[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL
PARK BISON
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
March 20, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-7
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-137 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)
512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202)512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Ken Calvert, California
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Chris Cannon, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Islands Jeff Flake, Arizona
Grace F. Napolitano, California Rick Renzi, Arizona
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Carolina
Jim Costa, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
George Miller, California Louie Gohmert, Texas
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Rob Bishop, Utah
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Dean Heller, Nevada
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Bill Sali, Idaho
Lois Capps, California Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel
Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman
ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Chris Cannon, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Islands Jeff Flake, Arizona
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Rick Renzi, Arizona
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Carolina
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Louie Gohmert, Texas
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Lois Capps, California Dean Heller, Nevada
Jay Inslee, Washington Bill Sali, Idaho
Mark Udall, Colorado Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 20, 2007................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 2
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 1
Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from
the State of West Virginia................................. 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Clifford, John, DVM, Deputy Administrator for Veterinary
Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.................................. 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Hagenbarth, Jim, Montana Stockgrowers Association............ 61
Prepared statement of.................................... 62
Kay, Dr. Charles E., Institute of Political Economy, Utah
State University........................................... 66
Prepared statement of.................................... 69
Nazzaro, Robin M., Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office......... 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Osher, Joshua, Coordinator, Buffalo Field Campaign........... 43
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Pacelle, Wayne, President and CEO, The Humane Society of the
United States.............................................. 55
Prepared statement of.................................... 57
Rehberg, Hon. Dennis R., a U.S. Representative in Congress
from the State of Montana.................................. 4
Schweitzer, Hon. Brian, Governor, State of Montana........... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Soukup, Michael, Associate Director, Natural Resources
Stewardship and Science, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Stevens, Tim, Yellowstone Program Manager, National Parks
Conservation Association................................... 50
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK BISON
----------
March 20, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Raul M.
Grijalva [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Bishop, Heller, Inslee,
Kind, and Rahall.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests
and Public Lands will come to order. This is an oversight
hearing on Yellowstone National Park Bison. First let me just
say I am pleased to welcome my colleagues and our distinguished
panelists to this oversight hearing on the Yellowstone Park
Bison. Many of our witnesses have traveled great distances, and
we appreciate their efforts.
It is a particular pleasure to welcome the Representative
from Montana as well as the Governor of Montana. Welcome. Their
passion and energy on behalf of their state are obvious, and
their perspectives are certainly welcome today.
Management of national parks often raises complicated
issues. Bison management in and around Yellowstone National
Park, however, continues to be more complicated than most
issues. It is the purpose of this oversight hearing, along with
a GAO review requested by Chairman Rahall to explore the
complexities of this issue so that we as policymakers can make
informed decisions as we go forward. Ultimately our goal should
be the same as those included in the interagency bison
management plan when it was first adopted in 2000.
Any legitimate threat of disease must be managed
effectively but of equal importance the slaughter of bison
needs to stop. The management plan--as it has been implemented
to date--appears to have achieved the former but not the
latter. That is one change that needs to occur. Effective
disease control and free-roaming bison are not mutually
exclusive. Given the enormous scientific and financial
resources of the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, along
with the resources and expertise of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho,
I am confident that bison and cattle can be managed in a way
that is not a death sentence for either species.
We look forward to our witnesses' insights regarding the
challenges we face in achieving these goals, and I would now
recognize Mr. Bishop for any opening statements he may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I
have to admit with the myriad of troubles that are besetting
the national parks and our forests and public lands, it is a
bit unsettling that we are devoting time today to readdress an
issue that has driven us much by politics as it is by science.
As it pertains to the management in the past of bison in
Yellowstone National Park, on several occasions members of the
Resources Committee have sought to prohibit the National Park
Service from actively managing the bison population in
Yellowstone by offering limitation amendments--which is the
absolutely worst form of legislative policy--on the ``must
pass'' appropriations bill.
Even with that being said, I look forward to listening to
today's witnesses. I appreciate Congressman Denny Rehberg being
here. As a rancher and former member of this committee and a
Representative of the State of Montana, he understands better
than anyone in Washington this issue and impact of the policies
which are being advocated by some of the witnesses here today
will have on the agriculture-dependent communities in his
district. If this Subcommittee is to give deference to anyone
when it comes to public lands issues, it should be Congressman
Rehberg.
It is also my privilege to welcome Dr. Charles Kay from
Utah State University. Among other things his testimony notes
the historical records of 20 different expeditions into
Yellowstone between 1835 and 1876. These are the expeditions
which reported seeing bison only three times, none of which
were in the present day boundaries of the Park itself. Dr. Kay
is a preeminent and well-recognized expert on the management
issues impacting Yellowstone National Park and similar park
property in Canada. He also happens to live in my district and
work in my district which is why I have to be really nice to
him. So I welcome Dr. Kay and thank him for being here.
I also appreciate Governor Schweitzer visiting us one more
time. I certainly hope you have a good lieutenant Governor back
there in Montana keeping the state running in your absence. I
appreciate you being here. In fact, the last time you were here
we noted how the western states--those 13 public land states in
the west--have about 50 percent of their land owned by the
Federal government.
I note that Montana has probably the best deal in the
bunch. You have only 28 percent of your land owned by the
Federal government as opposed to 70 in my state, 90 in Nevada.
You know you have the better opportunity of funding your
education, building your economy there. So I am going to be
interested to see how you play this good hand that has been
dealt to you up there in Montana as opposed to the rest of the
west.
It is interesting to note that Yellowstone National Park
comprises 2.2 million acres, and is larger than the combined
land area of the entire states of Delaware and Rhode Island,
and if that is not enough land area to manage the bison herd,
then we are never going to find a solution. I fear the issue of
bison leaving the Park is being used by some as a pretext to
expand the Park, acquire additional Federal lands for habitat
or control the already limited private property in the west.
Further, I can understand why the bison are leaving the
Park. Since the reintroduction of the wolf in the Park, an
animal which makes a pretty picture on the cover of brochures,
but when they take down and devour an animal, it is a gruesome
and brutal sight. If I were a bison, I would want to leave the
Park too.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that as part of today's hearing
we will look at ways in which we address the management issues
impacting Yellowstone National Park, such as controlling the
bison herd at a manageable level, protecting the grazing rights
of current permittees, assuring the multi use and accesses that
are available. Hopefully we can also rediscover what worked
historically in controlling the size of the herd and the
control of the disease itself.
We should also touch on the issue of elk, equally
problematic, and the issue of brucellosis control. We should
not use this hearing to advocate views espoused by fringe
groups but further we must not permit the bison herds of
Yellowstone to jeopardize the livelihood of local ranchers.
These ranchers rely on the public lands through grazing permits
to sustain their livestock. Ranchers are the real
environmentalists. They have to be to survive, and they may
indeed--as one will testify--be the only link to open space
preservation in the future. With that I thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I look forward to the witnesses.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. At this point let me
turn to the Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr.
Rahall, Mr. Chairman, for any opening comments he might have.
STATEMENT OF HON. NICK J. RAHALL, II, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva. I appreciate your
having these hearings today and allowing me the opportunity to
say a quick word. I believe we can all agree that the bison is
a symbol of America. Like the monuments on our National Mall or
like the dome of the Capitol, the bison is an American icon.
These magnificent beasts are woven into the fabric of our
culture, not to mention being sewn onto the fabric of every
uniform worm by an employee of the Department of Interior.
After a century of wanton slaughter, we have a small herd
in Yellowstone National Park, the last remaining example of the
pure bred, free-roaming bison left in this country. Is it any
wonder then that the American public periodically looks on in
horror at footage of employees of the U.S. Department of
Interior participating in the slaughter of Yellowstone bison?
The general public is under the impression that these
animals are being sheltered and protected by the Federal
government, not rounded up and shot, and the obvious question
is why? Why the Department of Interior is murdering its beloved
mascot? We are told that it is due to the threat of disease.
During the harsh winter months, bison migrate out of the
Yellowstone National Park to lower elevations in a desperate
attempt to avoid starving to death.
Once they leave the Park, we are told they can come into
contact with cattle grazing on public and private land, and
some of the bison may carry a disease which can be dangerous to
cows. But here is the critical point. Here is the critical
point. The transfer of this disease from bison to cattle has
never happened in the wild. Has never happened in the wild.
Never--and I rarely use that word never, if ever.
The slaughter of bison is not required in order to manage
the threat of disease. Slaughter is not management. It is an
approach from a bygone era, and has no place in a time of rapid
scientific and economic progress. We are capable of more
ingenuity and more compassion if we are willing to try. So that
is why once again today we welcome the Governor of the State of
Montana, Brian Schweitzer, before this committee, and I would
say to my colleague, Mr. Bishop, I think he can do two things
at once, and govern the state from here in Washington as
effectively as back home on the home front, and from him I look
forward to hearing bold initiatives to end the status quo.
Indeed during July of 2003, as has already been referenced
in statements made, I offered an amendment on the House Floor
to halt the National Park Service participation in the
slaughter. It was narrowly defeated during one of those
infamous votes under which the then Republican majority held
the vote open long enough until enough arms could be twisted to
change the initial outcome and to achieve the desired result of
that majority.
That vote was a harbinger of what will come. The status quo
is no longer sufficient. So I conclude by saying, Mr. Chairman,
it is my hope that through this oversight hearing you have
called today, along with the results of the GAO review that I
requested, we will move on to a new path, a path that values
both the bison and the cattle. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just remind
our three panels that testimony is limited to five minutes. Any
statement that you might have will be made part of the record
in its entirety, and with that let me welcome our colleague,
Mr. Rehberg. Congressman Rehberg, welcome, and if you would
like to begin your testimony at this point.
STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS REHBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Mr. Rehberg. I will, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
giving me the opportunity once more to appear before your
committee. If my leadership had given me the waiver that I had
asked for, I would be sitting on the dais with you, and I would
not have to keep asking permission to talk about the issues
that are so very important to Montana. To Mr. Bishop, thank you
as well for your kind remarks, and Mr. Rahall, thank you for
giving me one more opportunity to come in and tell you why you
are wrong.
I will suggest that the State of Montana is in good hands
when Governor Schweitzer is here because his Lieutenant
Governor is a Republican, and so we feel a lot more
comfortable. Sometimes I feel like I spend more time in Montana
than he does, and he is in Washington more than I but we will
move along to something that we think is very important in
Montana.
I sometimes jokingly say in Montana, do you know why the
Internet is so successful? Because the government has not
figured out how to screw it up yet. If you mess with this
memorandum of understanding, you will be screwing up a very
complex management opportunity to eradicate brucellosis and do
all the things that came together in a memorandum of
understanding that was signed by many government entities in
the year 2005.
What does the former Chairman of the Republican Party, Mark
Racicot, Bruce Babbitt and Dan Glickman have in common?
Probably not a lot but under the Clinton Administration, they
finally came to a 20-year decision to try and end the
bickering, try and end the lawsuits, try to end the emotional
outbursts that occurred from time to time, sometimes semi-
violent, by coming together with an understanding that
something needed to be done to try and manage the situation
having to do with the bison in Yellowstone Park.
Oftentimes I feel like there are those around the country
that see Montana through the eyes of either ``Blazing Saddles''
or ``A River Runs Through It'' but I can tell you it is very
difficult to manage natural resources, and as a result of that
difficulty it is also very emotional. You get the polarization
on both sides. That is what we had moving into the year 2000.
We had a lawsuit. We had a counter lawsuit. We had a
counter counter lawsuit. We had threats of violence and guts
being thrown on our former Governor, and ultimately we all came
to a very emotional decision that it was time to lay those
differences aside and come to an agreement. It was signed by
Dan Glickman of the Department of Agriculture, Bruce Babbitt of
the Department of Interior, and Mark Racicot, our Governor.
I am struck a little bit by the fact that missing from the
panels discussing today are the Native Americans who were a
major part of the decisions, and are a major part of the
management opportunities. This memorandum, this understanding
and this decision was a compromise that was agreed to by the
Courts as a result of Court-appointed mediation. This was not
something that was just thrown together to slaughter our bison.
What did it accomplish? It determined the size of the herd.
Now I hate to tell you but when you get a male buffalo and a
female buffalo together, you are going to have baby buffalo. It
is just a fact of natural life. Ultimately you have to make the
determination what is the carrying capacity for the betterment
and the health of the Park? Ultimately you will have too many
buffalo. There is no other way than to move those bison off
that Park, and ultimately there is a limitation on how many
buffalo that other tribes and entities can take. You are not
going to end the slaughter for practical reasons, for natural
reasons.
The second is defining a boundary line, making a
determination where do we want to limit the opportunity or the
ability for these bison to go? The third is public safety.
Little known fact. In the Center for Disease Control, anthrax
is number one. Brucellosis is number two. It is called undulant
fever in humans. You get it. You keep it. It never goes away.
Protection of private property. Fact of life: In America,
private property does still matter in spite of the feeling of
some people within the Federal government that it is just a
temporary holding spot for Federal property or Federal
purchase. Agency actions were supposed to have shown the
eventual elimination of brucellosis in Yellowstone Park.
Unfortunately for us with the actions of the continuing
resolution under the new Congress, one of the earmarks that was
lost to us was the continuing vaccine research at Montana State
University for brucellosis vaccine, something that I hope to
try and rectify in this upcoming budgetary process. Protection
of livestock. Make no mistake. Perhaps it has not been proven
that a cow has aborted as a result of brucellosis but it is a
fact they do. Because we are not out in nature, because we do
not watch the connection between the cattle and the bison does
not mean it does not exist. It is just that we have not seen it
occur.
It does cause spontaneous abortion in cattle, and the
brucellosis-free status of the State of Montana I cannot begin
to tell you the economic devastation that would occur to our
livestock industry, and to our economy, to the State of
Montana, if we were to in any way, shape or form jeopardize our
brucellosis-free status.
We had a problem in the year 1988 in Yellowstone Park. It
was called the let-it-burn policy. It was a failed experiment
by the Federal government to allow 75 percent of Yellowstone to
burn. A similar failed policy would be a let-them-roam-free-
outside-the-Park-in-a-diseased-state policy. It would be every
bit as folly as the let-it-burn policy.
I have got an answer. Why do you not fix your herd? If you
really want to do something for the bison, if it is the icon,
if you want to wear it on your shoulder, if you want to think
of Montana as the visions that you get with ``A River Runs
Through It,'' then do something about your herd.
Get in and fix it. Do not let diseased herds walk around
the Park because you would not allow us as livestock producers
to have infected herds in amongst your wildlife. You would not
let us overgraze your park and your Federal properties. Where
do we find the philosophy that allows the opportunity for your
diseased herd to overgraze our park, your diseased herd to move
into Montana, and I hope you will listen very seriously to the
ideas that the Governor has.
My final point in this record of decision that was signed
December 20, 2000. It suggests any actions of Congress not
having the broad support of various agencies and parties could
cause a major setback in the progress that has been made. This
could have a devastating impact on Yellowstone buffalo herd.
Any actions this Congress decides to take to try and undo
something that we think is technically sound and legally
defensible will have a major impact, and this is where we have
to decide, ladies and gentlemen, are we going to allow sound
science to manage our parks or are we going to allow political
science to manage our parks? I hope you find for the former.
Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. I appreciate
that, and let me just begin with a couple of general questions,
and you referenced the question that I am leading to is that
you referenced the interagency bison management plan that was
adopted in 2000, and the parties it appears to me clearly
anticipated that much or even all the private land within the
area covered by the plan would be acquired or at least any
grazing on the land would be bought out by the winter of 2002,
2003.
Seven years later that has not happened, and just for my
own edification, do you support that acquisition intent in the
management plan or at least the acquisition of grazing rights
so that the cattle would no longer be on the land right outside
the Park?
Mr. Rehberg. I think first you must look at the management
of the Park itself. Clearly as one of the people who does in
fact do this for a living, I believe in herding, I in fact have
a herd myself of 2,800 goats with a herder, and the reason I do
that is so that I could adequately and efficiently move the
herd around to where the grass is available, and adequately and
efficiently move it around to where the water is available.
Now we are not going to go into wholesale water development
within Yellowstone Park but I can tell you it is very poorly
managed as far as the grazing components of those grazing
animals, whether they are elk or bison. You do not have the
ability in the wildlife situation to necessarily herd animals
such as wolves and elk but it is a lot easier to have the
ability to herd bison. I think you should actively look at that
before you start the wholesale purchase of private property or
the elimination from the grazing opportunities for those lands
that surround the park.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Bishop, any
questions or any other members of the Committee have any
question for the Congressman? OK. Congressman, you are welcome
to join us here at the dais for the rest of the hearing.
Mr. Rehberg. I will do that, and I thank you very much.
Mr. Grijalva. Call the next panel, please.
[Pause.]
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, and let me begin this
panel with our distinguished guest to provide his perspective
to the Committee on this very important question, the Governor
of the State of Montana, Governor Schweitzer. Please.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRIAN SCHWEITZER,
GOVERNOR, STATE OF MONTANA
Governor Schweitzer. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bishop,
it is nice to ride with you on the airplane from Salt Lake
City. As you know when you leave Montana, you either go through
Salt Lake or Minneapolis, and Salt Lake is usually the way that
I go. So we leave a little money behind.
Mr. Bishop. We appreciate you coming through Salt Lake.
Governor Schweitzer. And Mr. Chairman Rahall, it is good to
be back. Thank you for inviting me in.
Mr. Rahall. We are working on bigger airports in West
Virginia so you will be able to stop there.
Governor Schweitzer. Well there is a connection. I come
before you not only as the Governor of Montana but the first
cattleman to be Governor of Montana since 1919. I come also as
an agricultural scientist. There are a few principles at work
here. The first principle is this. We in Montana do not intend
to lose our brucellosis-free status. That is important to us.
Because of the management of wildlife in the greater
Yellowstone area, both Wyoming and Idaho, our neighbors, have
lost their brucellosis-free status during the last couple of
years. Montana does not intend to join them. The current
management plan assures that it is only a matter of time before
we would lose our brucellosis-free status. I would agree with
Congressman Rehberg that brucellosis can be transferred from
bison to cattle. The bison after all managed to get brucellosis
from cattle to begin with. So this disease will transfer back
and forth.
I will just touch on the science that occurs in
transferring the brucellosis. Some think of it as a venereal
disease because there are abortions associated with it. It is
not. When an animal has brucellosis and she gets the
brucellosis at a young age, she will likely abort her first
offspring before full maturity, maybe at five, six months.
That aborted fetus will lie on the ground or maybe the
afterbirth. Another ruminant will come along and as cattle or
sheep or goats or deer or antelope or elk are want to do, they
will use their eyes and they will use their nose. They will
look down. They will see something, and they will smell it.
There is where the transmission occurs. If you have infected
buffalo occupying the same space as livestock that are grazing,
you will likely have a transmission at some period of time.
We have about 3,600 head of buffalo. I call them buffalo.
You might call them bison. In Montana we use the terms
interchangeably. Buffalo, 3,600 head of buffalo. Up to 40
percent of them have some level of brucellosis. They have a
positive titer. It does not necessarily mean they have
brucellosis but they have a positive titer. They would test
positive for brucellosis.
So point one, we do not want to transfer brucellosis to
Montana. We do not want our cattle to lose our brucellosis-free
status. Point number two, you need to force the Department of
Interior and the Department of Agriculture to work together.
The Department of Interior has these buffalo in the Park who
when we have tough winters move into Montana and put our cattle
at risk. You have the Department of Livestock, USDA, through
APHIS, tells us that if only two herds turn up positive for
brucellosis the entire state would lose our brucellosis-free
status.
Now, I have for you a map of the Yellowstone area, and the
small areas where bison are want to move out to when they are
starving to death. Now, just so you know the area is about
10,000 acres that the bison move into. Now, if you were to
compare 10,000 acres to the 90 million acres plus that Montana
has as a whole, that is a footprint approximately the size of
New York City on the entire United States.
So we are placing the two-plus million head of cattle in
Montana at risk of losing their brucellosis-free status over
about 700 head of cattle that occupy this space some short
periods during the year. There are only a few livestock
producers who live in the area, who own cattle, and keep them
for 12 months. One of the largest producers--in fact the
largest producer--is the Royal Teton Ranch outlined in the
darkest orange. I think some of their representatives are here
today.
We, at the State of Montana, are negotiating with them
today to buy out the right to raise cattle, sheep or goats on
this land. If they want to raise horses or mules, that is fine,
and we would compensate them. One solution, one permanent
solution, would be for this small area--these small
footprints--this part of Montana which would be the equivalent
of New York City on the footprint of the entire United States,
would be for Congress once and for all to buy the rights from
private landowners so that they can continue to raise horses or
mules on that land but not raise cattle so that we do not have
buffalo and cattle occupying the same space.
What we have been doing over the last numbers of years when
buffalo leave the Park on the tough winters, we chase them back
and forth, and you pay for it. About a million bucks a year to
chase those starving buffalo back into the Park. We use
snowmobiles. We use helicopters. We use folks on horses, and it
does not make any sense. We have had buffalo on the same space
in the same pasture with cattle during the last few years. That
is a recipe for a wreck.
