And now:Sonja Keohane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I am passing along the entire article from the Bozeman Chronicle
because it give a clear explanation for MDOLs rejection of the APHIS
definition of "low risk".
As you can see Racicot and MDOL want "financial" assurances from
the federal government. In addition Racicot says: "He also maintained
that the existing DOL policy gives his office considerable flexibility in
dealing with bison."
This, imo, is the bottom line...MDOL wants to take orders from no
one and wants to continue to set policy on the use of public land.
<http://www.gomontana.com/index.shtml>
By SCOTT McMILLION Chronicle Staff Writer
01/22/1999
State stands firm on bison policy
HELENA -- The Montana Board of Livestock on Thursday rebuffed a federal
request to soften its bison policy, saying the federal plan has been
rejected before and it contains nothing new.
The decision means Montana's controversial bison policy, which states
little tolerance for free bison, will continue in the West Yellowstone
area.
The federal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services earlier this month
urged DOL to re-examine its policy for bison that leave Yellowstone
National Park's western border in search of food.
The agencies have different definitions of what is considered a "low-risk"
bison in terms of the potential for transmitting the disease brucellosis to
cattle.
APHIS in November 1997 defined low-risk bison as bulls, calves, nonpregnant
females and females that have completely passed a placenta. It said those
animals could be allowed to wander the West Yellowstone area, where there
are no cattle, until 60 days before the cows return on June 15. Such
tolerance would not endanger the state's brucellosis-free status for
cattle, according to APHIS.
DOL defines a low-risk bison as one that is not pregnant and has tested
negative for exposure to brucellosis, which means virtually all bison are
considered high risk and are shot, slaughtered or hazed back into the park.
On Jan. 8, APHIS spokesman Patrick Collins urged DOL to look again at the
APHIS policy. That is the same day DOL first trapped bison this year.
State veterinarian Arnold Gertonson said at the time he would take up the
matter at the Board of Livestock meeting.
However, he said Thursday that he had previously believed APHIS was
amending its low-risk definition and the changes were what he planned to
bring to the board.
But since there have been no changes, there was little for the board to
discuss.
"Nothing new has been presented to me at this time," Gertonson told the
board. "If there was something new I would bring it to you for your
consideration."
"I guess there's no new developments on that," board chairman John Paugh
said before moving on to other business. "We're at the same place we've
been at."
Bison advocates said they were disappointed but not surprised by the
board's actions.
Adopting the APHIS policy would mean fewer dead bison, said Michael Scott
of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition.
"It's a little perplexing to us that the state continues to reject that
suggestion," Scott said. "APHIS is the national agency responsible for
ensuring the health of the nation's livestock. There's not one (beef) cow
in the entire Hebgen Basin, so there's nothing there to be threatened."
In a letter explaining the decision to Gov. Marc Racicot, DOL acting
executive officer Marc Bridges said DOL wants one of two things to happen
before it will adopt the APHIS definition.
One, APHIS must guarantee to pay Montana's expenses if any state imposes
sanctions on Montana beef because of the brucellosis policy.
Two, the U.S. Animal Health Association, the professional society of state
veterinarians -- all of which have the power to restrict imports into their
state -- must give formal approval to the APHIS definition. At its 1998
fall meeting, that group voted to "strongly oppose" it, Bridges said.
He also maintained that the existing DOL policy gives his office
considerable flexibility in dealing with bison.
Last spring, over 300 bison were out of the park in the Horse Butte area
north of West Yellowstone, Bridges noted. Almost all were untested, but
none were shot or trapped. Rather, they were hazed back into the park after
spring thaw exposed enough greening grasses to hold the animals there.
Under strict application of the APHIS definition, some of those animals
would have been killed, he said.
Rob Tierney, a DOL supervisor in charge of bison operations, said he
expects construction to begin next week on a second bison trap in the West
Yellowstone area.
That trap will stand on public land. An older trap stands nearby on private
land and has captured 19 bison so far this winter.
Of those animals, 13 tested positive for brucellosis and were shipped to
slaughter. Twelve of them were bulls.
About 25 bison are now outside the park, Tierney said.
----end of article----
