You are here

Brucellosis Solution: Kill All Elk and Bison in Yellowstone National Park

Share

AN Oklahoma newspaper believes all of Yellowstone's elk and bison should be killed in the name of brucellosis eradication.

Here's a novel solution to the woes Montana's livestock industry suffers from elk and bison in Yellowstone National Park: Kill them all. Yup, that's the panacea being promoted by an Oklahoma newspaper.

In an editorial published Monday, the Norman Transcript says the slaughter of the park's elk and bison is a logical solution to the spread of brucellosis, which can cause infected cattle to abort their fetuses. While the newspaper's scribes say the domestic livestock industry has come close to eradicating the disease, it adds that "the biggest impediment to total eradication is the presence of disease in the elk and bison herds in Yellowstone Park."

"If these wild beasts were miraculously turned into cattle, privately owned, there is no doubt we collectively, would require that the herds be eradicated ... slaughtered. Matter of fact, the law would demand it."

And then there's this passage:

No one disputes the grandeur, tradition and emotional connection of these mighty beasts to the West, but they have now become sickened. Typhoid Marys of the Range. Beautiful Yellowstone Park now stands as a pustule disseminating disease like Old Faithful spewing its sulfurous water, every time an infected cow elk or buffalo drops an aborted fetus.

Now, the newspaper doesn't mention that domestic cattle transmitted brucellosis to the park's elk and bison in the first place. And it doesn't touch on the elk and bison in nearby Grand Teton National Park. Nor does it detail how such a killing program would be carried out. After all, many of the estimated 30,000 elk that summer in Yellowstone also disperse into the surrounding forests in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. How would anyone know when all the brucellosis-infected elk are dead?

Nor does the paper mention any cost estimates of such a slaughter, nor any that might involve keeping domestic cattle out of elk and bison grazing areas or tied to development of a workable vaccine. And the paper doesn't mention how, once all the elk and bison are killed and replaced with disease-free elk and bison, brucellosis would not be retransmitted to them from cattle.

No, without fretting the details the paper sees this solution as a no-brainer, a cure-all. Once the slaughter is complete, the park could be repopulated with healthy bison and elk, it says.

"So in 10 years or so, the USDA might be able to say with some credibility, that the United States is Brucellosis Free. And all of us would say, "It's about time." it concludes.

Comments

MRC,

Yes, I'm well aware of the Yosemite Valley infrastructure and Mammoth Hot Springs in Yellowstone. However, the European models I refer to operate on a much, much larger scale.

For instance, in Lake District National Park there are more than 42,000 year-round residents and nearly 23,000 "dwellings".

Kinda makes Yosemite Valley look like a backwater.


Kurt et al,

Europe's Green Belt Initiative concept is exciting and their website is a good resource; I look forward to reading more. Especially, they offer under Database > Publications, The Green Belt Book. Though of course centered on their particular project & setting, the book's table of contents sketches out a good start for others with similar aims.

I have to think that a crucial, perhaps the central element on which the success of such a project would depend & revolve, is to bring the human inhabitants of a region being considered as a biome-scale habitat or ecosystem preserve willingly & enthusiastically on-side. Furthermore, they will be powerful allies, if their fears are laid to rest and the future of their culture can be seen as secured.

Getting it right with the locals may well be Job One.

In the late 1990s, there was an intense & highly scientific public input process executed on the Olympic Peninsula to evaluate the proposal to reintroduce gray wolves at the Olympic National Park. This process was really quite extraordinary, and I never felt that the question, "Why was the process conducted in such an unusual way?", was realistically addressed. On the other hand, had that study been conducted to document the existing social & cultural bases of the communities surrounding the ONP on the OP ... then it would strike me as being much easier to understand.

I.e., if the wolf-idea was used as an excuse to study the locals, then it makes better sense.

(The methodology ensured that the resulting data was actually real, objective, scientific data, not a transcript of disputing viewpoints. In fact, many participants objected, because what they wanted was a better forum for engaging in dispute.)

There is of course a very old, now-marginalized but entrenched meme among preservationists, that the Olympic Peninsula offers our best hope for the protection of a complete, intact habitat. (As Kurt points out, even our biggest Parks were poorly-selected to serve as habitat; Yellowstone being Exhibit A.)

The wolf-study was thoroughly documented and is available. It dramatically emphasized the local's interpretation & impression of 'outsiders' attempting to make decisions for them, that affected them, without their own positions being important. Gaging & addressing this particular type of concern really seems like the core to a successful regional eco-preserve project ... and that's what they did here on Olympic Peninsula.