If you are not willing to buy out and pay for it, there is
a second option you should consider, and that is to create a
buffer zone around the Park where we would have 100 percent
test of the cattle that enter and leave. If we have 100 percent
test in this small area around the Park and one, two, three of
those herds do turn up positive for brucellosis, all of the two
million cattle in Montana would not be at risk. Only that small
area.
Now, the third option is active management of the bison in
the Park. Active management decreasing the numbers of bison or
do exactly what this interagency bison management plan was
supposed to do which gave no tools to eradicate brucellosis
once and for all. You know Congressman Rehberg even mentioned
about the plan, and you will hear from some other people who
will say oh boy, do not depart from the plan. Well the plan
said simply that the goal is to eradicate brucellosis. Well I
am a cattleman. I know how to eradicate brucellosis. You round
them all up. You test them. You slaughter the positives, and
you vaccinate. That is the way you eradicate brucellosis.
We do not have the resolve to do that. There is nothing in
the plan that would give us an opportunity to eradicate
brucellosis. So barring the willingness of Congress to
eradicate brucellosis and to do the actual things that you
would need to do to eradicate brucellosis, give us the tools in
Montana so that it makes sense for our cattle industry, so that
it makes sense for the bison. Give them either a little more
room to leave the Park or give us a buffer zone around or do
your job and leave us alone.
Either have the Department of Interior work with the
Department of Agriculture or give us real tools in Montana so
that we do not lose our brucellosis-free status. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Governor Schweitzer follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Brian Schweitzer,
Governor, State of Montana
Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop, I thank you for
inviting me to address this subcommittee, and affording me the
opportunity to share my thoughts about the management of Yellowstone
National Park Bison. Few issues have been as contentious to Montanans
as bison management near Yellowstone National Park. As the last
vestiges of our Great Plains herds, Park bison are important to our
heritage, and to the nation. Unfortunately, they also represent one of
the few remaining reservoirs of brucellosis in the nation.
I have taken on this issue not because I have in mind a quick fix,
or because I have all the answers, but because sustainable solutions
are long overdue. I have hoped to refocus our collective attention.
The livestock industry in Montana and nationwide has gone to great
lengths, at substantial costs, to eradicate brucellosis from cattle.
Montana remains brucellosis-free, but in the last 2 years Idaho and
Wyoming have both dealt with the loss of their brucellosis-free status.
As a result, livestock producers in Wyoming and Idaho have been subject
to additional time-consuming and costly measures when they ship cattle
from their states. Recently Wyoming regained its status, but even as
Idaho works to do the same, no clear plan exists to prevent a recurring
situation, and it may be simply a matter of time before Montana loses
its status.
My priority is to protect Montana's brucellosis-free status. Having
been involved in the cattle industry my entire life, and particularly
in the seed-stock business, I understand the intricacies of the disease
and the necessity of remaining brucellosis-free.
Longstanding and conflicting policies at the U.S. Departments of
Agriculture and Interior have caused the federal government to be less
than helpful. Not only do Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho deal with the
real threats of brucellosis to our cattle industry, but we often
receive a black eye when we are forced to take management actions to
prevent potential transmission of brucellosis when bison enter Montana.
From 1985 to 1990, Montana culled bison entering the state through
a hunt that really more closely resembled a firing line, where
government agents pointed out the bison to be shot. The public outcry
led to a halt of bison hunting that lasted throughout the twelve years
of the administrations of then Governors Marc Racicot and Judy Martz.
The bison herd continued to grow, and subsequent management and legal
actions led to a settlement with federal agencies that resulted in the
current Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP). When the IBMP was
crafted in the year 2000, about 2,500 bison occupied the Park. Last
year--several mild winters later, and before the Park sent almost 1,000
animals to slaughter--the count was estimated at 4,900 bison. The
population estimate now stands at 3,600 head.
The IBMP establishes zones on the north and west sides of the Park
where bison are tolerated outside Park boundaries. The plan designates
hazing, capture, testing, and slaughter as management tools when bison
leave the Park. In recent years almost $1 million per year has been
spent on these activities. The Plan also calls for the eradication of
brucellosis when research someday provides the means to do so.
Principally, however, the Plan calls for temporal and spatial
separation of bison and cattle.
Plan proponents have tried to assure me that the IBMP protects
Montana's brucellosis-free status, providing a sort of federal
guarantee from USDA-APHIS. Unfortunately, the disease status activities
in Wyoming and Idaho provide little in the way of comfort. The fact
remains that Montana will lose its brucellosis-free status if two herds
are found to be infected. In other words, loss of status is caused by
infection, and is not prevented by the existence of a document.
On the ground, such assurance is far from secure. Bison can and
have moved many miles into Montana overnight, presenting the
possibility of commingling with cattle. The result is a situation where
cattle and bison occupy the same space, at the same time. Additionally,
when bison are captured in the Park, many are shipped live to Montana
slaughterhouses hundreds of miles away. Possible roadway accidents,
careless offal disposal methods, and tissues carried off by scavengers
become a concern. From a risk management perspective, we must do better
than the present Plan.
State veterinarians in the 19 western states agree. A year ago I
received a resolution from their organization, the Western States
Livestock Health Association. It advocates reducing commingling through
spatial and temporal separation, quarantine measures if commingling
occurs, and contemplates additional requirements and sanctions on the
three states if their recommendations are not implemented.
Despite these facts, I still hear some in the livestock industry
say we're doing enough to manage risk. Alternatively, they call simply
for the eradication of brucellosis. Who can disagree? Eradication is a
goal shared by every party interested in Park bison management. It is
lauded--even demanded--as a solution, yet we lack an effective vaccine,
and I have yet to see an eradication plan from the federal government.
The National Park Service today insists on minimal management of
bison in the Park, despite a long history of intensive management
activities within its boundaries, including captivity, feeding, live
removals, lethal removals, and regulated hunts. Similarly, the USDA's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service today insists on strict,
state-wide application of its ``two-herds-and-you're-out'' brucellosis
policy for the cattle industry in the three states that border the
Park, even though the risk of transmission affects only a very small
geographic region. This is despite the fact that USDA has historically
allowed the use of smaller, regionalized management areas for disease
control.
Past suggestions for bison management have included a test and
slaughter program that would eradicate brucellosis in Park bison; a
specially-managed hunt inside Park boundaries; creative fencing of Park
boundaries. Each of these notions presents problems, and yet we have
seen no forward-looking ideas from the federal government.
Hope for mild winters seems to be the only long range federal plan,
along with the expensive and ongoing hazing, capture, testing, and
slaughter actions when bison breach Park boundaries. Meanwhile, cattle
producers pray for no more brucellosis transmissions or disease status
downgrades from the federal government. But hopes and prayers do not
constitute a plan.
Last July I sent a letter to USDA Secretary Johanns and Interior
Secretary Kempthorne to encourage them to resolve their agencies'
conflicting approaches, and to work with us to develop realistic and
effective long-term management. Let's just say that the response was
not overwhelming.
The State of Montana has begun to explore the elements of eventual
solutions. For the first time in 15 years, in 2005 we conducted a
public bison hunt. It was a fair-chase hunt. Big game herds across the
West are managed through hunting, and it is a part of our heritage and
tradition. The first Montanans hunted bison for at least 12,000 years,
which is why 16 of the 140 hunting permits currently available go to
Montana's Indian tribes. Our state joins Alaska, Arizona, South Dakota,
Utah, and Wyoming in managing bison through hunting.
Montana's hunts over the last two years have been successful, but
hunting is merely one of the tools available for bison management. It
can be used even more effectively over time, given more experience and
adequate area to maintain a fair-chase hunt.
To explore other solutions, I have begun meeting with affected
landowners near the Park, agricultural and conservation organizations,
and others interested in bison management. I have proposed ideas for
maintaining better separation between bison and the approximately 700
units of cattle near the Park in order to protect the status of the 2.5
million head of cattle throughout the rest of the state.
One idea is the establishment of a small, specialized area near the
Park where we would apply stricter management protocols for cattle--
100% test in, 100% test out. In exchange, USDA-APHIS would agree that
Montana would not lose its brucellosis-free status should two herds
become infected inside that designated area. The intent is not to
increase the area where bison may wander outside the Park, but instead
to better manage cattle in the area, and to utilize geography to
control bison from December to March, when they are commonly on the
move. Beyond this area a ``drop dead'' zone would exist as it does now.
Each spring, all bison would still be moved back into the Park.
Another idea is the negotiation of grazing leases with private
landowners near the Park that compensate them for grazing only non-
ruminant animals until brucellosis is eradicated--or even permanent
purchase of grazing rights or other management agreements that
landowners find reasonable. Whatever the mechanism, agreements would be
voluntary, and the federal government would need to provide fair-plus
compensation. The amount of private land involved likely would not
exceed 9,000 or 10,000 acres. Montana has 94 million total acres, so
we're talking about an area that makes up about one ten-thousandth of
the land area of the state. For perspective, that is an area the size
of New York City on a map of the lower 48 states. To these ends, we
have been involved in productive negotiations with Royal Teton Ranch,
the largest cattle operation on the north side of the Park.
An urgent necessity is the funding of further research into a more
effective brucellosis vaccine, and into more effective vaccine delivery
methods. The Park Service has recently completed studies confirming the
efficacy of remote vaccine delivery, but vaccine effectiveness lags.
RB51 is credited with 65-70% effectiveness in cattle. Novel vaccines
exist, including ``RB51-plus,'' developed at the Virginia-Maryland
Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, and ``Strain 82,'' developed
at the All-Russian Veterinary Institute. USDA funding for the National
Brucellosis Eradication Program should be prioritized for further
research for bison, cattle, and elk. Ongoing quarantine studies should
continue as well. But again, the federal government must provide the
resources necessary to dramatically speed up disease research and
development.
There are almost certainly other good ideas. Just as I have
proposed ideas for practical solutions to this seemingly intractable
issue, I have invited others to do the same. I will continue to work
with the livestock industry, conservationists, and the federal agencies
that bear responsibility. We must provide real risk management for
Montana's cattle industry and manage bison with the respect they
deserve.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Governor. Mr. Soukup, your
testimony please.
STATEMENT OF MIKE SOUKUP, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Mr. Soukup. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
present the Department of the Interior's views on Yellowstone
National Park bison. Accompanying me today is Suzanne Lewis,
superintendent of Yellowstone National Park. My testimony has
been submitted so I will just offer a brief summary.
Bison are an integral part of a visitor's experience in the
natural system of Yellowstone National Park. Today the
Yellowstone bison herd is the nation's only continuously free-
roaming herd, a small but precious genetically true remnant of
the vast herds of bison that once roamed this continent. While
many consider the bison emblematic of our nation's natural
heritage, as a species it has not fared well.
From populations estimated in the tens of millions by the
end of the 19th century, only 200 remain. Today evidence of
cross breeding with cattle is common in the genetics of most
domestic and many public herds. Cattle are also likely
responsible for the transmission of the exotic disease
brucellosis to bison, elk and other wildlife. Brucella bordis,
the causative bacteria in brucellosis, was first observed in
1917, and it has been a vaccine problem ever since.
The dilemma of the largest free-roaming bison herd that
carries a contagious disease in a landscape where working
ranches graze their cattle has not led to many instances of
finding common ground or reasonable compromise over the
decades. Perhaps the best example of cooperation--although
precipitated by a lawsuit--has been the interagency bison
management plan signed by the Governor of the State of Montana
and the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture in December
2000.
This plan was based on nearly a decade of negotiations and
a long, but necessary search for a common scientifically based
understanding of the issue. The plan includes a step-wise
approach and a commitment to adaptive management that allows
for plan improvement resulting from observation, experience and
new information. Key provisions include an overall commitment
to the long-term preservation of this free-roaming herd, as
well as protection of the brucellosis-free status of the State
of Montana.
Major elements are cooperation, management of diseased
risk, increasing tolerance of bison outside the park,
acquisition of grazing rights, management of disease risk,
increasing tolerance outside the Park when and where feasible,
and significantly emphasis on the development of tools such as
effective vaccines and remote delivery mechanisms that can
provide for the eventual elimination of brucellosis from
Yellowstone bison in a fashion that is fully protective of this
national treasure.
All sides in this issue voice concerns about this plan.
Progress is being made in some areas certainly faster than
others. For example, it has been difficult for the National
Park Service to participate when bison are sent to slaughter in
harsh winters when many bison leave the Park. Nevertheless,
Yellowstone National Park has participated responsibly in
carrying out this plan with confidence that the Yellowstone
bison population remains robust.
The Department of the Interior remains convinced that these
lethal actions can be adaptively minimized through greater
opportunities for spacial and temporal separation of cattle and
bison and eventually rendered unnecessary. With the development
of proper tools that is underway, it may be possible to then
plan for the eventual elimination of this nonnative disease and
the risk of its transmission without compromising the nature
and future of the Yellowstone bison.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. Superintendent
Lewis and I will be pleased to respond to the Subcommittee's
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Soukup follows:]
Statement of Michael Soukup, Associate Director, Natural Resource
Stewardship and Science, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on Yellowstone National Park Bison. Accompanying me
today is Suzanne Lewis, Superintendent of Yellowstone National Park.
In December 2000, after nearly a decade of negotiation and
planning, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, and the Governor
of Montana signed Records of Decision to implement the Interagency
Bison Management Plan (IBMP) for the State of Montana and Yellowstone
National Park. The IBMP directs the National Park Service (NPS),
Gallatin National Forest, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to cooperate with
the State of Montana in implementing management operations to preserve
the largest wild, free-ranging population of bison while minimizing the
risk of brucellosis disease transmission between bison and cattle.
Brucellosis is a contagious bacterial disease that can infect domestic
animals, wildlife, and humans. Brucellosis was first found in the
Yellowstone bison herd in 1917 and was most likely acquired from
domestic cattle. Potential transmission of brucellosis back to cattle
from bison has been a concern of the cattle industry, and the Montana
cattle industry has worked hard to maintain brucellosis-free status for
its cattle herds.
Through various adaptive management techniques, the IBMP is
designed to progress through a series of management steps that
initially allow only bison that test negative for brucellosis on winter
range areas outside the national park, but will eventually allow
limited numbers of any bison on public land within management areas
covered by the IBMP during winter when cattle are not present.
The agency partners conducted reviews of the IBMP in 2005, 2006,
and 2007. These reviews have identified and implemented several
adaptive management adjustments to the IBMP including increased
tolerance for bull bison outside the park, and increased flexibility of
bison hazing. Additionally, a bison vaccination program has been
initiated for captured bison.
The NPS is currently developing an Environmental Impact Statement
for comprehensive remote bison vaccination that will not require
capture of bison. Spatial and temporal separation of bison and cattle
has been strengthened by improved interagency cooperation during hazing
and capture operations. The State of Montana is collaborating with
APHIS to develop protocols for certifying some Yellowstone bison as
brucellosis free so they can be used to improve the genetics in other
federal and State bison populations. In 2005, Montana reauthorized a
public hunt of Yellowstone bison on lands adjacent to the park.
When the IBMP went into effect in 2000, the bison population was
approximately 2,500 animals. Currently, the bison population is
estimated at approximately 3,600 animals. During winter 2005-2006, the
bison population was reduced from 4,900 to 3,400 when, after the park
conducted numerous non-lethal hazing operations along the northern
boundary, and when hazing became infeasible and unsafe to prevent bison
from leaving the park's northern boundary and entering private lands
occupied by cattle, the park captured 1,249 bison. Of these, 87 were
provided for approved research, 305 were released back into the park,
849 were consigned to slaughter, and there were 8 mortalities inside
the capture facility. As happens every winter, many additional bison
die of natural causes including predation. Sending so many bison to
slaughter under the IBMP was difficult for the Park Service, but
capture of these bison was necessary to prevent commingling and
probable disease transmission to cattle grazing on lands adjacent to
parks.
In an effort to progress to the later, more flexible bison
management stages established under the IBMP, the NPS continues to
support the leadership of the State of Montana to conduct negotiations
that could lead to acquisition of cattle grazing rights on lands
adjacent to the park and thus provide additional habitat for bison
outside the park. The Royal Teton Ranch (RTR), USDA Forest Service, and
the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks are currently in
renewed discussions about new opportunities for grazing rights
acquisitions on part or all of RTR lands. While the NPS is not a
principal party in these negotiations, at the request of the State of
Montana, park staff participated in discussions about the potential
value of all or part of these lands as bison habitat. The RTR retains
grazing rights, where they currently graze approximately 120 head of
cattle, on their private property adjacent to Yellowstone National Park
as provided for under the 1999 land acquisition and conservation
easement agreement.
The NPS continues to meet with IBMP partners, private landowners,
and the State of Montana to seek opportunities to advance these
discussions, and to identify and implement progressive and more bison-
friendly adaptive management approaches.
Bison management actions under the IBMP have not had an adverse
impact on long-term bison population viability. This bison population
exhibits a robust, long-term population growth of 8-13 percent per
year. The IBMP includes bison population management objectives that are
intended to ensure long-term conservation of this unique bison
population and their significant genetic variation. A decision by the
NPS to capture bison only arises when all other options are exhausted.
Any subsequent decision to consign captured bison to slaughter is very
difficult, and is influenced by an interest in minimizing captivity and
human-dependence of these wild bison as well as the requirements of the
IBMP. Despite the periodic capture and removal of some bison, the NPS
believes that the IBMP is a successful long-term strategy for
safeguarding and protecting the Yellowstone bison population.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. We would be
pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. With that, Deputy
Administrator Clifford please.
STATEMENT OF JOHN CLIFFORD, DVM, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, ANIMAL
AND PLANET HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
Mr. Clifford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dr. John
Clifford, and I am the Deputy Administrator for Veterinary
Services with the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service. I also serve as the Department's
chief veterinary officer for animal health. My agency's role in
the management of Yellowstone National Park's bison herd is to
prevent the transmission of brucellosis, a serious bacterial
disease of animals and a threat to the health of livestock in
the greater Yellowstone area.
USDA has been working for many years with the state and
industry cooperators to eradicate brucellosis from domestic
cattle and bison herds. Our cooperative efforts have been
highly successful. Only two states, Idaho and Texas, are not
classified as free of the disease in domestic cattle and bison
herds. The greater Yellowstone area is the last known reservoir
of brucellosis in wild elk and bison in the United States.
Surveillance testing of wild bison from the Yellowstone herd
indicates approximately 50 percent of the bison in the Park
have been exposed to and are potentially infected with the
disease.
This disease reservoir poses a risk to cattle that graze on
lands adjacent to the Park. There have been published reports
and scientifically documented cases of bison transmitting
brucellosis to cattle under both range and experimental
conditions. Transmission can occur through direct contact
between infected bison and noninfected cattle and if they are
allowed to commingle on lands adjacent to the Park.
APHIS works with the states around the GYA, and the cattle
industry, the Department of Interior's National Park Service,
and Fish and Wildlife Services, to address the risks of
brucellosis transmission from wildlife leaving the Park to
cattle that graze in surrounding areas. Our sister agency
within USDA, the U.S. Forest Service, also plays a key role in
managing the public lands on the Gallatin National Forest
adjacent to Yellowstone National Park in Montana.
The current interagency bison management plan carefully
balances the need to preserve the Yellowstone bison herd with
the need to prevent the spread of brucellosis from bison to
cattle. The plan relies on spacial and temporal separation of
bison from cattle that graze in areas surrounding the Park. As
bison leave the Park, management zones are used to monitor
their movement and ensure that the bison and cattle do not
commingle.
Depending on the bison population size, there is an array
of risk management options to prevent transmission from
brucellosis from bison to cattle during the winter. USDA and
the Department of Interior believe the next step is develop a
long-term plan for the elimination of brucellosis from GYA. We
are in the early stages of this process but fully acknowledge
that any disease elimination plan must maintain the wild and
free-roaming bison and elk herds in the Park.
We intend for this plan to be developed by disease and
wildlife management experts and to include public input. Once
brucellosis is eliminated from the GYA, bison and elk can roam
more freely without the need for brucellosis intervention
strategies. USDA and DOI will soon send a letter to our GYABC
partners enclosing a copy of an updated memorandum of
understanding for signature that commits the partners to
working together to develop this disease elimination plan for
GYA.
In the near term, management of the risk of disease
transmission from wildlife to livestock is a prudent approach
to maintaining the brucellosis-free status of the GYA states,
and the long-term elimination of brucellosis from GYA wildlife
along with the protection of elk and bison populations will be
our goal. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this
morning, and joining me at the table will be Ms. Becky Heath,
Forest Supervisor for the Gallatin National Forest in Montana.
We would be pleased to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clifford follows:]
Statement of Dr. John Clifford, Deputy Administrator for Veterinary
Services, Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S.
Department of Agriculture
Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. My name is
Dr. John Clifford, and I am Deputy Administrator for Veterinary
Services with the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS). In this position, I also serve as
USDA's Chief Veterinary Officer.
My Agency's role in the management of Yellowstone National Park's
bison herd is to prevent the transmission of brucellosis, a serious
bacterial disease of animals, and a threat to the health of livestock
in the Greater Yellowstone area. I'd like to begin my testimony by
providing information on the disease and the longstanding efforts of
USDA, States, industry, and other cooperators to eliminate it from
cattle in the United States.
