle for who will control public lands and public wildlife."
<http://www3.gomontana.com/>
Opinion.
By TODD WILKINSON
12/14/1998
Racicot mocks the public with his position on bison
You might think that Marc Racicot, the attorney who became Montana's
popular governor, would know better from his days in the courtroom:
It isn't ethical, politically prudent, or fair, to prosecute suspects
unless you know you have sufficient evidence to support a conviction.
Today, beyond the border of Yellowstone National Park, Montana Department
of Livestock cowboys, with the governor's endorsement in their saddlebags,
can carry out death sentences against Yellowstone bison when the animals'
guilt has never been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes, outraged citizens, here we go again: The state of Montana is
belligerently trying to draw the American public into a barroom brawl and
then, when the blood starts to spill, it will blame everyone, except
itself, for getting a black eye.
This winter, heavy snows could put many of Yellowstone's 2,000 bison on the
move to lower elevations in Montana. The hungry behemoths - among the most
beloved wildlife icons of our first national park - will then be either
hazed back into Yellowstone or they will face state-run capture and
slaughter.
The purpose of this foolhardy herd control is to prevent native park bison,
which carry the bacterium that causes brucellosis, from possibly infecting
non-native cattle.
In terms of evidence, Montana is relying upon hysteria, not science, to
make its case in the court of public opinion. Jeanne-Marie Souvigney, a
public land specialist with the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, has been
tracking the bison controversy for years.
Soon, state and federal agencies will announce a long-term bison management
plan based on an Environmental Impact Statement.
As Souvigney notes, 65,000 citizen comments were received on the draft EIS,
making it one of the most prominent American natural resource issues in
recent years.
"The majority of comments called upon the agencies to rightfully make room
for bison outside Yellowstone," Souvigney said. "This isn't a disease
management issue, it's a battle for who will control public lands and
public wildlife."
The state has no compelling evidence on which to base the slaughter of
2,000 park bison over the last decade or its present form of management,
she says, asking:
* Why is Montana slaughtering bison on U.S. Forest Service land at Horse
Butte near West Yellowstone when the nearest cattle are now dozens of miles
away?
* Why has the Forest Service, which is legally mandated to provide winter
range for wildlife, kowtowing to the Department of Livestock by allowing a
bison capture facility to be built at Horse Butte? Not only was there
fierce citizen opposition to construction of the $500,000 bison trap, but
activity at the capture facility could drive bald eagles - a federally
protected species - from using nearby nests.
* Why is Montana being allowed to destroy the integrity of the Yellowstone
bison herd on behalf of 2,000 head of cattle which inhabit private and
public land along the western and northern border of the national park?
Roughly 45 percent of the total cattle number mentioned above - many of
them from Idaho - use Forest Service grazing allotments which generate less
than $5,000 a year for the U.S. Treasury. Why are taxpayers being expected
to spend a hundred times that amount to control bison on the same public
lands?
Since Montana continues to operate bison management as a kangaroo court, I
enter into evidence the following exhibits.
Exhibit A: There is not one documented case of brucellosis being passed
from bison to cattle in the wild, not one. Yes, it's theoretically possible
that brucellosis could be passed on to cattle - as likely as humans getting
struck by lightning - but the risks are astronomically slim.
Exhibit B: We now know that the federal Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service - the agency which initially demanded that park bison be shot in
order for Montana to keep its "brucellosis-free status" - believes that
bison can be afforded far more leeway than in previous years, especially
along the west side of Yellowstone at Horse Butte.
That's because APHIS recognizes its earlier position was scientifically
unsupportable. Nor does it support threats of quarantine brought by other
states against Montana cattle if Montana tolerates wandering bison.
APHIS says there's no need to take preventative action against bison until
April, roughly 60 days before the first cattle arrive back at Horse Butte.
According to APHIS, the only animals that represent potential risks - in
addition to wandering elk which aren't even addressed - are pregnant bison
cows. Bison bulls, yearlings, calves and females which have already given
birth, should be left alone. So why aren't they?
Exhibit C: This is the most compelling evidence of all. Based on many years
of precedent in Jackson Hole, we already know that co-mingling of cattle
with brucellosis-positive elk and bison has not led to infection.
Why? Because Wyoming ranchers inoculate their cattle against brucellosis, a
practice that has been voluntarily adopted by Montana and Idaho ranchers.
Still, the state resorts to concocting a crisis that it must resolve with
bullets.
It's intriguing, governor Racicot, that you would embark on a nebulous
"foreign trade mission" to the Middle East to encourage peaceful resolution
of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but in your own backyard, you sanction
unjustified violence against Yellowstone bison.
"I find it ironic that Racicot would be praised nationally for inventing a
forum he calls 'Listening to America' when he refuses to heed the desires
of 65,000 American citizens on the bison issue," Souvigney says. "He isn't
listening. He's made a mockery of public opinion."
Todd Wilkinson's syndicated column appears in the Chronicle every week.