Congress had the study done. Was it a sign that they are thinking in terms of eco-regions?

As Kurt mentions, there are other settings in North America that suggest themselves as candidates for extended habitat protection projects.


Are you folks thinking like Y2Y, The North American Wildlands Network, Freedom to Roam and such?


Random Walker;

Yes! Thank you for the links!

YTY - the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative is an example mentioned by Kurt (he thought languishing). Their website looks nicely developed, with current news. I think there is extra potential for enlarged (and better) habitat preservation in the more-northern regions.

The North American Wildlands Network identifies itself as The Rewilding Institute. I have surfed into material referencing them: they are known & active. Their website is quite attractive, though it is 'content' (which I like) rather than 'community' oriented. Their front page has an intriguing sketch-map (down a ways) of the western USA, showing potential habitat enclaves with linkages between them.

Freedom to Roam's full identity is Patagonia Environmental Activism Campaign: Freedom to Roam. It appears to be a project of the Patagonia clothing corporation. A positive engagement, I'd say. Also a content-site.

The last 2 of these 3 appear focused on establishing linkages, green-belts or migration-ways between now-separated existing habitat enclaves ... or as Kurt refers to them, "islands". (I am about halfway through "Song of the Dodo")

The particular aspect that I and I think Kurt were considering is to establish policy over extended territories (rather than 'corridors'), even allowing for the inclusion of non-wilderness human presence & activities. By doing so, we can manage larger solid regions of terrain.

But the 'connector' idea promoted by these organizations certainly looks good. Many would plainly include human presence.


Lets do this in reverse; kill all of the cattle and raise buffalo and elk. I understand that their meat is better for us anyway. Ted Turner has been trying to convince us of this for years.


Bogator;

While writing an earlier response I considered including reference to "Cervid Wasting Disease", CWD. Looking at web-references about this, I saw mention of:

  • a Canadian national initiative to revive their formerly large deer etc wild game meat industry, and...
  • a reference to an eastern US State's imported deer meat & slaughter regulations, indicating the existence of a meaningful industry.

It is probably that we could follow your suggestion on a substantial scale.


Before anybody gets their shorts in a knot over this rare bacterial infection, consider the following:

Reservoirs include cattle, swine, goats, sheep, dogs and various wildlife species infected with the organism. Wildlife species found infected include bison, feral hogs, elk, caribou,
deer and coyotes. So maybe we should consider killing off all the sheep, goats, dogs and various other small mammals if we, as the article so eloquently states, intend to claim the continent as "disease free" within the coming 10 year period. Fat chance of either happening in our lifetime......

Brucella occurs worldwide, especially in Mediterranean countries, the Middle East countries, India, Central Asia and Latin America. Over 100 cases are reported in the
United States annually. From 1990-1996, five cases were confirmed in Ohio. Brucellosis infection in the United States is, for the most part, an occupational disease of stockyard,
farm, and slaughterhouse workers, butchers and veterinarians. Which makes this about as common and dangerous as West Nile Virus and Asian Bird Flu. Which by the
way are viral infections, and as such have no currently viable antidote, unlike the widely available and highly effective antibiotics for brucella.

The infection is usually contracted by handling livestock fetuses and afterbirth or by contact with vaginal secretions, blood, urine and carcasses of infected animals. Infection
can also be acquired by the ingestion of raw milk or unpasteurized cheese from infected cows, sheep and goats. Airborne spread of the bacteria has also been documented.
Transmission has occurred in the laboratory environment. Persons such as veterinarians, farmers and their assistants may be inadvertently inoculated with the Brucella organism
when using the brucellosis vaccine to vaccinate cattle. Person-to-person transmission has been reported but very rare. Anybody out there ever handled or even been near
a livestock afterbirth, vaginal secretion, blood or urine? I thought not......the airborne transmitted option is indeed possible, but by current counts, less than .001%
of human cases are thought to be traced to this vector.

I've been made sport of in the past for suggesting the methane component of cattle exhaust is more of a problem with the ozone layer than you give it credit for, and that by far the healthiest red meat, in terms of highest protein per gram and lowest cholesterol and overall fat content is buffalo meat. Which tastes far better than cattle meat also, but that's a personal opinion. Both bison and elk are far better health choices than is cow, healthier than both turkey and chicken. But here I go again taking on another long-standing special interest group and their propaganda machine.

EAT BUFFALO.....REAL MEAT FOR REAL PEOPLE. Never again ask, "Where's the beef?"


Lone Hiker, if you're proposing a bison and elk roast, just name the date and location!


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.