Background on Brucellosis and the Cooperative State-Federal Eradication
Program
USDA has been working with State and industry cooperators to
eradicate brucellosis for many years. The disease affects many species
of animals, including humans, and is caused by the bacteria Brucella
abortus. Cattle, bison, and elk are especially susceptible to the
disease.
The Brucellosis Eradication Program was launched on a national
scale in 1934, and a cooperative effort among the Federal Government,
States, and livestock producers began in 1954. All States participate
in APHIS' Cooperative State-Federal Brucellosis Eradication Program and
are assigned a brucellosis classification by APHIS. These
classifications--Class Free, Class A, Class B, and Class C--are based
on herd prevalence rates for the disease and require various levels of
movement restrictions and surveillance activities. Most importantly to
cattle producers, restrictions on moving cattle interstate become less
stringent as a State approaches or achieves Class Free classification.
The program, which is predicated on cattle slaughter surveillance
and milk ring test surveillance, has been highly effective. In 1956,
124,000 affected herds were found in the United States as a result of
testing. By 1992, this number had dropped to 700, and as of March 13,
2007, no known affected domestic cattle or bison herds remained in the
entire United States
Annual brucellosis-related losses due to aborted fetuses, reduced
breeding efficiency, and lowered milk production have decreased from
more than $400 million in 1952 to almost zero today. Currently 48
States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are free of
brucellosis. Idaho and Texas--with herd infection rates of less than
0.1 percent in each State--both hold Class A classification. States
with Class A classification must demonstrate there are no infected
herds within a two year period to obtain Free classification status.
Idaho and Texas are currently in the qualifying stage for Free
classification. USDA is hopeful the Cooperative State-Federal
Brucellosis Eradication Program will achieve the goal of nationwide
elimination of this disease from domestic cattle and domestic bison
within the next year.
Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA)
In 2004, Wyoming lost its brucellosis Class-free classification due
to the detection of four brucellosis-affected cattle herds that were
most likely infected by elk from the GYA. After additional surveillance
testing and epidemiological investigation, APHIS approved Wyoming's
Class Free classification in September 2006.
In November 2005, two cattle herds in Idaho were found infected
with brucellosis and the State subsequently lost its Class Free
classification. Again, these infections are also most likely linked
epidemiologically to brucellosis-infected elk from the GYA. Idaho will
be eligible to regain Class Free classification after completing a 12-
consecutive month period of finding no additional brucellosis-affected
herds, provided all other brucellosis Class Free requirements have been
met.
Clearly, these recent situations involving brucellosis in Wyoming
and Idaho illustrate that the GYA is the last known reservoir of
brucellosis in wild elk and/or wild bison in the United States.
Surveillance testing of wild bison from the Yellowstone National Park
herd indicates that approximately 50 percent of the bison in the Park
have been exposed to and are potentially infected with the disease.
Also, all elk (100,000) and bison (5,000) across the 20,000,000 acre
GYA are know to be exposed at variable levels to brucellosis. There
have also been published reports and scientifically documented cases of
bison transmitting brucellosis to cattle under both range and
experimental conditions. It is generally accepted that transmission can
occur through direct contact between infected bison and non-infected
cattle if they are allowed to co-mingle on lands adjacent to the Park.
Transmission could also occur if susceptible animals come into contact
with aborted fetuses and afterbirth that carry the disease.
Addressing Brucellosis in the GYA
As the Agency responsible for protecting the U.S. cattle industry
from serious diseases like brucellosis, APHIS is responsible for
working with the GYA States, the cattle industry, and the National Park
Service to address the risk of brucellosis transmission from wildlife
leaving the Park to cattle that graze in surrounding areas. Our sister
agency within USDA, the U.S. Forest Service, also plays a key role in
managing the public lands on the Gallatin National Forest, adjacent to
Yellowstone National Park in Montana.
We acknowledge that this is a complex issue on a number of fronts.
For our part in the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis
Committee (GYIBC), USDA has pledged its full cooperation to protect the
economic viability of the livestock industry by eliminating brucellosis
while sustaining populations of free-ranging wild elk and bison in the
GYA.
The only way we can accomplish these dual goals is to continue
cooperating with Federal and State agencies in the management of the
livestock and wild bison and elk in the GYA. We recognize the risk this
disease poses to livestock and wildlife, as well as the financial
hardship it has caused producers. Eliminating brucellosis in the GYA is
of vitally important to achieving our ultimate, shared goal--
eradicating the disease throughout the entire United States.
Current Interagency Bison Management Plan
The current Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP) that the
cooperating partners operate under carefully balances the need to
preserve the Yellowstone bison herd with the need to prevent the spread
of brucellosis from bison to cattle that graze on lands surrounding the
Park.
The bison management plan relies on the spatial and temporal
separation of bison from cattle that graze in areas surrounding the
Park. As bison leave the Park, management zones are used to monitor the
movement of bison and ensure that bison and cattle do not commingle.
Depending on the bison population size, there is an array of risk
management options to prevent transmission of brucellosis from bison to
cattle during the winter, including non-lethal hazing, shooting,
capture, testing, and shipment to slaughter.
Any bison that remain outside the Park's boundaries in the spring
are hazed back into the Park, captured or removed. As an additional
disease safeguard, cattle are not allowed to graze on public land
outside the Park until a sufficient amount of time has passed after the
bison leave to ensure that the brucellosis bacteria is no longer viable
in the environment. However, at this time, the Gallatin National Forest
has vacated all grazing allotments located in the bison Management Zone
next to the Park.
While it is unfortunate that National Park Service employees must
sometimes remove bison that have left Yellowstone National Park, we
must emphasize that these operations are targeted and only one
component of a much larger effort to preserve the health and viability
of the entire bison herd. In this regard, all of the Federal bison
management actions are in accordance with the provisions of the bison
management plan and the requirements of Federal law; the management
plan also includes a commitment to treating bison in a humane fashion
during hazing, capture, and other handling.
The Roles of the U.S. Forest Service Under the Interagency Bison
Management Plan
As a full partner in the Interagency Bison Management Plan, USDA's
Forest Service provides these main functions:
Management of wildlife habitat on National Forest System
lands (NFS) outside of the Park in Montana;
Law enforcement support to the counties and the State of
Montana during bison management operations outside the Park; and
Administration of a special use permit for the State's
(Department of Livestock) bison capture facility located in the Horse
Butte area, west of the Park.
Under federal laws and the Land Management Plan, the Gallatin
National Forest lands are managed for multiple use purposes which
include livestock grazing. Federal grazing permits are issued to
private producers. However, given the Forest Service management
emphasis to provide for wildlife habitat, all Gallatin National Forest
cattle grazing allotments located in the Bison Management Zone next to
the Park have been held vacant for 3-10 years. Holding these allotments
vacant from cattle grazing fulfills one of the objectives in the
Interagency Bison Management Plan, which calls for creating spatial and
temporal separation of bison and cattle. Outside of Yellowstone Park,
but within the Bison Management Zone closest to the Park, domestic
cattle graze on approximately 6,000 acres of private ranch lands on the
west and north sides of the Park; outside of this Zone there are
numerous private cattle ranches as well as several active grazing
allotments on NFS lands.
Royal Teton Ranch Land Conservation Project
The 12,000-acre Royal Teton Ranch (``RTR'') owned by the Church
Universal and Triumphant, is located north of Yellowstone National Park
but within the Gallatin National Forest proclamation boundary. This
property provides critical wildlife migration and winter range habitat
for numerous species, including grizzly bear, Yellowstone cutthroat
trout, elk, bighorn sheep, antelope, bison and mule deer.
In 1997, the Forest Service partnered with the Rocky Mountain Elk
Foundation to develop a multi-component agreement with the Church that
included fee purchases, conservation easements and a long-term right of
first refusal for potential acquisition of the remaining RTR lands.
The stated purposes of the 1997 RTR project were to:
Conserve critical wildlife habitat north of Yellowstone
Park for numerous wildlife species.
Improve public access for recreational opportunities, and
Protect the geothermal resources on the RTR lands.
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Forest Service, and Department
of the Interior (DOI) successfully completed the RTR fee and easement
purchases in 1999 using $6.7 million in LWCF funds appropriated to the
Forest Service and $6.3 million in LWCF funds appropriated to DOI. In
the project, about 5,300 acres of RTR lands were acquired by fee
purchases and another 1,500 acres were protected through a conservation
easement. In addition, the Church granted a conservation easement
prohibiting development of geothermal resources on the entire ranch.
All the acquired RTR lands and easements are held and managed by the
Forest Service.
All cattle grazing allotments located on the lands acquired by the
United States in this purchase are held vacant. The Church waived their
federal grazing permit back to the Gallatin National Forest in 2004,
and this land is also held vacant.
From the project onset (1999), the Forest Service, the Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation and conservation partners all clearly
recognized that the RTR project would be a positive step for wildlife
conservation, but that it would not, by itself, fully resolve the bison
management issues in that area. Acquisition of the RTR lands and
conservation easements do, in fact, protect some of the historic
migratory and winter range habitat for bison, and have kept future
options open. However, nearly half of the RTR ranch remains private
land, and the Church has elected to continue to graze its cattle on
those remaining private lands.
New Draft Memorandum of Understanding Among the GYIBC Partners
As I mentioned a moment ago, the current bison management plan is a
tool for preventing the spread of brucellosis from bison to cattle on
grazing lands in Montana adjacent to Yellowstone National Park. USDA
and the Department of the Interior (DOI) believe the next step is to
develop a long-term plan for the elimination of brucellosis from the
GYA. We are in the initial stages of this process, but fully
acknowledge that any disease elimination plan must maintain the wild
and free-roaming bison and elk herds in the Park.
Our concept is for this plan to be developed by disease and
wildlife management experts and to include public input. Once
brucellosis is eliminated from the Greater Yellowstone Area, bison and
elk can roam more freely without the need for brucellosis intervention
strategies. The animals may also be moved to other parks and tribal
lands as desired by wildlife managers and other interested parties.
In this regard, USDA and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)
agreed upon a revised GYIBC memorandum of understanding (MOU) after the
previous MOU expired. In May 2005, the Federal agencies presented the
draft to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming for consideration. Finalizing the
updated version of the MOU originally presented in 2005 (the updated
version reflects Idaho's loss of brucellosis Class-Free status earlier
this year, as well as Wyoming's September 2006 upgrade to Class-Free
status) is a priority for USDA. To that end, USDA and DOI will soon
send out a letter enclosing a copy of the updated version of the MOU
and urging participating States to sign the document.
The draft we will soon share with our State partners apprises the
Governors that we will take into account their views, as well as the
input of all our stakeholders, as we move forward with finalizing the
MOU. I'd like to note, however, that we strongly believe that we need
to develop a disease elimination plan that also contains effective
means of managing the bison herd. In the near term, management of the
risk of disease transmission from wildlife to livestock is a prudent
approach to maintaining the brucellosis-free status of the GYA states.
In the long term, elimination of brucellosis from GYA wildlife
concurrent with protection of the elk and bison populations will
require continued development and implementation of best management
practices, vaccines, vaccine delivery systems, and diagnostic
techniques.
We know that finalizing this MOU is an important priority for all
parties. Implementing the final MOU--in full cooperation with our
Federal and State partners--is an integral part of our efforts to
eliminate brucellosis from elk and bison herds in the GYA and to
prevent reintroduction of this destructive disease into cattle herds in
surrounding States.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, while eliminating brucellosis from elk and bison
herds in the GYA--and preventing reintroduction of the disease into
those herds--is challenging, it is not an impossible task. It will
require the use of a number of innovative and time-proven disease
elimination and management tools and the cooperation of our State,
Federal, and industry partners.
As I indicated previously, this is a goal we are striving very hard
to achieve. I believe finalization of a new GYIBC MOU, one that
reflects the need for all parties to come together to develop a long-
term plan for eliminating brucellosis from the GYA ecosystem, is the
most important step we can take in the short-term to help accomplish
our goals. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify this morning,
and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Let me now call on Ms. Robin
Nazzaro for your testimony, comments.
STATEMENT OF ROBIN NAZZARO, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Nazzaro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. My name is Robin Nazzaro, Director, National
Resources and Environment with the Government Accountability
Office. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the management
of bison in the Yellowstone National Park area. To facilitate
my discussion, I will use a series of maps that will be
displayed on the monitors and have been made available to you
in a supplemental package with my statement.
The first map shows the location of Yellowstone National
Park overlapping three states--Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. As
we have heard, this is home to a herd of about 3,600 free-
roaming bison, some of which routinely attempt to migrate out
of the Park in the winter, particularly on the northern and
western boundaries as depicted by the red arrows on the map.
Livestock owners and public officials in the states bordering
the Park have concerns about the bison leaving the Park because
many are infected with brucellosis.
The State of Montana and its livestock industry in
particular have been active in protecting the state's
brucellosis-free status by advocating for limits on bison
migration. These efforts have been opposed by advocacy groups
working to expand bison habitat and protect the free, wild
roaming character of the bison and who assert that there has
never been a documented case of brucellosis transmission from
bison to cattle in the wild.
The many years of public controversy over the management of
the bison in the area have ensued and has resulted in competing
concerns. In an effort to address these concerns, as we heard,
the agencies in December 2000 developed a three-step plan for
managing the bison on the northern and western sides of the
Park. The stated purpose of this interagency bison management
plan is to maintain the wild, free-ranging population of bison
and address the risk of brucellosis transmission to protect the
economic interest and viability of the livestock industry in
Montana.
My testimony summarizes GAO's preliminary observations on
the progress made in implementing this plan and the extent to
which bison have access to lands north of the Park acquired
with $13 million in Federal funds. This work was requested by
the Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources and
Congressman Maurice Hinchey. More than six years after
approving the plan, the five Federal and state partner agencies
remain in step one of the plan because cattle continue to graze
on certain private lands in the area represented on the map by
the grey box.
These lands are owned by the Church Universal and
Triumphant. A key condition for the partner agencies
progressing further under the plan requires that cattle no
longer graze in the winter on these lands to minimize the risk
of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle.
The agencies had anticipated meeting this condition by the
winter of 2002, 2003. While a prior attempt by Interior to
acquire grazing rights on some of these lands was unsuccessful,
Montana's Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is currently
negotiating with the Church to acquire the grazing rights.
Until this condition is met, bison will not be allowed to roam
freely beyond the Park's northern border, west of the
Yellowstone River.
Concurrent with the development of the bison management
strategy in the late 1990s, the Forest Service was pursuing the
acquisition of certain lands and conservation easements from
the Church to expand critical habitat for a variety of wildlife
species, to protect geothermal resources and improve
recreational access. Map number two, an enlargement of the grey
box I referred to earlier, shows the land ownership prior to
the Forest Service's land conservation project acquisitions.
The Forest Service lands are shaded green. Park lands are
yellow. The grey areas are owned by the Church, and the white
areas are other privately owned lands.
The land acquisition occurred in two phases. Map three
depicts the first phase in which the Forest Service spent $6.5
million to purchase 3,107 acres, most of which appears on the
map in dark green with diagonal lines. A 640 acre portion
located further north and west does not appear on the map. Map
four depicts the phase two purchase of an additional 2,156
acres shown in dark green, and a 1,508 acre conservation
easement shown as the darker grey dotted area. Under the
easement, numerous development activities such as the
construction of commercial facilities and roads are prohibited.
However, the owners specifically retained the right to
graze domestic cattle, except between October 15 and June 1 of
each calendar year, the time of the year that bison would
typically be migrating through the area. The owner currently
grazes cattle throughout the year on portions of its remaining
6,000 acres which can be seen on map five in the grey areas.
Map five shows the current land ownership north of the Park.
While the Forest Service viewed this project as a logical
extension of past conservation efforts, the value of this
acquisition for the Yellowstone bison herd is minimal because
no bison will be allowed to access these private lands,
including those covered by the conservation easement, until
cattle no longer graze there. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my
statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you
or members of the Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nazzaro follows:]
Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our preliminary work on
issues related to managing bison in the Yellowstone National Park area.
Bison lived in this area long before the park was established in 1872,
and have been under some form of human management since the early
1900s. In 1901, after years of hunting and poaching, the Yellowstone
herd had been reduced to about 25 bison. For nearly the next six
decades, bison management in the park emphasized reestablishing the
bison herd and controlling the size of the population. Through a policy
of natural regulation adopted by the park in the 1960s, the bison
population has increased, and about 3,600 bison roam the park and
surrounding areas today.
Brucellosis--a contagious bacterial disease that can infect
domestic animals, wildlife, and humans--was first found in the
Yellowstone bison herd in 1917 and is believed to have been transmitted
from livestock. Livestock owners and public officials in the states
bordering the park are concerned about brucellosis in the bison herd
because of the risk of bison transmitting the disease back to cattle
and the economic impact such an occurrence could have on the livestock
industry. The state of Montana and its livestock industry, in
particular, have been active in protecting the brucellosis-free status
that the state has held since 1985 by advocating for limits on bison
migration. These efforts have been opposed by advocacy groups working
to expand bison habitat and protect the wild free-roaming character of
the bison, and who assert that there has never been a documented case
of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle in the wild. Many
years of public controversy over the management of bison in the
Yellowstone National Park area have ensued as a result of these
competing concerns.
In an effort to address these concerns in the early 1990s, the
Department of the Interior's (Interior's) National Park Service, the
Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service and Forest Service, and Montana's Departments of Livestock and
Fish, Wildlife and Parks agreed to develop a joint long-term bison
management strategy. This joint planning effort ultimately resulted in
a three-step, Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP) that was agreed
upon by the five federal and state partner agencies in December 2000.
Concurrent with the development of a bison management strategy, the
Forest Service was also pursuing the acquisition of certain private
lands and conservation easements near the northern boundary of the park
to expand critical migration and winter range habitat for a variety of
wildlife species, protect geothermal resources, and improve
recreational access.
My testimony today summarizes work performed to date that GAO began
in mid-January 2007 at the request of the Chairman of the House
Committee on Natural Resources and Congressman Maurice D. Hinchey. GAO
previously reported on the bison management issue and development of
the IBMP in the 1990s. A list of related GAO products is provided in
appendix I. Our current work is focused on determining: (1) the
progress that has been made in implementing the IBMP and the associated
costs and challenges; (2) what lands and easements north of Yellowstone
National Park, acquired for $13 million in federal funds, have been
made available to bison and other wildlife; and (3) what advances have
been made in developing a brucellosis vaccine and remote delivery
method for bison. To begin addressing these objectives, we visited the
Yellowstone National Park area to attend an interagency sponsored
public meeting on the IBMP, tour the bison management areas near
Yellowstone National Park, interview federal and state agency officials
as well as members of interested stakeholder groups, and review
relevant documentation. We have conducted our work to date in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Over the next several weeks, we will continue to collect and
analyze information to refine our approach for completing the review.
To date, our efforts have focused mostly on the first two broad
objectives. Thus, my remarks today will provide our preliminary
findings on the first two objectives.
Summary
In summary, more than 6 years after approving the IBMP, the five
federal and state partnering agencies remain in step one of the three-
step plan because cattle continue to graze on certain private lands. A
key condition for the partner agencies progressing further under the
plan requires that cattle no longer graze in the winter on certain
private lands adjacent to the north boundary of Yellowstone National
Park and west of the Yellowstone River to minimize the risk of
brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle. The agencies anticipated
meeting this condition by the winter of 2002/2003. Until this condition
is met, bison will not be allowed to roam freely beyond the park's
northern border, west of the Yellowstone River. The Forest Service has
been successful in purchasing certain private lands and continues its
vacancy of national forest grazing allotments in the area; however, the
partner agencies have yet to acquire cattle grazing rights on other
private lands adjacent to the north boundary of Yellowstone National
Park and west of the Yellowstone River. While a prior attempt by
Interior was unsuccessful, Montana's Department of Fish, Wildlife and
Parks is currently negotiating with the private land owner to acquire
these grazing rights.
Yellowstone bison have limited access to the lands and conservation
easement that federal agencies acquired north of the park. In 1998 and
1999, as part of a larger conservation effort to provide habitat for a
variety of wildlife species, protect geothermal resources, and improve
recreational access, federal agencies spent nearly $13 million to
acquire 5,263 acres and a conservation easement on 1,508 acres of
private lands north of the park's border, lands towards which bison
frequently attempt to migrate for suitable winter range. While the
conservation easement prohibits development, such as the construction
of commercial facilities and roads, on the private land, the land owner
retained cattle grazing rights. The Yellowstone bison's access to these
lands will remain limited until cattle no longer graze on the easement
and other private lands in the area.
Background
Yellowstone National Park is at the center of about 20 million
acres of publicly and privately owned land, overlapping three states--
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. This area is commonly called the greater
Yellowstone area or ecosystem and is home to numerous species of
wildlife, including the largest concentration of free-roaming bison in
the United States. Bison are considered an essential component of this
ecosystem because they contribute to the biological, ecological,
cultural, and aesthetic purposes of the park. However, because the
bison are naturally migratory animals, they seasonally attempt to
migrate out of the park in search of suitable winter range.
The rate of exposure to brucellosis in Yellowstone bison is
currently estimated at about 50 percent. Transmission of brucellosis
from bison to cattle has been documented under experimental conditions,
but not in the wild. Scientists and researchers disagree about the
factors that influence the risk of wild bison transmitting brucellosis
to domestic cattle and are unable to quantify the risk. Consequently,
the IBMP partner agencies are working to identify risk factors that
affect the likelihood of transmission, such as the persistence of the
brucellosis-causing bacteria in the environment and the proximity of
bison to cattle, and are attempting to limit these risk factors using
various management actions.
The National Park Service first proposed a program to control bison
at the boundary of Yellowstone National Park in response to livestock
industry concerns over the potential transmission of brucellosis to
cattle in 1968. Over the next two decades, concerns continued over
bison leaving the park boundaries, particularly after Montana's
livestock industry was certified brucellosis-free in 1985. In July
1990, the National Park Service, Forest Service, and Montana's
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks formed an interagency team to
examine various alternatives for the long-term management of the
Yellowstone bison herd. Later, the interagency team was expanded to
include USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the
Montana Department of Livestock. In 1998, USDA and Interior jointly
released a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzing several
proposed alternatives for long-term bison management and issued a final
EIS in August 2000. In December 2000, the interagency team agreed upon
federal and state records of decision detailing the long-term
management approach for the Yellowstone bison herd, commonly referred
to as the IBMP.
The IBMP is a three-step plan for managing bison on the northern
and western sides of Yellowstone National Park, areas to which bison
typically attempt to migrate for suitable winter range. The stated
purpose of the IBMP is to:
``maintain a wild, free-ranging population of bison and address
the risk of brucellosis transmission to protect the economic
interest and viability of the livestock industry in Montana.''
Although managing the risk of brucellosis transmission from bison
to cattle is at the heart of the IBMP, the plan does not seek to
eliminate brucellosis in bison. The plan instead aims to create and
maintain a spatial and temporal separation between bison and cattle
sufficient to minimize the risk of brucellosis transmission. In
addition, the plan allows for the partner agencies to make adaptive
management changes as better information becomes available through
scientific research and operational experience.
Under step one of the plan, bison are generally restricted to areas
within or just beyond the park's northern and western boundaries. Bison
attempting to leave the park are herded back to the park. When attempts
to herd the bison back to the park are repeatedly unsuccessful, the
bison are captured or lethally removed. Generally, captured bison are
tested for brucellosis exposure. 1 Those that test positive
are sent to slaughter, and eligible bison--calves and yearlings that
test negative for brucellosis exposure--are vaccinated. Regardless of
vaccination-eligibility, partner agency officials may take a variety of
actions with captured bison that test negative including, temporarily
holding them in the capture facility for release back into the park or
removing them for research. In order to progress to step two, cattle
can no longer graze in the winter on certain private lands north of
Yellowstone National Park and west of the Yellowstone River. Step two,
which the partner agencies expected to reach by the winter of 2002/
2003, would use the same management methods on bison attempting to
leave the park as in step one, with one exception--a limited number of
bison, up to a maximum of 100, that test negative for brucellosis
exposure would be allowed to roam in specific areas outside the park.
Finally, step three would allow a limited number of untested bison, up
to a maximum of 100, to roam in specific areas outside the park when
certain conditions are met. These conditions include determining an
adequate temporal separation period, gaining sufficient experience in
managing bison in the bison management areas, and initiating an
effective vaccination program using a remote delivery system for
eligible bison inside the park. The partner agencies anticipated
reaching this step on the northern boundary in the winter of 2005/2006
and the western boundary in the winter of 2003/2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If the Yellowstone bison herd exceeds a target population size
of 3,000 bison as set forth in the IBMP, other management actions, such
as removing the captured bison to quarantine or slaughter, may be taken
to reduce the size of the herd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997, as part of a larger land conservation effort in the
greater Yellowstone area, the Forest Service partnered with the Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation--a nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring
the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat--to develop a Royal
Teton Ranch (RTR) land conservation project. The ranch is owned by and
serves as the international headquarters for the Church Universal and
Triumphant, Inc. (the Church)--a multi-faceted spiritual organization.
It is adjacent to the northern boundary of Yellowstone National Park
and is almost completely surrounded by Gallatin National Forest lands.
The overall purpose of the conservation project was to preserve
critical wildlife migration and winter range habitat for a variety of
species, protect geothermal resources, and improve recreational access.
The project included several acquisitions from the Church, including
the purchase of land and a wildlife conservation easement, a land-for-
land exchange, and other special provisions such as a long-term right
of first refusal for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to purchase
remaining RTR lands. The project was funded using fiscal years 1998 and
1999 Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations totaling $13
million. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 was enacted to
help preserve, develop, and assure access to outdoor recreation
resources. Among other purposes, appropriations from the fund may be
used for federal acquisition of land and waters and interests therein.
Pub. L. No. 88-578, 78 Stat. 897. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-4, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation of the IBMP Remains in Step One Because Cattle Continue
to Graze on RTR Lands
Implementation of the IBMP remains in step one because cattle
continue to graze on RTR lands north of Yellowstone National Park and
west of the Yellowstone River. All Forest Service cattle grazing
allotments on its lands near the park are held vacant, and neither
these lands nor those acquired from the Church are occupied by cattle.
The one remaining step to achieve the condition of cattle no longer
grazing in this area is for the partner agencies to acquire livestock
grazing rights on the remaining private RTR lands. Until cattle no
longer graze on these lands, no bison will be allowed to roam beyond
the park's northern border, and the agencies will not be able to
proceed further under the IBMP.
Although unsuccessful, Interior attempted to acquire livestock
grazing rights on the remaining RTR lands in August 1999. The Church
and Interior had signed an agreement giving Interior the option to
purchase the livestock grazing rights, contingent upon a federally
approved appraisal of the value of the grazing rights and fair
compensation to the Church for forfeiture of this right. The appraisal
was completed and submitted for federal review in November 1999. In a
March 2000 letter to the Church, Interior stated that the federal
process for reviewing the appraisal was incomplete and terminated the
option to purchase the rights. As a result, the Church continues to
exercise its right to graze cattle on the RTR lands adjacent to the
north boundary of the park, and the agencies continue operating under
step one of the IBMP.
More recently, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
has re-engaged Church officials in discussions regarding a lease
arrangement for Church-owned livestock grazing rights on the private
RTR lands. Given the confidential and evolving nature of these
negotiations, specific details about funding sources or the provisions
being discussed, including the length of the lease and other potential
conditions related to bison management, are not yet available.
Although the agencies continue to operate under step one of the
plan, they reported several accomplishments in their September 2005
Status Review of Adaptive Management Elements for 2000-2005. These
accomplishments included updating interagency field operating
procedures, vacating national forest cattle allotments within the bison
management areas, and conducting initial scientific studies regarding
the persistence of the brucellosis-causing bacteria in the environment.
Federal Land and Easement Acquisitions Sought to Provide Critical
Habitat for Many Species, But Bison Access to These Lands
Remains Limited
The lands and conservation easement acquired by the federal
government through the RTR land conservation project sought to provide
critical habitat for a variety of wildlife species including bighorn
sheep, antelope, elk, mule deer, bison, grizzly bear, and Yellowstone
cutthroat trout; however, the value of this acquisition for the
Yellowstone bison herd is minimal because bison access to these lands
remains limited. The Forest Service viewed the land conservation
project as a logical extension of past wildlife habitat acquisitions in
the northern Yellowstone region. While the Forest Service recognized
bison as one of the migrating species that might use the habitat and
noted that these acquisitions could improve the flexibility of future
bison management, the project was not principally directed at
addressing bison management issues.
Through the RTR land conservation project, the federal government
acquired from the Church a total of 5,263 acres of land and a 1,508-
acre conservation easement using $13 million in Land and Water
Conservation Fund appropriations. 3 As funding became
available and as detailed agreements could be reached with the Church,
the following two phases were completed. In Phase I, the Forest Service
used $6.5 million of its Fiscal Year 1999 Land and Water Conservation
Fund appropriation to purchase Church-owned lands totaling 3,107 acres
in June and December 1998 and February 1999. Of these lands, 2,316
acres were RTR lands, 640 acres were lands that provided strategic
public access to other Gallatin National Forest lands, and 151 acres
were an in-holding in the Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Forest Service and the Church chose not to complete the
land-for-land exchanges proposed in the conservation project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Phase II, BLM provided $6.3 million of its Fiscal Year 1998 Land
and Water Conservation Fund appropriations for the purchase of an
additional 2,156 acres of RTR lands and a 1,508-acre conservation
easement on the Devil's Slide area of the RTR property in August 1999.
In a December 1998 letter to the Secretary of the Interior from the
Chairs and Ranking Minority Members of the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations, certain conditions were placed on the use of these
funds. The letter stated that ``the funds for phase two should only be
allocated by the agencies when the records of decision for the
`Environmental Impact Statement for the Interagency Bison Management
Plan for the State of Montana and Yellowstone National Park' are signed
and implemented.'' The letter also stated that the Forest Service and
Interior were to continue to consult with and gain the written approval
of the governor of Montana regarding the terms of the conservation
easement. Under the easement, numerous development activities,
including the construction of commercial facilities and road, are
prohibited. However, the Church specifically retained the right to
graze domestic cattle in accordance with a grazing management plan that
was to be reviewed and approved by the Church and the Forest Service.
The Church's grazing management plan was completed in December 2002,
and the Forest Service determined in February 2003 that it was
consistent with the terms of the conservation easement. The Church
currently grazes cattle throughout the year on portions of its
remaining 6,000 acres; however, as stipulated in the conservation
easement and incorporated in the grazing management plan, no livestock
can use any of the 1,508 acres covered by the easement between October
15 and June 1 of each calendar year, the time of year that bison would
typically be migrating through the area.
While purchased for wildlife habitat, geothermal resources, and
recreational access purposes, the federally acquired lands and
conservation easement have been of limited benefit to the Yellowstone
bison. As previously noted, under the IBMP, until cattle no longer
graze on private RTR lands north of the park and west of the
Yellowstone River, no bison are allowed to migrate onto these private
lands and the partner agencies are responsible for assuring that the
bison remain within the park boundary.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. Because we are
in the very early stages of our work, we have no conclusions to offer
at this time regarding these bison management issues. We will continue
our review and plan to issue a report near the end of this year. I
would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other Members of
the Subcommittee may have at this time.
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
For further information on this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this statement. David P. Bixler, Assistant Director; Sandra
Kerr; Diane Lund; and Jamie Meuwissen made key contributions to this
statement.
Related GAO Products
Wildlife Management: Negotiations on a Long-Term Plan for Managing
Yellowstone Bison Still Ongoing. GAO/RCED-00-7. Washington, D.C.:
November 1999.
Wildlife Management: Issues Concerning the Management of Bison and
Elk Herds in Yellowstone National Park. GAO/T-RCED-97-200. Washington,
D.C.: July 1997.
Wildlife Management: Many Issues Unresolved in Yellowstone Bison-
Cattle Brucellosis Conflict. GAO/RCED-93-2. Washington, D.C.: October
1992.
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select ``Subscribe to Updates.''
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies
are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the
Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted
25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537; Fax: (202) 512-6061
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Soukup and Dr. Clifford, if
the people you indicated want to join you at the table, this
would be the appropriate time to do so. While that is
occurring, let me begin with a question that the Governor
referenced in his comments, and that is the question is what is
the current status of negotiations between the state and the
owners of the Royal Teton Ranch and the other part of that
question is, has the Federal government through the appropriate
agencies been participating in those discussions? Governor?
Governor Schweitzer. As has been suggested, there is an
ongoing negotiation with the Royal Teton Ranch. Almost all real
estate deals start with about six or eight no's before you get
to a yes. We are probably in the fourth or fifth no right now
on our way to a yes. So until you have a yes, until you have a
deal there is really nothing to talk about but I am confident
that there is a willingness on both sides to move toward a
permanent easement that would remove cattle, sheep and goats
from that property so that if bison do leave--and they do leave
during the tough winters--that there would be a temporal space
where we would not have cattle and bison occupying the same
space.
This is only a beginning. They are the largest cattle
raiser in the area. They are one of the few ranches that keep
cattle during an entire 12-month period. If you look at the map
in the west Yellowstone area, there are no cattle that stay
there through the winter months. The snow is just too deep.
They take too much snow. There are a couple of other operators
in the RTR area but they are the predominant operator.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Governor. Let me just a quick
question for Dr. Clifford. We heard as part of the testimony
that the implementation of the management plan there is an
attendant cost of about a million dollars a year that was
discussed, and in terms of the inspection service, what is the
yearly cost of working and implementing that management plan
agreement? Do you have a figure?
Mr. Clifford. We actually through Congress and actually
through earmarks in 2006 provided $277,000 to the State of
Idaho, $980,800 to the State of Montana and $277,000 to the
State of Wyoming.
Mr. Grijalva. That is that yearly allocation?
Mr. Clifford. That was in 2006. In 2007, our line item was
reduced by that amount from 2006 of a total of $10.3 million to
$8.9 million.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Ms. Nazzaro, when do you
estimate that the review would be completed and what point are
we in that review process just as a general point of
information?
Ms. Nazzaro. At this point, we have not negotiated a final
product or the issuance date of that product. The original
request letter from Mr. Rahall and Mr. Hinchey asked us to look
at the progress in implementing the plan, the interagency bison
management plan, as well as associated costs and challenges, to
identify the lands that were acquired for the $13 million in
Federal funds, and what advances had been made in developing
the brucellosis vaccine and remote delivery method.
To date, we have focused primarily on the progress in
implementing the plan and what was acquired for the Federal
funds. At this point, we toured the bison management area in
Yellowstone. We attended an interagency meeting sponsored by
the joint agencies and have interviewed a number of state and
Federal officials as well as interested stakeholder groups and
obtained relevant information.
We are in what we call the design phase. So we are trying
to determine what information is available, how difficult is it
to obtain, and what we will do then at that point is negotiate
with the staff on a timeframe and a product.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. And one last question
for Mr. Soukup and Superintendent Lewis if appropriate. It is a
general question. Why do bison leave the Park? The written
testimony by Dr. Kay, who will be testifying later, argues that
they leave because the Park is overgrazed. First of all, is
that why they leave? And if that were true, would they not
leave all year round as opposed to just in the winter if it is
overgrazed? General response to that.
Ms. Lewis. Thank you very much. The bison leave the Park,
as they have for centuries, in search of food outside the Park
because their winter range inside the Park is covered with
snow. So they are doing what they have done for centuries. They
move to lower elevation during the winter months where there is
a greater opportunity for forage for them but it is not because
the Park is overgrazed. It is because it is winter, and the
ground is covered with snow, and in many locations it is
covered with deep snow.
Mr. Grijalva. Any comments, Mr. Soukup?
Mr. Soukup. I would just add to that that there is fairly
good science available that indicates that the bison herd is
nowhere near the carrying capacity of the range. Numbers in the
literature, over five to 7,500. So we do not believe it is
overgrazing but it is a long-held migration that bison do in
response to the conditions in the winter.
Mr. Grijalva. Governor, did you want to make a comment?
Governor Schweitzer. Well I think there is an interaction.
It is true the tougher the winter the more bison leave the
Park. That is clear. But it is also true that the more bison we
have in the Park the more likely they are to leave during the
winter. They will scratch around and get to some feed, and they
hang out around the hot pots.
Any of you that would like to go in and watch the buffalo
during the winter, if you go to some of the hot spots in the
Park, it kind of looks like a feedlot because they hang around
those warm areas, and they graze right around those areas. The
question is how many bison would we have to reduce the number
to that they would stay in the Park five out of six years?
There is probably no number, even down to 50 head, that would
keep them in the park every winter but how about a five out of
six? A six out of seven?
I hear up to 7,000 head in the Park. I am a rancher. I go
down to the Park every once in awhile, and I know that if you
do not push them up into the high country, move them around
like--I wanted to call you Denny--but it is Congressman Rehberg
back here, right? Like he said, if you do not have some way of
moving them around, they are going to hang around where it is
easy, and so it might be theoretically that 7,000 could run
there but I can tell you with 3,600 and the number of elk that
we have sharing the space with them you do not have to drive
around much in the Park to see that it is grazed a little bit
more than most of the ranches in Montana.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you for your responses to the
questions. With that, let me turn to Ranking Member Mr. Bishop
for any questions he might have.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you again. It may be Denny for you. He
makes me call him sir. Director Soukup, if I could ask you a
couple of questions. I understand that the brucellosis in Idaho
and Wyoming was not caused by buffalo. It was caused by elk. Is
the elk herd in the Park, Yellowstone Park, brucellosis-free?
Whomever wants to answer.
Mr. Soukup. It is my understanding that there is
brucellosis at a very small incidence rate in the Park. The
incidence rate for elk are enormously high in those areas
around the feedlots, and especially I think in Idaho and
Wyoming feedlots. It is where the highest ratio is.
Mr. Bishop. Was I accurate in my original assumption that
Idaho and Wyoming lost--and Wyoming regained--their
brucellosis-free based on contact with elk and not with bison?
Mr. Soukup. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Bishop. All right. And the Governor made a couple of
really good points there. If the issue, Director Soukup, was a
free-range for bison or a brucellosis-free herd, which is the
higher value? Brucellosis-free herd or range for bison, which
would be a higher value?
Mr. Soukup. I believe it would be our position that the
free-roaming herd can be made brucellosis-free over time with
the appropriate----
Mr. Bishop. That is not what I asked. Which is the higher
value?
Mr. Soukup. We believe maintaining the free-roaming herd is
the higher value.
Mr. Bishop. Over having a herd that is brucellosis-free?
Mr. Soukup. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Can I ask you what you consider to be the
ultimate size of the herd that should be in Yellowstone Park?
Mr. Soukup. We believe that the herd will be regulated by
natural conditions that until it gets up to 7,500 we do not
think there is even an issue about reaching the carrying
capacity.
Mr. Bishop. Has there ever been a historic time in the Park
where it has been as high as 7,500?
Mr. Soukup. No.
Mr. Bishop. And if they are going to self-regulate, you
assume that the wolf and other predators are going to regulate
that size?
Mr. Soukup. Well the primary regulator that we have seen in
the past has been the harsh winters. We know that the wolf is
starting to be a factor in that some of the packs are feeding
and a couple of them are feeding solely on bison. So there will
be some impact from the wolf reintroduction but we believe that
the harsh winters are a major factor.
Mr. Bishop. I guess what you ought to do is convince the
wolves that you know bison is a leaner meat than the cows
around there, and therefore their cholesterol would go down if
they attack more. I do have a problem in realizing or thinking
that either a wolf devouring a bison or starvation of a bison
is the most humane way of managing a herd, but if that is your
position that is your position. In 1934, the Federal government
had a brucellosis eradication program that was successful. What
were the techniques that were used in that program?
Ms. Lewis. You are referring to a program in Yellowstone
National Park?
Mr. Bishop. Yes.
Ms. Lewis. OK. At that time it was test and slaughter.
Mr. Bishop. And it worked.
Ms. Lewis. No.
Mr. Bishop. Let me get the next question. In 1932, the Park
had a boundary adjustment. How many acres were added in that
time to the boundary?
Ms. Lewis. I am going to estimate that I think that it was
around 8,000 acres, and you are referring to the north end of
the Park, outside the north end around today what is the
community of Gardner, Montana.
Mr. Bishop. All right. I thank you because I did not know
exactly where that was. I appreciate that. Can I ask that Dr.
Clifford from APHIS? As I understand it, brucellosis vaccines
that we have right now are around 75 percent effective in their
rate of controlling the disease. Is that an accurate statement?
Mr. Clifford. I think you have to look at the particular
species that you are referring to. With the particular vaccine
that we use today and we are doing research to try to develop
better vaccines, you can reduce the amount of abortions in
bison but you do not really reduce that much maternal
transmission. So the cows would still get the disease but you
certainly can reduce the amount of abortion which will
therefore reduce the amount of the bacteria in the environment,
and therefore reduce the possibility of spread.
Mr. Bishop. What I think you are telling me is that we do
not have a vaccine that is 100 percent yet.
Mr. Clifford. No, sir.
Mr. Bishop. We have to use some other mechanism.
Mr. Clifford. We do not have a vaccine that is 100 percent.
Mr. Bishop. But I am assuming we are working to try and
develop that?
Mr. Clifford. We are trying to develop a better vaccine.
Mr. Bishop. I have 12 seconds to do this. Ms. Nazzaro, when
you come out with your report--which you have not done yet--are
you going to consider the issue of elk as well as bison in your
report?
Ms. Nazzaro. What issue? As far as the transmission of
brucellosis?
Mr. Bishop. Yes, you have it.
Ms. Nazzaro. That had not been originally covered under the
scope.
Mr. Bishop. If we were to do----
Ms. Nazzaro. I am not quite sure what the issue would be.
Mr. Bishop. Considering what happened in Wyoming and Idaho
out of elk, if we were to do a report that did not consider
both elk and bison as far as the transfer of brucellosis, that
is really kind of a halfway approach to it or a halfway report,
is it not?
Ms. Nazzaro. I think we could certainly mention the fact
that you know that there has been transmission. I know in our
testimony we are mentioning that there has not been
transmission from the bison to the cattle in the wild. You know
we did not go that far in the testimony but I would think we
would want to give that context that you mentioned certainly.
Mr. Bishop. I think it would be wise. I apologize for going
over my time.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Let me turn for any
questions that Chairman Rahall may have.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, let me ask
you the first question, and I would certainly agree with you
that the existing regime or the status quo does not bode well
for keeping Montana cattle disease-free while at the same time
maintaining the integrity of the Yellowstone bison herd, and
you mentioned in your testimony or rather I guess yes, you did,
that on average the National Park Service is spending a million
dollars annually, is that correct?
Governor Schweitzer. That is my understanding, and I think
we heard from Dr. Clifford that in 2006 nearly another million
bucks was spent by APHIS.
Mr. Rahall. That is what I was going to add. So we are
taking it up to well over $2.4 million as a cost to the Federal
government currently. So I guess I would ask you a further
question. What would you estimate the buyouts to be that you
discussed as one of the tools that you would need to properly
protect your cattle?
Governor Schweitzer. Well maybe four or five times that
annual investment. In other words, it could be in a range from
$5 to $10 million, depending on how much we negotiated, on how
much of that private land, and what the actual cost would be.
Bottom line is you have nailed it, Mr. Chairman. It is much
cheaper to take the long goal, get a permanent solution, than
it is to pay a couple of million dollars a year to slaughter
bison, to round them up, to use snowmobiles and helicopters, to
chase them back and forth.
We do not have a long-term solution. The Federal government
is just throwing a bunch of money away in the greater
Yellowstone area with the plan that we have right now. The plan
is not working. It is not mitigating the management of
brucellosis. We need to be realistic and find a solution that
ends with Montana not losing our brucellosis-free status as has
occurred with our neighbors.
Mr. Rahall. And saving the taxpayers money as well.
Governor Schweitzer. Well we always like it when Congress
sends a few more dollars to Montana but in this particular case
I think it would be better to leave the dollars in Washington,
D.C. and have a permanent solution for bison management that
does not end with Montana losing its brucellosis-free status.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you. Any of the other panel which to
comment on that?
Ms. Nazzaro. Well we have not pulled together all of the
cost figures yet but I think you do need to realize that there
will be ongoing monitoring so there will still need to be some
cost associated with the bison management. That will be an
ongoing program you know regardless of whether you move forward
in acquiring additional lands for the bison.
Mr. Rahall. And will those costs be a part of your upcoming
report?
Ms. Nazzaro. Yes.
Mr. Rahall. I appreciate it. Appreciate each of you for the
job you do, and Ms. Nazzaro, it is good to see you again before
our Committee.
Ms. Nazzaro. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Rahall. Let me turn for any
questions to Mr. Heller.
Mr. Heller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, it is good
to see you again. Glad to have you back. I guess I am a little
confused on your testimony, and maybe you can clarify. I am
trying to figure out whether you are for active management of
brucellosis or you are actually for expanding the size of the
Park. What is the long-term answer to this in your opinion?
Governor Schweitzer. The former, not the latter. I have not
advocated increasing the size of the Park nor am I advocating
for increasing the size of the land that the bison occupy when
they leave the Park. What I am advocating for is number one and
the best solution would be for Congress to give the tools to
Yellowstone National Park to actively manage the bison to
eradicate brucellosis. Now I want to be honest with you here.
There are some folks that when it comes right down to it
that are in the livestock business in Montana that would not
necessarily appreciate that solution because you see if the
bison population in Montana were brucellosis-free, then they
would become a free-ranging, wild game species. They would work
their way down the Madison and the Yellowstone. They would run
down the streets of Bozeman. They would be standing in the
middle of the interstate. They would be stopping trains.
They would be running through fences across eastern
Montana, and so you see there will be some folks who tell you
that the most important thing we need to do is eradicate
brucellosis but when it comes right down to having the tools to
eradicate brucellosis, they know that ultimately if the wild,
free-ranging herd has brucellosis eradicated then there will be
virtually no limitations other than hunting to the size of the
population of the bison herd in Montana.
Mr. Heller. Just one follow-up. Do you not have a current
problem with the elk herds? In other words, are they not then
able to--they are free-roaming--they have the same issues?
Governor Schweitzer. In Wyoming in particular, they winter
feed. They feed hay to their elk population. They congregate
them, and their herd of elk have brucellosis incidence of some
30, 40 percent. Idaho has a limited amount of winter feeding,
and I am proud to say in Montana we do not winter feed our elk.
The number of elk that we have survive because they have the
skills to find their own grass and make their way around.
Our incidence of brucellosis is around 1.8 percent in the
elk herd in the greater Yellowstone area. So by not
congregating the elk in a wild management system in Montana, to
this point, we have managed to check the growth of brucellosis.
Thank you.
Mr. Heller. Thank you, Governor. I yield back my time.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me turn to Mr. Kind for any
questions.
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate a chance to
have this important hearing today, and I want to welcome
Superintendent Lewis back to the Committee here in Washington.
I had the pleasure to go out and visit beautiful Yellowstone
last August and received an excellent briefing from her and her
staff on a whole host of issues, including this one, and I
would really commend the people at Yellowstone Park for their
management of this issue, trying to be a good neighbor, while
at the same time trying to be the proper steward of this
incredibly important resource that we have which is attacking
us as we speak apparently. We have a free-roaming herd behind
the witnesses today.
But I want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony.
Governor, you too. I think you have shed some light on some
various aspects of this issue that I think the Committee will
have to seriously consider, and we would like to follow up with
you in regards to the outreach you are doing with the private
landowners in regards to a possible buyout program, what it
would take, whether there is interest even in going down that
path, because it certainly seems one way of being able to
contain what I think is a very manageable issue at this point.
And I understand in your testimony today that you really
have not been able to calculate an approximate cost as far as a
buyout plan, is that correct? You have not reached that level
of detail yet?
Governor Schweitzer. Well I can give you the background
math. In the west Yellowstone area, the area that is
represented on this map in this area, since there is not a
single operator who owns the land and raises cattle, we had one
operator that was from Idaho that sold his land, then it is
just a question of finances for these folks. They are private
landowners.
Mr. Kind. Right.
Governor Schweitzer. There are cattle that are brought in
for a few months during the summer. The total numbers are
around 500, 600 head for a three or four-month period. They pay
about 20 to $25 per cow and calf per month. You can do the
math. We give them a little more than that and tell them they
can raise horses and mules. So you can do that math. And in the
Gardner area, the numbers are probably about 250 to 300 that
are there permanently, times 12 months, times that 20, 25
bucks. There is your math.
There will be those in the livestock industry who say, well
this is just the nose under the camel's tent. These are people
who are just trying to push livestock people off of their land.
No, I am a rancher. I have made a living in the livestock
business. I can tell you this though, we will not allow a
footprint the size of New York City on the map of the United
States, this small area, to put our entire billion dollar
livestock industry at risk in Montana. It makes sense for us to
be proactive, to work with these private landowners, to
compensate them a market value, and allow them to continue to
raise horses and mules.
Mr. Kind. Right. Now it is my understanding in part of the
briefing I received last summer is that a lot of the movement
of the buffalo is dependent on winter conditions. In some
winters you are going to have a large exodus or a larger
exodus, and I think this most recent winter the numbers have
been relatively low, is that correct?
Ms. Lewis. We have had bison move this winter but not in
large numbers. We have not captured any bison this winter but
we probably had more than 500 events where we are hazing every
two days, every three days. Approximately about 150 head of
bison were moving around the north boundary of the Park. As of
last night, there were no bison on the boundary on the west
side of the Park, no bison on the boundary of the north side of
the Park. We have been experiencing very warm temperatures over
the last two weeks. Green up is starting a little bit earlier,
and again the bison turn and begin to move back into the Park.
Mr. Kind. Ms. Nazzaro, I think I was walking in, in the
middle of your response, but is it my understanding, based on
your testimony, that GAO does not have purview of looking at
the possibility of a buyout plan given the audit that you are
doing now with the bison management plan? You are not looking
into a buyout proposal?
Ms. Nazzaro. We are looking at the various costs associated
with the current operations but no, we are not looking at what
this additional buyout could cost. That is possibly something
if we talk options down the road as to we would want to include
the cost of those various options. So I could see us getting
into it. It is not specifically prescribed, if you will, and
that is why I say when we are in the design phase we try to go
in and try to ascertain what are the issues, what are some
potential solutions, and then we go back and talk with our
clients and suggest possibly expanding the audit. Of course it
always depends on their timeframes and you know the resources
we have available.
Mr. Kind. Governor, one final question. What would be the
economic impact on your state if you lose brucellosis-free
status?
Governor Schweitzer. Montana has some of the greatest
numbers of purebred cattle of any state in the union, whether
that be Angus or Limousin or Charolais or the business that I
have been in, the simmental business. We export semen and
frozen embryos and cattle all over the world. You can go to
Argentina, go to a ranch and ask them you know tell me about
the genetics of your angus cattle, and they will start ticking
off names of bulls that were bred in Montana.
So we have a billion dollar cattle industry in Montana but
the limitation of moving our cattle around, moving to feedlot,
is only a fraction of the cost that would be borne by those in
the purebred industry that would lose their opportunities to
export Montana beef genetics all over the world. It is hundreds
of millions of dollars.
Mr. Kind. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Schweitzer. Per year.
Mr. Kind. I appreciate it.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Rehberg, any questions?
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not abuse the
privilege of sitting up here. I thank you for giving me this
quick opportunity. The GAO, during their investigation, did
they look at what Ms. Lewis had suggested, the purchase of
property I believe in 1932 was an expansion of the Park clearly
to the north? Clearly that did not solve the issue.
So as you look at the memorandum or the interagency
agreement, do you put any kind of a value on whether that is
the trend or do you only look at that was the agreement that we
are going to try and change the migration pattern of the bison
out of the Park? Ultimately where do you come down? Do you do a
cost benefit analysis on one answer versus the other? And more
simply, will you make a determination is it better to vaccinate
and clean up the herd or buy more easements or property to
solve the bison and migration issue?
Ms. Nazzaro. I could see us certainly providing a number of
options. We would look at--if I understand the first part of
your question--from a historical perspective what has been
tried in the past and how successful or unsuccessful that has
been. That would be factored in but we would do kind of a cost
benefit analysis. We would talk about the pros and cons. What
you would get. What the various costs would be and probably lay
it out more as options to the Congress.
Mr. Rehberg. One of the concerns I have heard from the
ranging community in Montana is their nervousness that they
have not been contacted as far as getting public input. Is that
part of your study? Do you have people actually go out and talk
to somebody that knows something about grazing or is this all
done internally among the various Federal agencies?
Ms. Nazzaro. No. We definitely contact stakeholders during
the course of our review. In fact, we did attend the
interagency sponsored public meeting that was held by the
various Federal agencies and state agencies. There were a
number of ranchers there as well as other interested parties.
We were contacted specifically by a rancher who wanted to meet
with my staff, and they met with him on a Sunday afternoon to
discuss his concerns.
Mr. Rehberg. So if they contact you, you are perfectly
willing and able to?
Ms. Nazzaro. We would, and just under the course of our
review we would try. I mean we pride ourselves as far as our
independence and our balance that we give to an effort. So we
would contact all stakeholders in this case.
Mr. Rehberg. Suzanne, if I could ask you a question, and as
you know or I mentioned I was down in Yellowstone Park
snowmobiling and looking at the bison just literally two weeks
ago. I would agree with the Governor. It is overgrazed in the
areas that are open. That is part of the difficulty is the
pattern of grazing within the Park, and I know they are free-
roaming but sometimes they need to be guided to their free-
roaming areas.
Because one of the things I saw was a lot of wildlife
biologists out there. There were airplanes flying all over the
place taking pictures or counting. There were people on
snowmobiles out there. Wildlife biologists counting. Do you in
fact map the migration of the bison so that if you were to put
the map of the one that is over there with the yellow park,
could you tell me exactly where the 3,600 head are? Because my
simple math is you get 2.2 million acres. You have 3,600
animals. You have about 700 acres per bison.
The Governor and I are both in the same business. I have
been in the cattle business. I am fifth generation on the same
ranch, and I can tell you a bison takes about 50 acres per
bison for year-round grazing or 25 acres for six-month grazing
if they are going off and eating somewhere else. There is a big
difference between 50 acres or give them 100 acres and the 700
acres, the numbers work out. Do you in fact as the manager of
the Park know where those bison are, how well they are
distributed, and are they in fact taking full advantage of the
grass that is available to them?
Ms. Lewis. Yes, we do, Congressman. We have extensive
monitoring that has been conducted for more than a decade, and
we understand where the herds are and how they move year-round
throughout the Park. There are several herds, the Mary Mountain
herd, the Pelican Valley herd, the Madison herd, the herd on
the north end. As you yourself just mentioned, with
approximately 3,600 bison that we just finished the late winter
count and we have been again like I said hazing maybe about 120
head on the north end, again that tells us that more than 3,400
of the bison are well entrenched in the Park, do not get up and
move during the winter months.
They are different herds with different herd behavior,
different knowledge that they have about where they go in the
winter. As the Governor mentioned, many of them do live in the
thermal areas where they are able to feed on small lichen, stay
warm throughout the winter. So most of the bison herd does not
move during the winter months. The majority of them stay within
the Park.
Mr. Rehberg. The troublemakers. Mr. Chairman, would it be
appropriate to ask for the mapping of the migration patterns? I
think that would be very helpful because in all the years I
have served and worked on this Committee, I have never seen
that provided to the Committee. I think it would be helpful to
show that there are troublemakers around the edge, and rather
than continually buying additional property or easements around
the Park, let us deal with the troublemakers.
Ms. Lewis. We would be happy to supply that data and those
maps.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Thank you for helping
the Committee identify the troublemakers in this whole process.
With that, let me ask Mr. Inslee if he has any questions.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Governor, thanks for
being here. It always amazes me that you have such a well
managed state. You manage to take care of the country too up
here in Washington, D.C. We appreciate that. I wanted to ask I
read in your testimony--I did not get to hear your testimony--
but I read that one idea you had floated is a special zone
where you would have 100 percent testing and special zones with
the agreement of APHIS that if there was an infection in that
special zone it would not affect the whole state. Could you
just either elaborate or tell us what APHIS' response has been
and where that may end up going?
Governor Schweitzer. Well APHIS has a rule that says two
strikes and you are out, not three, two. So if two separate
herds of Montana or any other state have an animal that tests
positive for brucellosis, the whole state loses their
brucellosis-free status. But since this mixing zone is such a
small footprint in the State of Montana, it is a thumb of the
entire map of Montana on a map this size, it does not make any
sense to risk all the cattle that are 300 and 400 and 500 miles
away from this mixing zone.
And so if we are not capable, if we do not want to actively
purchase some conservation easements until we can eradicate
brucellosis, another option would be to draw a 50 or 100-mile
line around the Park, and the few head of cattle that enter
that area in Montana would be held to a higher standard. They
would have 100 percent test. They would be tested before they
entered. They would be tested when they left.
And if we did have two, three or four herds that showed a
positive animal, those herds would lose their brucellosis-free
status. They would be quarantined until they cleaned it up but
it would not affect the status of the rest of Montana.
Mr. Inslee. Do you think that would have the support of the
industry, that heightened inspection criteria?
Governor Schweitzer. It has the support of some of the
industry. In Montana we have several livestock groups. There is
the Montana Stock Growers Association who have not been
particularly warm to any of these ideas, some of which because
there is a pride of authorship because they were involved in
the negotiation in 2000 which probably ended up with a document
that I am not particularly proud of.
The Montana Cattlemen's Association, which is a much larger
organization, they have endorsed either one of these ideas that
I have proposed today, in addition to eradicating brucellosis
in the Park among the bison. So it is like all industries.
There are different opinions but ultimately everyone agrees in
Montana that is in the livestock industry we do not want to
lose our brucellosis-free status, and we think that the
Department of Interior ought to work with the Department of
Agriculture.
After all, the United States Department of Interior has the
responsibility of managing the buffalo, and it is the United
States Department of Agriculture that decides whether we lose
our brucellosis-free status. So we think that they ought to
work together here in Washington D.C. not to dump the problem
on us in Montana when the buffalo leave the Park. Thank you.
Mr. Inslee. What is APHIS' response to that idea?
Mr. Clifford. Basically when you are talking about the
issue of zoning, really that is what the Governor is talking
about is zoning out, zoning is done when a disease enters that
particular area and the state requests it. Then we consider
whether zoning or regionalization is appropriate at that
particular time not prior to. Our ultimate goal is for the
elimination and eradication of brucellosis from the entire
U.S., both wildlife and domestic livestock. That goal has been
met in 48 states. The State of Idaho and the State of Texas are
the only two states that are not recognized free.
The standards that are set for the program are not just set
by USDA. It is a cooperative program with the industry and the
states, and so all of us together have set these standards
nationally for the brucellosis program. So if you start
changing those standards, it would require us to go out with
our partners, both at the industry and as well with the other
states, to consider those changes to the program.
Mr. Inslee. Is that underway? Should it be underway? Should
those discussions take place? I mean is there any reason not to
do it prospectively rather than retroactively?
Mr. Clifford. I think there is really no point at this
point in time to be changing the program that has been so
effective for so many years.
Mr. Inslee. Sounds like an answer, Governor, that might not
be the one you are looking for.
Governor Schweitzer. Well, I do not know that it has been
so effective for so many years because my neighbors in Wyoming
and Idaho do not think that it has been so effective.
Mr. Inslee. Right.
Governor Schweitzer. They believe that the greater
Yellowstone area has contributed to their loss of the
brucellosis-free status. So to suggest that status quo is
working when two out of three have already failed, I do not
like to be the third one waiting in line for losing our
brucellosis-free status. So we happen to disagree that it is
working.
Mr. Inslee. Is there not an argument, Mr. Clifford, that a
prospective inspection protocol right on the boundaries of the
Park actually gives consumers a greater level of protection
than this sort of retroactive once it happens then we whack the
whole state?
Mr. Clifford. We certainly find with the prospective look
as far as testing in and out of that the states can require
that themselves. The State of Montana, the State of Wyoming,
the State of Idaho can make those requirements within the
state. They do not need the Federal government to make that
determination and put those requirements in place. They can do
that themselves, and we certainly support that if that is the
direction they want to go with regard to testing.
Mr. Inslee. Governor?
Governor Schweitzer. Well that would be amazing. So the
State of Montana decides we are going to test more cattle so we
can find the two herds so they can put us out of compliance and
lose our brucellosis-free status. If we are going to do that in
this small area, we would suggest that every cow in America be
tested, and under those testing regimes there would be many
more states that would lose their brucellosis-free status, if
we tested every single animal.
So unless USDA is prepared to offer us the opportunity--if
we do have two, three, four herds that ended up brucellosis
positive--not to lose the entire state's brucellosis-free
status, of course we would not subject our own herds to a
higher standard of testing than the rest of the country.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. I have some follow-up questions
just to kind of finish up on some questions. Mr. Clifford, does
the inspection service have any documentation of the
transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle in the wild?
Mr. Clifford. Not in the wild but certainly captive bison
that would not act any differently than wild bison. There is an
article in the 1983 proceedings of the U.S. Animal Health
Association where transmission occurred from a captive bison
herd in the State of North Dakota to cattle.
Mr. Grijalva. But my point is----
Mr. Clifford. It is not wild but it is not research either.
It was a captive herd of bison but the captive herd of bison is
not going to act any differently than wild bison with regards
to transmission. That is why spacial and temporal separation
and other activities are so critically important. In addition,
in Yellowstone National Park area there have been fetuses found
and tested and brucella bordis isolated from those fetuses
which is infective to cattle.
Mr. Grijalva. But the statement I would consider true that
as Chairman Rahall said in the wild there has never been a
documented instance of that transmission?
Mr. Clifford. To my knowledge, there has not been a
documented case of wild transmission but there has been
documented cases of bison to cattle.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And just for Mr. Soukup and
Superintendent Lewis, are there discussions underway with
tribes? Any discussion going on between Park Service or another
Federal agency with tribes adjacent to the Park relative to
them assuming some herd responsibility on the reservation for
the bison? Has any of that discussion occurred?
Ms. Lewis. Yellowstone enjoys and is very proud of part of
its mission which is our relationship with the 26 tribes who
are affiliated with the Park. We meet with those tribes on a
regular basis. There is an actual intertribal bison committee
that gives us a lot of input on how we conduct the interagency
bison management plan. So they are part of our routine and
ongoing discussions, and I think the Governor had a comment he
wanted to offer.
Mr. Grijalva. But specifically establishing bison in those
reservations.
Ms. Lewis. Currently the regulations controlling
brucellosis through the Animal, Plant and Health Inspection
Service prohibit us from transmitting any bison outside of the
Yellowstone National Park because of the presence of the
disease.
Mr. Grijalva. Governor?
Governor Schweitzer. But during the course of the last few
years, when bison do leave the Park, young females have been
captured, and with the idea that perhaps they might be young
enough that they would still be brucellosis-free. We test them.
If they are negative, we keep them in captivity until they have
had their first calf, and the gold standard in this business is
if they still do not have an elevated titer by the time they
have their first calf, that they are brucellosis-free.
Now that is preparing an opportunity of a repository of
these genetics to be in a position to move them out of the
greater Yellowstone area and presumably to some of the
reservations. In addition, we have had all of the reservations
in Montana and the Nez Perce tribe from Idaho involved in our
hunts that we have been conducting in Montana. We issue some of
the permits. They come. They hunt. They kill animals. They
slaughter them. They take them back and feed them to members of
their family and community.
So I am hopeful that some of these animals that we have
captured, these young females, will be a start of some genetics
that we can move out to some of our Indian tribes, and give
them an opportunity to raise some of these free-ranging
genetics on their own reservations.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Last question. Mr. Clifford, does
the inspection service have the legal authority to enter
Yellowstone National Park to pursue a program of testing all
bison in the Park and slaughtering those which test positive
for brucellosis? Do you have that authority?
Mr. Clifford. Our position is that we would work with the
Park on that. I do not know that. You know we would have to go
back and look at our particular authorities whether we would
have that authority to do that or not. I really do not know if
that authority exists on the papers. I do know that in time of
emergency disease when the Secretary of Agriculture declares an
emergency, that gives us very broad authority to take action
for diseases like foot-and-mouth disease but in this case I
think it would probably take that type of an emergency.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. If you would, Mr. Clifford, just
for the sake of the Committee's full information on that
authority question, if you could provide that.
Mr. Clifford. We will do that, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me ask Mr. Bishop if he has
any questions.
Mr. Bishop. Yes. Let me be brief. I have two quick
questions, and then perhaps a simple statement. Let me ask two
questions about hunting if I could to Director Soukup again,
and the Chairman touched on this. There are Indian tribes that
have valid treaty rights allowing them to hunt in the Park. Is
that part of your management plan?
Ms. Lewis. There is no authority by which Native Americans
can hunt inside Yellowstone National Park. The hunting that
they have been participating in is outside the Park's boundary
in the State of Montana by which their treaty rights do apply.
They do not apply inside Yellowstone National Park.
Mr. Bishop. We will look at that one in greater detail. I
appreciate that comment. Congressman Mark Udall has introduced
legislation that allows sports hunting to harvest elk in the
Rocky Mountain National Park under very regulated conditions.
If such legislation were introduced in Yellowstone, would your
service, the Park Service, be supportive of that?
Mr. Soukup. As I understand that legislation, I believe we
have that authority already. We have the authority to use
authorized agents. How you define that and who they might be is
something that in each case we analyze in our public
involvement process.
Mr. Bishop. So I do not want to put words in your mouth.
Did you just say you were supportive of that? Would be
supportive or would not?
Mr. Soukup. I believe we already have that authority.
Mr. Bishop. Let me try this one more time. I do not want to
put words in your mouth. Does that mean you would be supportive
of that legislation?
Mr. Soukup. I do not believe we would, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you for the answer. Let me ask two last
questions, and once again for GAO. I recognize the report that
was requested of you deals with bison only but the issue
obviously is brucellosis, otherwise there would be no issue for
the report. Any report that does not actively go out and try to
add the element of elk which also is the purveyor of
brucellosis as part of the equation means the report would
basically be woefully inadequate when it is finished and given
to us. I will simply say that as an up-front comment about it.
And finally, Director of the Park Service, I am very much
troubled in the one question that I did ask you. You gave me
very good answers in many of them but the one question I asked
you which would be the higher value, and making a brucellosis-
free herd was not your highest value. Greater Yellowstone Park
is the only area where brucellosis is still a major problem.
If we are not in active management of that herd to make it
a brucellosis-free, we are failing in our responsibility, and
if that is not your greatest responsibility and greatest value
then there is something deeply wrong with what we are doing in
that Park. If we could have this as a brucellosis-free area, in
both of those areas, we would solve a whole lot of problems as
opposed to trying to get buffer zones, which they would then
inhabit. Then you would have to have a different buffer zone
and other kind of processes.
Simple logic tells us that should be the highest priority,
and when you say that is not the highest priority there is
something that is deeply wrong in the Park Service, and we need
to talk about that in great detail later on. Thank you. I am
done with the question.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Rahall?
Mr. Rahall. No questions.
Mr. Grijalva. No question. Mr. Rehberg?
Mr. Rehberg. No.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Kind?
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. Just to
follow-up on a couple of more questions but getting back to
what Mr. Bishop was asking you a second ago, Mr. Soukup. What
concerns would the Park have in regards to issuing limited
hunting permits for this purpose? Do you see a management
problem or----
Mr. Soukup. I am sorry. I am not clear on what purpose your
are referring.
Mr. Kind. Well he was referencing Mr. Udall's legislation
as far as Rocky Mountain National Park and issuing limited
hunting rights for culling the elk heard there, and you
indicated the Park may not be so inclined to embrace such a
policy inside Yellowstone?
Mr. Soukup. Well we have the authority to make reductions
and to manage wildlife when we understand that there is a
necessity to do that. Within that authority is the authority to
use authorized agents. So----
Mr. Kind. Bring in some sharpshooters in other words?
Mr. Soukup. We often use the APHIS division that is very
professional at this. They are very capable of doing this in a
very clean, concise, quick way. We use them quite a bit. There
is the possibility to use authorized agents that could be
perhaps the----
Mr. Kind. But just to pin you down a little bit. I think
this is what Mr. Bishop was trying to get at is there is some
concern about issuing some permits to private hunters inside
the Park. What is the concern?
Mr. Soukup. Well we have a long, very long tradition, and
it is very clear in our legislation and all of our policies
since 1872 that there is no hunting allowed in Yellowstone
National Park.
Mr. Kind. So just tradition mainly?
Mr. Soukup. Well it is legal. It is in the enabling
legislation.
Mr. Kind. It is in the enabling act. Yes. Mr. Clifford, let
me ask you briefly are we getting better at developing an
accurate, nonlethal form of testing for brucellosis or is the
most accurate test after you have killed the animal?
Mr. Clifford. Actually there is very accurate tests with
regards to blood tests that can be done. You do not have to
kill an animal to diagnosis brucella.
Mr. Kind. So you can do a pretty good calculation as far as
the pure herds in Yellowstone right now if we had the resources
to----
Mr. Clifford. Well you have to capture the animal to be
able to draw the blood.
Mr. Kind. Right. Right. Governor, you seem willing to share
some information with us.
Governor Schweitzer. It is the doggonedest thing. When the
buffalo leaves the Park, then the State of Montana is
responsible to chase them around, to round them up or have a
hunt. We have been hunting them for the last couple of years.
We had 12 years. We went three consecutive administrations
before me where we were not of the resolve to have a hunt.
So we have been hunting them when they leave the Park but
we have to wait until their nose crosses a line, and then we
can shoot them. So the State of Montana has to fix the problem
that the Department of Interior and the Department of
Agriculture have created, in part in hunting them. So I would
suggest if we could hunt them on one side of the line we ought
to be able to hunt them on the other side of the line and open
up the entire basin for hunting.
We can control numbers. We have been controlling numbers of
elk and antelope and moose and other game species in Montana.
We have the largest, healthiest group of wild game in Montana.
We have for 75 years, and we manage those numbers with a hunt.
I do not know why the Federal government cannot follow the lead
of the State of Montana. Thank you.
Mr. Kind. Well let me ask you in regards to the buyout
proposal that you were suggesting today, from your experience
in some of the negotiations that are ongoing, are the private
landowners receptive to this idea? Are they open to it?
Governor Schweitzer. To some extent. The largest landowner
is RTR. They are in negotiation. There are others that are
discussing it with us. We have met with landowner groups in the
area, and there are varying levels of acceptance but there are
varying levels of offers in terms of financial contribution
that can be brought to bear.
Mr. Kind. But it may be more complicated though, as you
suggested too, is whenever you have free-roaming animals of
this nature, transportation systems, rail system, things like
that, that we would have to have a plan for as well.
Governor Schweitzer. Well understand that there would still
be what I call a drop dead zone. Even if we purchased easement
rights just adjacent to the Park, those 10,000 acres and much
less of it would be private land, there would be some choke
points along both the Madison River and the Yellowstone River
where the canyons are very narrow. Beyond that, we would not
accept a single one of those buffalo into Montana until they
are brucellosis-free.
So we will not expand the area that the bison are moving in
and out of. We would just allow for cattle not to be in the
area where those bison are moving in and out so that we would
not have cattle and bison occupying the same space. Thank you.
Mr. Kind. Is anyone working on an elk management plan
comparable? Is this not the problem that Wyoming and Idaho got
into as far as the spread of brucellosis, Mr. Clifford?
Mr. Clifford. In my testimony what we were talking about is
developing management plans for all of the elk and bison in the
entire GYA. That is the direction we would like to have is an
MOU with all of the parties involved to develop an elimination
plan for all of the bison and elk in the greater Yellowstone.
We recognize that that is a long-term effort but we believe it
is the best effort with regards to moving this issue forward.
Mr. Kind. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Heller?
Mr. Heller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Clifford, I just
have a couple of questions. What is the status of say Nevada
and Utah as far as the brucellosis disease is concerned?
Mr. Clifford. All the states in the U.S. are free with the
exception of Idaho and Texas.
Mr. Heller. And the reason I ask you know I apply for tags,
elk tags, deer tags in Utah. In fact, I think there is even a
bison herd in Utah, is that correct?
Governor Schweitzer. Yes, and they have a hunt.
Mr. Heller. They do have a hunt?
Governor Schweitzer. You bet.
Mr. Heller. That is what I thought.
Governor Schweitzer. You bet.
Mr. Heller. Because every time I apply for a tag in Utah I
see bison on the form, never applied for a bison tag, but
interesting that it is there. What is the status of that herd
there?
Mr. Clifford. Those herds are free of brucella.
Mr. Heller. Then explain to me why the disease is so more
acute in Yellowstone Park as opposed to a herd in Utah.
Mr. Clifford. Well I do not know that it is an issue of
being acute. I think it is an issue of the fact that the
disease has been present there for a long period of time. I
think it was first diagnosed in the Yellowstone bison I believe
it was in 1917, and the disease really to my knowledge has
never been eradicated from that population of animals, even
during that entire period of time, and now it is in the elk
population as well, and it is a bigger issue.
Mr. Heller. You are saying it is not in the elk population
though in Nevada or Utah that you are aware of?
Mr. Clifford. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Heller. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kind. [Presiding.] Thank you. Mr. Rahall, any further
questions?
Mr. Rahall. No.
Mr. Kind. Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. No.
Mr. Kind. I want to thank all of the panelists here and
your testimony was very helpful, very enlightening, and
obviously we have some work to do. So thank you for your
testimony here today.
[Recess.]
Mr. Kind. OK. I think we are going to keep this going. We
have some votes starting shortly. So we want to get to the next
panel of witnesses as soon as possible, and we have with us for
the third panel Mr. Josh Osher with the Buffalo Field Campaign.
Thank you for joining us. Tim Stevens, Yellowstone Project
Manager, National Parks Conservation Association. Wayne
Pacelle, who is the CEO of the Humane Society. Good to see you
again, Wayne. Jim Hagenbarth, Montana Stock Growers Association
and Dr. Charles Kay from the Utah State University.
I believe all or some of you have submitted written
statements that will be made a part of the record but let us
start with Mr. Osher for your testimony. Thank you for being
here.
STATEMENT OF JOSH OSHER, BUFFALO FIELD CAMPAIGN
Mr. Osher. Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here. Mr.
Chairman, members of the Committee, again my name is Josh
Osher, and I am a coordinator with the Buffalo Field Campaign.
The Buffalo Field Campaign is the only group working in the
field every day documenting the harassment and slaughter of
Yellowstone's wild bison herd. Buffalo of Yellowstone National
Park cannot be here today to defend themselves to this
committee and to represent themselves, and we do not pretend to
speak for them but we are their advocates, and that is why we
are here today.
I would also like to recognize that with me today is
Darrell Geist, a Buffalo Field Campaign associate, who has
researched extensively the grazing program in the Gallatin
National Forest and D. J. Shubert from the Animal Welfare
Institute with 20 years plus experience on this issue as a
wildlife biologist.
Twenty-five to 40 million buffalo once roamed the North
American continent. Their range expanded from Canada to Mexico
and across the United States. They were an incredibly
significant feature of the lives of many Native American tribes
living in the plains region. The buffalo were so important to
the Native Americans in this area that they considered them
their relatives.
But a directed policy in the late 1800s led to the
extermination of nearly all of the buffalo from their native
range. In less than 50 years, the millions were down to just a
handful of animals that survived in Yellowstone National Park's
Pelican Valley. The buffalo of Yellowstone today are the only
living link in this country to the great herds of millions that
once roamed freely throughout the plains. They are genetically
pure, not hybridized with cattle. Their significance is strong
with the American people as well as they are--as was pointed
out earlier--a symbol of the Department of Interior and the
National Park Service.
They are truly a treasure. However, these agencies have
advocated their responsibility toward the buffalo in recent
years. In 2000, as has been mentioned, the interagency bison
management plan was developed through court-ordered mediation.
The management plan is a product of politics, not of sound
science. It was even recognized by the agencies that there was
large disagreement and the plan would be an adaptive management
plan.
However, the plan has focused solely on eliminating buffalo
from the range that they are trying to access outside of the
Park. The agencies use techniques called hazing where they use
horses, ATVs, helicopters and snowmobiles, as the Governor
described. In one instance last year, 14 bison fell through the
thin ice of Hebgen Lake as they were chased by snowmobiles. Two
drowned, and then within several months later all 40 or so of
those bison were rounded up and sent to slaughter anyway,
without even preliminary brucellosis testing.
When the buffalo are deemed unhazeable, they are captured,
and these facilities that you are seeing here, these are
designed for domestic livestock. This is the product of years
of an eradication program for livestock. Wild buffalo are not
domestic livestock. They cannot be treated the same way. In
these facilities the buffalo are often injured, some of them
are even mortally wounded in these facilities, never even
making it to the testing chutes or eventually to the
slaughterhouse.
Oftentimes when buffalo are captured, they may be tested
for brucellosis exposure, and the testing procedures are
themselves quite a brutal experience for these buffalo. These
procedures were designed for domestic cattle. The tests used
were designed for domestic cattle. They are not accurate in the
buffalo. Less than 20 percent of the buffalo that test positive
for antibodies to brucellosis actually test positive when their
tissues are cultured for the bacteria. So most of the animals
that are being slaughtered do not in fact have brucellosis.
What they have is the resistance to brucellosis.
In the last six years of the interagency plan, over 2,000
wild buffalo have been killed by the agencies, 1,500 by the
National Park Service alone, 850 of those just last year as
they try and leave the Park. If this was not enough, the
agencies have moved onto a program the Governor spoke about
quarantine. Bison quarantine is a program where these calves
are taken from their families. They are placed in a facility
north of the Park. They are held captive for four years. They
are fed hay. They are fed water. They are ear tagged. They are
moved around. They are kept in small pastures and small
corrals.
These are our Yellowstone buffalo with ear tags being
treated like domestic cattle. Is this the future we really want
to see for the wild buffalo of Yellowstone? So that what you
have seen here are the tools of brucellosis eradication:
Testing, slaughtering, vaccination. The vaccine just simply
does not work in the buffalo. Some studies have indicated it
has not efficacy. Some other studies have put that up to around
40, 50 percent. But the truth is, these are buffalo. They are
not cattle. The vaccines and the tools and the tests for cattle
do not work on buffalo.
What the buffalo really need is winter range habitat, and
it is available. There is a large landscape in Montana, and we
can make this land available for wild buffalo. The Gallatin
National Forest can create a wild bison recovery zone where
they make multiple use decisions based on the concept that this
land is prioritized for habitat for wild buffalo. It is their
principal role in the interagency management plan to provide
habitat.
APHIS can do what the Governor said: Create a zone
management system for domestic cattle in the greater
Yellowstone area to protect Montana's brucellosis-free status.
They can provide service to the livestock industry which is
their charge rather than funding the slaughter of wild buffalo.
Yellowstone has to return to its original charter, to
conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and
the wildlife therein and leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations. It took an Act of Congress,
signed by the President, enforced by the U.S. Army to stop the
near extinction of Yellowstone's wild buffalo before. It is
going to take an Act of Congress now to ensure their survival
and restoration as a native wildlife species in the American
west. Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Osher follows:]
Statement of Joshua Osher, Coordinator, Buffalo Field Campaign
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee on this
issue of great importance to the American people.
A Brief History of the Yellowstone Herd
The bison of Yellowstone National Park are unique among herds in
the United States, being members of the country's only continuously
wild herd. Bison once ranged from the northeastern United States to
Oregon and California and from northern Mexico and Florida to northern
Canada. Freely migrating in response to natural conditions, North
America's bison comprised the largest concentration of mammals ever
known to exist. While no one will ever know exactly how many bison the
continent once supported, scientific estimates place the figure between
twenty-five and forty million animals.
North America's native bison gave rise to and supported diverse
Native American cultures. For many tribes of the Great Plains and
surrounding regions, the bison was essential to life. John Fire Lame
Deer eloquently expresses the depth of the connection between the
Lakota Nation and the Buffalo Nation: ``The buffalo was part of us, his
flesh and blood being absorbed by us until it became our own flesh and
blood. Our clothing, our tipis, everything we needed for life came from
the buffalo's body. It was hard to say where the animal ended and the
man began.'' John Fire Lame Deer and Richard Erdoes, Lame Deer: Seeker
of Visions, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1972, p244
The mass eradication of wild bison from the plains, an episode in
our history with which we are all familiar, forever altered the balance
of life in North America. By the early 20th century all but one of the
wild herds had been killed and virtually every Native American tribe
had been eradicated or forced into a sedentary lifestyle on a
reservation. When the last great bison herds were decimated in the
West, a few hearty individuals holed up in Yellowstone's Pelican
Valley, one of the country's coldest and most snowy valleys, barely
avoiding extinction.
Fearing that the wild herd would die off, park managers purchased
18 captive cow bison from Montana's Flathead Valley and three bulls
from the Texas Panhandle to establish a herd on Yellowstone's northern
range. Over time, members of the Lamar herd mingled with members of
Yellowstone's indigenous Pelican Valley herd. While the extent of
interbreeding isn't known, the bison we see today in Yellowstone
National Park are directly descended from these herds. Members of the
only herd in America never confined by a fence, these bison carry a
direct genetic link to Yellowstone's original population.
Yellowstone's approach to bison management in the 20th century
tended toward the heavy-handed. Animals were sometimes ear-tagged and
branded, confined in pens as tourist attractions, and fed at cattle-
like feed-lines. Bison calves from the wild Pelican Valley herd were
captured and nursed on domestic cow's milk, a practice that likely
resulted in the Yellowstone bison becoming infected with the livestock
disease brucellosis. The Department of Agriculture and the Montana and
Wyoming livestock industries, fearing a transmission back to cattle,
pressured Yellowstone officials to capture, test, vaccinate, and
slaughter Yellowstone bison within the park, which they did
periodically between the 1920s and 1967, when Yellowstone adopted a
more hands off ``natural regulation'' approach to wildlife management.
The bison were largely left alone inside the park between the late
1960s and the early 1980s, a result of this new management paradigm and
a period of mild winters in which bison stayed deep within the park.
Harsh winters are another story. Snow and ice obscure the grass in
the park and hunger pushes the bison to lower elevations, which happen
to lie across the Montana border. When they cross this invisible line,
bison change political jurisdictions and step into a conflict zone.
Montana held a hunt for migrating Yellowstone bison between 1982 and
1989, when a national public outcry forced the state to call it off.
Montana game wardens took up where the hunters left off, shooting any
bison that left the park. In 1995 the Montana legislature turned bison
management authority over to the Department of Livestock (DOL), an
agency mandated with protecting the interests of the state's livestock
industry, where it remains to this day.
Although there has never been a documented case of brucellosis
being transmitted from wild bison to livestock, the DOL and, in recent
years the NPS, use the disease to justify the harassment and slaughter
of bison when they leave or approach the boundary of the park. Since
1985 the DOL and Yellowstone National Park have killed more than 5,000
Yellowstone bison. While elk and other wildlife also carry the disease,
only bison are routinely hazed, captured, and slaughtered, indicating
that the agencies are more concerned with controlling bison than with
controlling brucellosis.
More bison were killed during the winter of 1996-1997 than in any
single year since the 19th century. That winter and spring the National
Park Service and the State of Montana killed 1,084 Yellowstone bison.
Starvation was common as well, as early winter rains turned the
snowpack to mush. Record freezing temperatures locked the grass away
beneath a thick slab of ice, and heavy snows followed. Bison, braced
against blizzard, nuzzled heavy snow aside only to scrape their noses
on diamond-hard ice. Between the human slaughter and natural deaths,
over two thousand animals, more than half the herd, were killed in a
matter of months.
Under the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP), an agreement
forced upon Montana and the U.S. Government by court order, America's
only continuously wild bison are still not tolerated in Montana. Chased
with snowmobiles, helicopters, and ATVs; trapped and confined in cattle
pens and quarantine facilities; and shot on their native habitat,
Yellowstone bison are in serious trouble. The National Park Service and
the Montana Department of Livestock killed more than 1,000 Yellowstone
bison in 2006. The Park Service alone was responsible for the death of
more than 900 animals, the most killed by the agency in its 90-year
history.
Today's Yellowstone herd faces a situation perilously similar to
that of its ancestors of a century ago. Wild bison are considered
ecologically extinct everywhere outside Yellowstone. If history
continues on its present course, the Yellowstone herd will become just
another intensively managed, domesticated herd, and the thin thread so
tenuously linking our present century to the wild and fertile past will
be forever severed.
In 1872 the U.S. Congress played an instrumental role in the
creation of Yellowstone National Park and the protection of the
American bison from hunters and poachers. In 2007 Congress can play an
equally important role in the protection of the Yellowstone bison from
state and federal agencies operating under an inherently flawed
management plan.
What is the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP)?
The IBMP, and the Modified Preferred Alternative of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that it represents is the product
of court ordered mediation resulting from a Federal lawsuit. 95 percent
of the public comments on the FEIS were opposed to the agencies'
Preferred Alternative, yet the Plan was approved in the state and
federal Records of Decision in December, 2000.
The IBMP's stated purpose of action is, ``to maintain a wild, free-
ranging population of bison and address that risk of brucellosis
transmission to protect the economic interest and viability of the
livestock industry in the state of Montana.'' FEIS, Vol. 1, p. 14. The
FEIS continues to state in the ``Need for Action'' section, ``Bison are
an essential component of Yellowstone National Park and the Gallatin
National Forest because they contribute to the biological, ecological,
cultural, and aesthetic purposes of the park. However, Yellowstone
National Park is not a self-contained ecosystem for bison, and periodic
migrations into Montana are natural events.'' FEIS, Vol 1, p. 14. This
analysis continues in the FEIS in the ``Objectives In Taking Action''
section, ``Lower elevation range could provide areas for bison to
winter adjacent to the park as well as additional management options
... and the modified preferred alternative already includes acquisition
of lands to the north of the Reese Creek boundary on the Royal Teton
Ranch.'' FEIS, Vol. 1, p. 45
Furthermore, the IBMP is designed as an adaptive management plan.
``Professionals in the fields of wildlife science, livestock disease,
wildlife disease, livestock management, and wildlife management do not
agree on the central issues relating to brucellosis in Yellowstone
bison. The agencies have agreed to support research on these issues and
will update the bison management plan as new information becomes
available.'' FEIS, Vol. 1, p. 45.
Is the IBMP living up to it's stated goals?
In the six-year history of the IBMP, nearly 2000 Yellowstone bison
have been killed as a result of agency management actions. The National
Park Service alone is responsible for the slaughter of nearly 1,500
bison under the IBMP. The plan was originally developed in three
phases. According to the timeline provided in the FEIS, the plan should
have entered step 3 during the winter of 2003/4 in the western boundary
area and by the winter of 2004/5 in the northern boundary area.
However, to date, the plan is still mired in step 1 with no established
or updated time line as to when the plan will advance to steps 2 and 3.
Under step 3, untested bison would be allowed to utilize habitat
outside of Yellowstone National Park.
One primary assumption made in the FEIS that enables progression to
steps 2 and 3 in the Northern Boundary area is the elimination of
livestock grazing on the Royal Teton Ranch (expected in 2002) and the
development of a bison plan for the federally acquired and easement
lands north of Reese Creek. As of today, cattle still graze on the
Royal Teton Ranch and there is no bison plan for the federally acquired
lands. Therefore, bison are still being hazed, captured and slaughtered
by the National Park Service for attempting to access this essential
winter range habitat. Last winter alone, Yellowstone National Park
captured nearly 1,200 bison and sent almost 900 to slaughter.
No transmissions of brucellosis between wild bison and domestic
cattle have occurred under the IBMP. Montana still firmly holds its
class-free brucellosis status. The viability of Montana's livestock
industry has not been compromised in any way by the Yellowstone bison
herd. However, there has never been a documented case of brucellosis
transmission between wild bison and domestic cattle. Therefore, it is
inaccurate to characterize the IBMP as having protected Montana's
livestock industry from brucellosis transmission and the loss of class
free status. In fact, the implementation of the IBMP's methods for
providing temporal and spatial separation between bison and cattle,
particularly hazing of bison back into Yellowstone National Park, may
add to the risk of infected birthing materials in the environment as
pregnant female bison are highly stressed prior to calving. The simple
truth is that brucellosis transmission between wild bison and cattle is
a highly unlikely event. Sensible risk management practices that
incorporate the best available science could easily prevent
transmission from occurring without the excessive cost and harsh
practices of the current IBMP.
In terms of ensuring a viable, free-ranging population of wild
bison, the IBMP is failing in it's stated goals. The bison are unable
to access vital winter range habitat outside of park borders. Thousands
of bison have been killed for attempting to access lands that were
expected to be available several years ago. Additionally, recent
research in the genetic makeup of Yellowstone bison indicate a high
probability that there are at least two and likely three unique and
distinct subpopulations of bison that make up the Yellowstone herd.
Natalie Dierschke Halbert, The Utilization of Genetic Markers to
Resolve Modern Management Issues in Historic Bison Populations:
Implications for Species Conservation, December 2003, pages 137-140.
Therefore, management removals of large groups of bison migrating to
the boundary areas, as was the case last winter, could have significant
detrimental impacts on the genetic viability of one or more
subpopulations. The IBMP has not adapted management protocols to
reflect these findings, leaving the future of the bison in jeopardy.
How is the IBMP implemented?
Hazing
Spatial and temporal separation of bison and cattle is the primary
risk management strategy of the IBMP. This is currently accomplished by
``hazing'' bison back into Yellowstone National Park. Hazing is the
term the agencies use to describe the forced movement of bison. The
Montana Department of Livestock, the lead agency on the park's western
boundary, uses a variety of means to haze bison. These include
helicopters, snowmobiles, ATV's and horses. Oftentimes, bison are
chased ten miles or more to the park border or the capture facility.
The bison, desiring to access their chosen spring calving grounds on
the Gallatin National Forest's Horse Butte Peninsula, will return the
next day only to be chased back again. Newborn calves and pregnant
females suffer greatly from the stress of these repeated hazing
operations.
Hazing operations, by the very nature of the implements used, not
only impact the bison, but are highly detrimental to the multitude of
other species that occupy this magnificent wildlife migration corridor.
Displaced species include bald eagles, trumpeter swans, elk, moose,
wolves, grizzly bears and a myriad of other species. This type of
hazing is also very costly, requiring large numbers of personnel and
expensive equipment.
Capture
The protocols of the IBMP allow the agencies to capture bison that
are deemed ``unhazeable.'' The Montana Department of Livestock operates
one permanent capture facility within 1/4 mile of the park border at
Duck Creek and one temporary capture facility on the Horse Butte
Peninsula through a special use permit granted by the Gallatin National
Forest. The National Park Service operates one capture facility,
Stephens Creek, located within park borders near the northern boundary.
These facilities are all modeled after livestock handling facilities.
It is important to remember that wild bison are not domestic cattle.
The nature of the bison and the facility design create a circumstance
where bison are often injured or even killed in the trapping, sorting
and transporting process.
Testing
Once captured, the bison may be tested for exposure to brucellosis
bacteria. All bison that test positive for exposure on the standard
blood test are immediately shipped to slaughter. Bison that test
negative may be tagged and released or held for future release.
Negative testing bison calves and yearlings may also be shipped to an
experimental quarantine facility located near the park's northern
border. Often times, tagged bison will be recaptured and retested or
sent to slaughter at the discretion of the agency. The process of
testing bison at the capture facilities is both cruel and inhumane. The
animals are highly stressed, the agency handlers are often aggressive
and unforgiving, and the facility design is inappropriate for wild
bison.
However, not all captured bison are tested for brucellosis
exposure. The IBMP allows for the slaughter of all captured bison
without testing if the late winter / early spring population is
estimated to be above 3000. Last winter, the National Park Service sent
nearly all of the adult bison captured at Stephens Creek to slaughter
without prior brucellosis testing. Only the calves were tested with
negatives being sent to quarantine. Calves that tested positive were
sent to slaughter.
The tests used to determine whether an animal has brucellosis are
highly controversial. The standard blood tests (serological tests) only
identify long-term antibodies to brucellosis. These tests were designed
for cattle, not bison or other wildlife. Other bacterias, particularly
yersenia, can cross-react with brucellosis and show a positive test
result. Additionally, when compared to culture tests of tissues sampled
from slaughtered bison, considered the gold standard in brucellosis
testing, studies show that the correlation between seropositive bison
and culture positive bison is very weak. Many bison test seropositive
simply because they were once exposed to brucellosis bacteria in a
strong enough concentration to produce an immune response. These bison
may have already cleared the bacteria but still retain antibodies.
Essentially, the bison selected for slaughter may, in fact, often be
those that have developed resistance to the bacteria.
Slaughter
Since 1985, more than 5,000 wild bison from Yellowstone National
Park have been killed through a combination of agency management
actions and state-sponsored hunting. The majority of these animals,
particularly since the inception of the IBMP, were sent to
slaughterhouses throughout the region. Yellowstone bison are wild
animals. The procedures involved in sending bison to slaughter include
sorting in the capture facility, loading onto trucks, hours of
transport to the slaughter facility, and finally the taking of their
lives on the slaughterhouse floor. This process sometimes takes days
and hundreds of miles of transport. The bison are often not fed or
given water during this time. They are highly stressed and often arrive
at the slaughterhouse in terrible condition. Some are so badly injured
and bruised that the meat and hides are not in usable condition.
Quarantine
The IBMP made provisions for the addition of quarantine as a
management tool when such facilities were established. The agencies
view quarantine as a management option that would provide more
flexibility in handling bison that test negative. Currently, USDA's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the Montana Department
of Fish, Wildlife & Parks are conducting a quarantine feasibility study
at two facilities located just outside the park's northern border in
the heart of a critical wildlife migration corridor. The study is a
multi-year program whereby two groups of 100 test-negative bison calves
or yearlings will be held for a total of four years, undergo multiple
rounds of testing and be bred twice before being released to unnamed
public and tribal lands. One half of the bison are slaughtered under
the protocol with their tissues being culture tested for the bacteria.
The facilities the agencies chose for quarantine are very small.
The young bison are kept behind tall double fencing right along State
Highway 89. They are fed hay and drink water from troughs. They are
quickly becoming domestic animals and losing their wild instincts. They
no longer have the benefit of experience passed on from their family
groups. Each day, they are one step farther from being the wild
Yellowstone bison they were before capture.
Vaccination
A key component of the IBMP is the addition of bison vaccination.
Subcutaneous vaccination of bison calves and yearlings has already been
incorporated into the plan for captured bison on both the north and
west boundaries. The National Park Service is still in the process of
developing an Environmental Impact Statement for remote delivery of
vaccine within the park. The vaccine currently approved for use in
bison calves and yearlings is RB51. However, the efficacy of RB51 for
bison is highly controversial. A report to the United States Animal
Health Association in 2002 on the efficacy of RB51 as a calfhood
vaccine concludes, ``based on the high number of abortions/weak calves,
high percentage of colonized calves, and due to the high number of cow/
calf pairs that will still be infected with virulent brucellae, B.
abortus RB51 cannot be considered an efficacious calfhood vaccine in
bison.'' Elzer, et. al., 2002. This study, unlike many other vaccine
trials, attempted to mimic field conditions in the GYA.
Additionally, RB51 is not considered a safe vaccine for adult
bison. Therefore it could only be used on calves and yearlings. One
study examining the use of vaccination as an eradication tool concludes
that the focus would need to be on adult female bison with a vaccine
that is at least 50 percent efficacious. Dobson, unpublished. This type
of vaccine simply does not exist. Time and energy would be better spent
in the development of a more efficacious vaccine for domestic cattle.
Cattle are already regularly vaccinated for many livestock diseases.
Additionally, there is a need for a better brucellosis vaccine for
cattle throughout the world. RB51 has been widely criticized for it's
low efficacy in cattle, particularly in countries where brucellosis is
widely present.
Can Brucellosis be Eradicated from Yellowstone Bison?
Eradication of brucellosis as an eventual goal is a concept that is
easy to support in theory. If brucellosis were not found in
Yellowstone's bison, sound wildlife management might be much easier to
develop and implement. However, brucellosis is endemic in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). Bison are not the only affected species.
Tens of thousands of elk in the GYE also potentially carry brucellosis,
particularly in Wyoming where elk are fed throughout the winter. Some
of these elk also migrate into Yellowstone in the summer months leading
to the potential for transmission to bison and other species.
Additionally, many other species have been known to carry brucellosis
including grizzly bears, black bears, wolves, coyotes, foxes, moose,
bighorn sheep, beavers, and even muskrats. Therefore, any efforts that
focus specifically on bison without addressing the disease in the
ecosystem as a whole will not provide a long-term solution to this
issue. Even if brucellosis were eradicated from Yellowstone bison,
there is a high probability that they would be reinfected in the
future.
The tools of brucellosis eradication are highly limited and would
result in the decimation of the Yellowstone bison herd. The primary
tool for eradication is test and slaughter. Based on the inaccuracy of
the current blood tests, it has been estimated that test and slaughter
could reduce the bison herd to as few as 10 animals. Dobson,
Unpublished. Test and slaughter would also require handling nearly
every bison in Yellowstone. Capture facilities would have to be set up
throughout the park and maintained for many years. This type of program
was attempted in Yellowstone in the early 1960s, reducing the herd to
fewer than 200 animals. In 1967, the National Park Service instituted a
policy of ``natural regulation'' and ended the test and slaughter
program. The costs to the bison and to the natural resources of the
park were considered too high to continue this program. The tools of
eradication have not significantly changed since this time.
Vaccination, as discussed earlier, is another tool of brucellosis
eradication. However, vaccination alone, using the currently available
vaccines, will not result in the eradication of brucellosis. Neither
was vaccination ever a stand alone tool to eradicate brucellosis in
domestic cattle. Test and slaughter has always been the primary
mechanism because of the limitations of the available vaccines.
Given all of the constraints, particularly the social/cultural
consequences of aggressively handling all of the bison inside
Yellowstone National Park, eradication of brucellosis utilizing the
tools currently available is not a realistic goal. Sensible risk-
management policies are a much more effective means of protecting
Montana's livestock industry and the viability of Yellowstone bison.
Risk management, however, does not preclude efforts to develop
alternative methods to eradicate brucellosis in the long run. Research
into more effective vaccines for livestock and a potential cure for
brucellosis can be conducted, but in the meantime, habitat-based risk
management polices must be instituted to protect the bison and
Montana's livestock industry.
Winter Range Habitat
The provision of lower elevation winter range habitat is essential
to resolve the current conflicts at the park border regions.
Yellowstone National Park simply does not have sufficient winter range
habitat for any of the ungulate species within its boundaries.
Regardless of the population of bison in the park, animals will always
move to the boundary areas in search of better winter habitat. During
winters when the snow conditions make it difficult to access food
within the park, large migrations are likely. The current management
plan does not provide for access beyond park border to winter range
habitat. This circumstance has led to the slaughter of thousands of
migrating bison throughout the years, underscoring the failure of the
IBMP to protect wild, free-roaming bison.
The necessary winter range habitat on the west side of the park
lies beyond the current zones of the IBMP. The primary winter range
habitat is located in the Madison Valley. This area is comprised mostly
of large tracts of private and public land. Some of the landowners in
the Madison Valley lease their land for livestock grazing in the
summer. However, the climactic conditions of this region preclude
winter grazing of cattle. The nearest cattle present in the valley
during the winter are more than 35 miles from the park border. Much of
the public land is leased for livestock grazing, but the stocking dates
are typically not until late June or July. Therefore, most of the
valley is cattle-free during the winter months when bison would utilize
this area as winter range. The latest research on the disappearance and
persistence of brucellosis bacteria suggests that the bacteria would
not remain in the environment after early June. If cattle stocking
dates are designed to reflect this science, brucellosis transmission
between bison and cattle could be easily prevented.
On the north side of the park, the primary winter range occurs
outside park boundaries along the Yellowstone River corridor. Much of
this land is owned by the Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT). In the
late 1990s Congress appropriated $13,000,000 for conservation easements
and land exchanges that were supposed to provide winter range habitat
for bison. However, these lands are still not available to bison and
are the primary factor influencing the Park Service's decisions to
capture and slaughter bison that attempt to migrate onto CUT lands.
What can Congress Do?
The primary needs to address the concerns about brucellosis
transmission and the long term viability of Yellowstone bison involve
the acquisition of winter range habitat for bison and the modification
of the classification system for brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone
Area.
Congress can facilitate the resolution of grazing issues associated
with the Royal Teton Ranch.
Congress can direct the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
to develop a brucellosis-management zone whereby livestock producers
within the zone will institute brucellosis proof management practices.
This might include booster vaccination of cattle, wildlife-proof
fencing of cattle feed-lines, individual herd certification for
brucellosis, and a reorganization of stocking dates consistent with the
best available science about brucellosis persistence and disappearance.
The costs of this program could be recovered using the monies saved
from the reorganization of the IBMP.
Congress can direct the Gallatin National Forest to establish a
wild bison recovery zone within which the needs of habitat for bison
and other species are taken as a primary consideration in all multiple
use decisions.
NOTE: Attachments and a statement submitted for the record by
Darrell Geist, Researcher, Buffalo Field Campaign, have been retained
in the Committee's official files.
______
Mr. Grijalva. [Presiding.] Thank you. Mr. Stevens.
STATEMENT OF TIM STEVENS, YELLOWSTONE PROJECT MANAGER, NATIONAL
PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Stevens. Mr. Chairman and other members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify about the
bison that make Yellowstone our first national park home. The
National Parks Conservation Association works to protect and
enhance America's National Park System for present and future
generations. I am NPCA's Yellowstone program manager based out
of Livingston, Montana.
Last year, as was mentioned, over 900 migrating bison were
stopped at the Park's border and shipped to slaughter. This is
a national travesty and an embarrassment to the National Park
System. Ironically with slaughter it takes place at a time when
57 percent of Yellowstone's visitors cite seeing buffalo as
their most important task when they come to the Park, and in
2004 wildlife watchers spent $82 million in the region.
Each winter bison move out of Yellowstone's high country to
lower, snow-free lands. Some claim that this migration is due
to too many bison and lack of forage in the Park. In reality
the most recent studies attest that the current population of
3,600 is well below the carrying capacity of 5,500 to 7,500
animals. Scientists tell us that no matter if there is 300 or
3,000 bison, when the snow gets too deep bison will move out of
the Park to seek forage. However, the zero tolerance policy
toward bison beyond boundaries prevents access to these
critical lands.
Seven years and millions of dollars after completion of the
interagency bison management plan the plan's goals have yet to
be achieved. However, there are solutions to the current
dilemma, and with the enactment of the four-point strategy
outlined here we can protect the region's livestock industry,
while reestablishing a healthy, free-ranging Yellowstone bison
population.
Point one, assisting with the completion of the grazing
agreement with the Royal Teton Ranch. It is important to note
that while details of the agreement are still being worked out
it is critical that any agreement allow adequate bison numbers
onto these lands, and that the cost of any deal stays within
reason but successful completion and funding of this agreement
will be an absolute watershed for Yellowstone bison. This
agreement would be financed by Federal, state and private funds
but it is essential that Congress lead the effort to pay for
the grazing agreement.
Point number two, creating a brucellosis classification
subregion within greater Yellowstone, and we were encouraged to
hear the Governor's words earlier, but some in the livestock
industry have rightly questioned the current policy that is in
place, and NPCA agrees. Congress can help craft part of the
solution by directing the USDA to create the brucellosis
subregion or zone in counties surrounding the Park. The
subregion that is managed for separation of livestock and bison
and also that provides government assistance for fencing and
vaccination will be a major step in the right direction.
Point three, instituting a spacial and temporal separation
of bison as the primary short-term means for addressing
brucellosis. To date management has focused on attempts to
eliminate brucellosis. Lost in the debate is the fact that
brucellosis is present in many other wildlife species,
including bears and elk which are much wider ranging than bison
across the landscape. So even if we had 100 percent success
rate at eliminating brucellosis from bison, it still would be
present in other wildlife. Simply put, eradication of
brucellosis in all wildlife is impossible in the short-term.
The Western States Livestock Association recently voiced
their support for separation of livestock and bison as the
means to address concerns over brucellosis. NPCA agrees. Many
creative and viable approaches--other than slaughter of bison--
have yet to be tried. By providing dollars and direction
necessary to focus on separation as the primary strategy,
Congress can help forge a new path away from slaughter and
toward long-term solutions.
And my final point is that additional monies are needed to
develop safe and effective vaccines that can be broadly
administered to wildlife. Equally important is the need for
more investment in development of a safe vaccine for livestock.
Obviously it would be much more practical to administer a
brucellosis vaccine to livestock than to wildlife.
In conclusion, Yellowstone is at a crossroads with its and
America's iconic wildlife species. Central to their long-term
survival is the protection of bison habitat. We are already
seeing what happens when this habitat is lost in and around
other parks across the country where the ability to use
reasonable wildlife management tools is precluded, leaving only
the most inhumane and wasteful alternatives.
We still have a chance in Yellowstone to show that we can
make it work for bison but realizing this opportunity requires
prompt action. Thank you for considering our views. I would be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stevens follows:]
Statement of Tim Stevens, Program Manager,
National Parks Conservation Association
Mr. Chairman, and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for inviting me to testify about the bison that make
Yellowstone--our first national park--their home. Founded in 1919, the
National Parks Conservation Association works to protect and enhance
America's National Park System for present and future generations.
Today, we have 22 regional and field offices across the country,
including the Yellowstone Field Office in Livingston, Montana, which I
manage. I'm here today on behalf of our more than 325,000 members, who
care deeply about our national treasures and want to see them
protected.
The History of Bison, and Bison Management, in Yellowstone National
Park
Yellowstone National Park remains the only place in the country
home to truly wild, genetically pure bison with an unbroken connection
to their native habitat. Tens of millions of bison once thundered upon
western plains in the mid-19th century. When the buffalo slaughter of
the late 1800s ended, only 23 bison remained in the wild, and
Yellowstone was their sanctuary. Numbering 3,600 today, Yellowstone's
herd has irreplaceable biological, cultural, spiritual and historic
value, and is one of our nation's great conservation success stories.
The designer of the famous buffalo nickel, minted between 1913 and
1938, chose the buffalo design because it represented a uniquely
American image. Yet, over the past two decades, 5,000 wild Yellowstone
bison have been killed by state and federal agencies to keep them from
accessing winter habitat in Montana adjacent to the park. Last year
alone, more than 900 migrating bison were stopped at the border of
Yellowstone and shipped off to slaughter. This is a national travesty
and an embarrassment to the National Park System. Ironically, this
slaughter takes place at a time when Yellowstone is experiencing a
significant growth in visitors who offer wildlife viewing as the
primary reason for their visit. Fully 57% of Yellowstone's visitors
cite seeing bison as their main reason for visiting the park and
wildlife watchers spent $82 million in the Yellowstone gateway region
in 2004.
Each winter, bison, like other wildlife, tend to move out of
Yellowstone's high country to lower habitat with better forage on lands
adjacent to the park. In fact, in 1926 Congress authorized additions to
the Absaroka and Gallatin national forests next to Yellowstone,
recognizing that wildlife needed to use lower-elevation land beyond
park boundaries, especially during winter. Some falsely claim that the
reason bison leave Yellowstone is because there are too many bison in
the park and there is not enough forage to sustain them. Instead, the
most recent studies attest that there are an estimated 3,600 bison
inside the park, well below the most recent estimated carrying capacity
of 5,500-7,500 for Yellowstone. In addition, in 2002 the National
Research Council, the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences,
completed an exhaustive review of science related to the health of
Yellowstone's northern range, and found that bison and other ungulates
are not destroying Yellowstone's grassland habitat. Scientists tell us
that it doesn't matter if there are 3,000 or 300 bison in the park,
when the snow gets too deep, they will seek winter habitat and forage
outside the park. But in recent years, there has been a policy of zero
tolerance for wild bison beyond park boundaries that does not allow
these animals access to ancestral lands.
Yellowstone's wild bison are being captured and killed due to a
fear that they will transmit brucellosis to cattle. Brucellosis is a
disease caused by a bacterium (Brucella abortus) that can infect wild
and domestic animals. Brucellosis has little effect on wildlife,
including some Yellowstone bison and elk with the disease, but it can
initiate premature births in cattle. For this reason, livestock
interests have worked hard to eliminate brucellosis from domestic
herds. Ironically, Yellowstone bison picked up the brucellosis
bacterium from a herd of dairy cattle that were brought to Yellowstone
National Park nearly 90 years ago. There has never been a single
recorded case of wild bison transmitting brucellosis to cattle in the
wild. The risk of transmission between wild bison and cattle was deemed
low in a 1992 General Accounting Office report, and again in a 1998
National Research Council study.
Solutions to Protect Bison, and Montana's Livestock Industry
The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) believes that
the American public now has an unprecedented opportunity to not only
greatly advance efforts to restore bison on the landscape, but to also
assure security for the region's livestock industry.
Bison are currently managed under the Interagency Bison Management
plan (IBMP), whose purpose is:
``...to maintain a wild, free-ranging population of bison and
address the risk of brucellosis transmission to protect the
economic interest and viability of the livestock industry in
the state of Montana.''
Seven years and about $21 million dollars after completion of the
IBMP, the goals of the plan have yet to be achieved. There is a
solution to the current dilemma, however, but it is not being
aggressively pursued under the current IBMP. The solution NPCA supports
has four components.
Those components are:
1) Completing an agreement with the Royal Teton Ranch (RTR);
2) Establishing a brucellosis classification ``sub-region'' within
the Greater Yellowstone Region;
3) Instituting spatial and temporal separation of cattle and
bison; and,
4) Assuring the development of a safe, effective vaccine for
livestock and bison.
All four elements are designed to protect the livestock industry
while restoring critical bison habitats outside the park, thereby
reestablishing a healthy, free ranging Yellowstone bison population. In
and around Yellowstone National Park, we still have a chance to restore
those habitats before our options close, as they have in so many other
national parks across the country.
1) Assist with the completion of a grazing agreement with the Royal
Teton Ranch.
Simply put, current bison management isn't working because the
habitat currently available to bison is inadequate. Habitat is the key.
For years, biologists have told us that the Royal Teton Ranch just
north of the park is the lynchpin when it comes to access to key winter
habitat.
Under direction from Governor Schweitzer, negotiations are underway
to purchase the grazing rights of the Royal Teton Ranch, otherwise
known as the Church Universal and Triumphant, and contractually allow
bison to cross that private land to access significant public land
winter habitat. The final proposition is the lynchpin to success on the
bison issue.
The details of the grazing lease are still being worked out. It is
critical that any agreement allow for adequate numbers of bison to use
RTR lands and that the overall cost of the deal stays within reason,
but assuming those two issues can be agreed upon, successful completion
and funding of this agreement will be the most significant action to
advance the bison issue in many years.
The agreement would be financed by federal, state and private
funds. It is essential that sufficient dollars be appropriated by
Congress to contribute to completing the grazing agreement.
2) Create in statute direction for establishment of brucellosis
classification ``sub-regions'' within the Greater Yellowstone
Region.
The USDA has classified Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming's livestock as
``brucellosis free.'' However, if two cattle herds are found infected
with brucellosis in a single small area of the state, the whole state
is penalized and loses its ``class free'' status. This has happened in
both Wyoming and Idaho over the past few years and these states have
been required to take specific actions in an attempt to regain their
class free status.
Some in the livestock industry have rightly questioned why an
entire state should lose its status when brucellosis is detected in a
small part of the state. NPCA agrees. Lost in the debate about bison is
the little acknowledged but important fact that brucellosis resides in
most wildlife species, including elk, which range across a much broader
geographic landscape than do bison. Put in another context, eradication
of brucellosis in all wildlife is simply impossible in the short term.
But when it comes to bison, Congress can become a significant part of
the solution by directing the USDA to create a brucellosis sub-region,
or zone, in counties surrounding Yellowstone National Park.
A subzone that is managed for spatial and temporal separation that
provides government assistance for fencing and vaccination of existing
cattle herds within the sub-region and that looks to public lands for
creative management and preference around wildlife would be a major
step towards both protection of Montana's state cattle industry as well
as reestablishment of a free-roaming bison herd. With the establishment
of this subzone, in the unlikely event that two herds of cattle were
found with brucellosis within this zone, all of Montana's cattle
outside this zone would not be penalized by losing their brucellosis
free status. This is a smart and essential strategy of containment and
protection.
3) Institute spatial and temporal separation of cattle and bison as
the primary short term means to address brucellosis.
Efforts relative to bison and brucellosis have largely focused on
attempts to eliminate brucellosis. The fact is, even if agencies were
100% effective at eliminating the disease from bison, many other
wildlife species also have brucellosis.
Recently the Western States Livestock Health Association, an
organization of the western state veterinarians, has recently stated
that the separation of livestock and bison is an essential component of
any long-term solution. Montana's Governor Brian Schweitzer has said he
agrees with this, as does NPCA. In the past, this separation was
achieved through the slaughter of bison, but that is the most draconian
and inflammatory of separation strategies. Many other approaches can be
at least as effective. It's also important to preface these strategies
with the reality that there are less than 500 cow-calf pairs occupying
public lands on the north side of Yellowstone. On public lands adjacent
to the park, spatial and temporal separation strategies include:
Delaying by a few weeks the turnout date for livestock
onto public land grazing allotments, which will eliminate any
possibility of brucellosis transmission from a bison fetus to
livestock;
Adjusting livestock grazing allotments to accommodate for
a steer operation, which would eliminate possibility of transmission;
Employing creative fencing strategies that keep bison and
livestock separated;
Looking for opportunities to purchase, trade out or
eliminate existing leases with willing permittees.
By providing the dollars needed to purchase or transfer grazing
rights from willing sellers on these lands, critical winter habitat
will be made available for bison through spatial and temporal
separation.
4) Assure the development of safe, effective vaccines
Studies have shown that safe and effective vaccines can reduce
brucellosis rates in bison. In addition, the implementation of a
vaccination program in Yellowstone National Park would eliminate the
requirement that all bison be tested for the presence of brucellosis
before they leave the park.
We are not there yet when it comes to producing an effective
vaccine that can be comprehensively administered to wildlife.
Additional dollars are needed for research and science.
Equally important is the need to devote additional resources to
develop a safe vaccine that could be administered to livestock.
Obviously, it would be much more practical to administer a vaccine to
livestock than to wildlife.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Yellowstone, our nation's first national park, is at
a crossroads in terms of the long term viability of its, and America's,
most iconic wildlife species. Central to their long-term survival is
the recognition of and the protection of, habitats essential to free-
roaming bison. We are already seeing what happens when such essential
habitats are shut down, excluded and compromised in other parks around
the country. When critical habitats are lost, the potential to use
reasonable, appropriate means of managing wildlife can be vastly
curtailed, with only the most unpleasant, inhumane and wasteful means
remaining. We have a chance in Yellowstone now to demonstrate that we
can realize a fully functioning park for bison, but realizing this
opportunity will require prompt action.
Thank you for considering our views. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Pacelle.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE PACELLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Pacelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thanks to all the
members for being here. I am Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO
of the Humane Society of the United States, representing 10
million members and constituents, 1 of every 30 Americans. A
lot of people associate our work with domesticated animals and
pets but we have a very robust wildlife department of about 20
folks, PhDs and other scientists in our section. We have been
involved in this Yellowstone bison issue for two decades. I
personally have been involved for that period of time. Our
regional office in Billings, Montana has been actively
involved.
I really do want to take the opportunity to thank Natural
Resource Committee Chairman Nick Rahall for his tremendous
leadership on the issue, the Interior appropriations
amendments, to try to stop and abuse and mismanagement of the
bison, and we are really grateful to you, Mr. Chairman.
You know this species is really the symbol of human's
destructive capability. I mean you look at all the species in
this country, and you just contemplate the idea 30 to 50 or
even 60 million bison brought down in the span of just a few
decades--once we developed the transcontinental railroad and
the repeating firearm--to just dozens or hundreds of
individuals. I mean the destructive capacity is extraordinary.
We should not forget that as we delve into this debate and
think about this issue.
The mistreatment and mismanagement of bison continues
today. You have heard it from the prior two witnesses, and you
have heard it from some of the others. This is a special
population of animals. They have a special place in the country
with Yellowstone as the world's first national park. They are a
symbol of the west. They are an icon of western Americana. They
are treated like shaggy members of a dispossessed cattle herd
that are encroaching on adjacent and occupied cattle ranches.
The authorizing statute for Yellowstone calls for the
protection of bison. Very strict protections in the enabling
legislation. The lands that they principally move on outside of
the Park--and it is just the small areas we heard. I mean the
testimony from the Governor I thought was extraordinary. We are
talking about just a small number of cattle principally moving
onto Federal lands. This is just a small number of bison going
onto Federal lands for the most part with a very limited number
of cattle in this areas that we can solve very readily. You
heard the prescription here today.
The whole rationale here is brucellosis, and we have heard
so much about it. We have heard so many times before that there
has never been a documented case of brucellosis transmission
from wild bison to cattle. This whole thing has been an
exaggeration. It is a canard. This is a land use issue, and it
is concern about the bison extending their range. It is not so
much about brucellosis. There is a serious concern about
brucellosis partly because of the USDA's very strict rules in
this area, but we can solve this issue.
Just a couple of examples on this. We have heard that at
least in west Yellowstone the cattle are not even there when
the bison are there. There is no overlap, and we have just a
small number of animals in the northern part of the Park and
the northern reaches on forest land where you have year-round
grazing. They said 300 was the number that was advanced near
Gardner. We know that male bison cannot transmit brucellosis to
cattle. Why are we killing the male bison? They do not abort
fetuses. They do not leave placental materials. But this policy
extends to every bison. Killing every one and not making any
distinctions between which bison may pose some infinitesimal
risk versus those bison that pose absolutely no risk at all.
We have also heard about inhumane treatment, and yes, those
pictures we should really embed in our minds. The primary
elements that concern us include animals being run to
exhaustion, corralling that does not guard against bison goring
each other in a panic, animals driven onto frozen lakes that
results in their falling through the ice into frigid waters and
freezing to death, mishandling that results in injury and
death, overstocking transport trailers and shooting of bison at
slaughter plants because the animals were allowed to
inadvertently escape their holding areas.
You know we have in this country 100 million cattle. We are
talking about 3,600 bison in America's first and most famous
national park. The world's most famous national park. A lot of
people talk about the economics. Well what about the economics
of Yellowstone and this country? How many millions of visitors?
This is one of the two or three more visited parks in the
United States. Millions of people go there. Hundreds of
millions of dollars poured into the economy to see the bison
and to see the other native wildlife of Yellowstone National
Park. These animals help bring millions to the economy of
Montana as well as Idaho and Wyoming.
We can mitigate and correct our behavior. We can exhibit
greater tolerance for these animals. We can recognize that
these animals deserve a place in Yellowstone. They deserve a
place somewhere at least in this country. Is there anywhere
where we are not going to subvert the wildlife protection
interest to cattle interest? Is there one place? Should it be
in this area? A massive 2.2 million acre park where the animals
are supposed to be protected with millions of acres of forests
outside?
I want to just close by noting I first went to Yellowstone
on the bison issue in 1988, and there was a hunt of the bison
at that time. It was stopped, as Governor Schweitzer mentioned,
and I watched these animals who had been habituated to a
nonthreatening human presence in the Park. People walk up to
them and take pictures of them.
I saw them in these huge open areas feeding you know on the
grass. They were burrowing in below the snow, and people walked
up to these animals and shot them. It was the sorting
equivalent of shooting a parked car. It was appalling, and I
saw one 14-year-old shot an animal. I do not know why he did
not get closer, but he was 200 yards away with his telescopic
rifle, and he shot the buffalo, and he hit the buffalo in the
spine, and the Boston Globe reporter and I who were there saw
this animal try to raise himself more than 30 times.
He would pull himself up just a little. He was obviously
paralyzed in the back legs, and he would fall down, and he kept
doing it 30 or 35 times, and the Boston Globe reported that. I
saw that cruelty, and I was appalled by it, and I think now we
have a circumstance in this country where we can make a choice.
Is there one place where we can protect these bison? One place
in this country?
I thank Chairman Rahall for your leadership on this issue,
and I hope we can solve this issue. We have heard constructive
solutions today. We want to be part of that solution. They are
there for us to realize. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pacelle follows:]
Statement of Wayne Pacelle, President & CEO,
The Humane Society of the United States
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify on the
subject of the Yellowstone bison. I am Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO
of The Humane Society of the United States, the nation's largest animal
protection organization with 10 million members and constituents--one
of every 30 Americans. The HSUS has worked since its founding in 1954
to protect both domesticated animals and wildlife. We maintain a 20-
person wildlife department with professional scientists and advocates
and work on a wide range of wildlife programs.
I want to thank Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall for his
outstanding leadership on this issue, twice going to the floor with
amendments to the Interior Appropriations bills in 2004 and 2005 to
mitigate harm to these animals. Further, I wish to acknowledge the
leadership and support of Representative Maurice Hinchey, who along
with former Representative Charles Bass, co-authored on legislation to
diminish conflicts between people and bison and to prevent as much
needless killing of Yellowstone bison as possible. I would further
commend Representatives Jay Inslee and Corinne Brown, along with
Chairman Rahall, for communicating concerns and questions to the
National Park Service (NPS) and other agencies as more and more bison
were hazed and slaughtered in recent years. Finally, I extend our
strong appreciation to Subcommittee Chairman Raul Grijalva for holding
these oversight hearings and placing a spotlight on the tragic
mistreatment of these majestic symbols of the West.
Since the early 1980s, The HSUS has been very active in wildlife
issues in and around the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. We have
submitted numerous public comments and provided testimony on behalf of
the bison and we actively provide support to other groups locally
involved in this issue. I have a long personal history with this issue,
having gone to Yellowstone National Park (YNP) in 1988 to videotape the
shooting of bison in the first ``sport hunt'' of bison that the state
of Montana had authorized during the century.
Our regional office located in Billings, Mont. has actively
participated in the Yellowstone bison issue for over a decade. Our
regional director served on the Montana Governor's Humane Bison
Handling Task Force in 1997, and our representatives conducted a corral
inspection at South Creek in 2003.
Since then, we have continued efforts to provide oversight of bison
management and secure more humane treatment of the bison. We have
worked with both YNP staff and numerous environmental groups to seek
non-lethal solutions to bison management. Most recently we met with
Montana Governor's staff and state legislators in an unsuccessful
attempt to convince them that the expansion of a bison ``sport hunt''
was essentially a state-sponsored canned hunt of tame animals.
There is ample documentation that the treatment of bison in and
around YNP is inhumane and unacceptable. The primary elements that
concern us include animals being run to exhaustion, corralling that
does not guard against bison goring each other in a panic, animals
driven onto frozen lakes that results in their falling through the ice
and into frigid waters, mishandling that results in injury and death,
overstocking transport trailers, and shooting of bison at a slaughter
plant because the animals were allowed to inadvertently escape their
holding areas.
This deplorable set of circumstances reveals the clumsy and
unprofessional handling of the animals by the state and the federal
government. In short, these animals are handled like livestock rather
than extremely powerful wild animals. There has been no government
agency with central authority to take charge of this situation and
eliminate the litany of problems associated with the mistreatment of
these animals
History of Bison in Yellowstone
The history of America's treatment of the bison in the West is a
painful and sad story of unbridled sport and market killing of these
animals, and it provides a powerful case example of how destructive
attitudes and technology can conspire to wipe out species thought to be
super-abundant and inexhaustible. This species once roamed across much
of the continental United States, from northern New York state to the
Deep South in the east and as far west as Washington state north to
Alaska and south into northern Mexico. There are even historical
records of bison in the New Orleans area from the 1600s and early 1700s
(Lowery 1981).
The estimated historic population of bison in the United States was
40--60 million animals. Due to market hunting and overexploitation for
meat and hides in the 18th and 19th centuries, bison populations
plummeted, particularly in the latter part of the 19th century. By the
late 1800s, remnant populations were scattered across the country, most
in captivity, consisting of perhaps just 1,000 animals. A handful of
wild bison remained in YNP. The superintendent of Yellowstone in 1902
estimated that there were about 22 bison left in the remote Pelican
Valley of the park.
Attempts were made to lure these remaining animals into enclosures
using bait, but this failed. Amid growing fears that the last remaining
bison in the Park would be lost due to weather, disease, or poaching,
the park superintendent established an enclosed population from 21
animals purchased from herds maintained in Texas and Montana. This
imported herd remained separate from the native Yellowstone herd until
1932 when the herds were allowed to intermingle. All of the bison in
Yellowstone today are derived from that original founder population of
43 animals from Yellowstone, Montana, and Texas (Gates et al. 2005).
Bison in Yellowstone Today
Presently, the three bison populations inhabiting Yellowstone are
maintained at a total population level between 3,000--4,000 animals.
Yellowstone National Park is not an island of habitat, and it
constitutes just 10 percent of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE).
The GYE covers an area of 10.8 million hectares and represents the
southernmost area in North America that sustains a full complement of
native predators, including wolves that were recently reintroduced and
have thrived in the park. This includes 2 national parks (Yellowstone
and Grant Teton) that make up about 9.5% of this area while another
14.8% is designated wilderness areas. A total of 36% of the GYE is
private land while 64% is public land (Noss et al. 2002).
Unfortunately, bison are not aware of the arbitrary human
boundaries that separate YNP from the rest of ecosystem. Bison are
obligate grazers and as such need access to forage throughout the year.
Although animals may survive on fat stores during times of deep snow
fall, bison cannot survive the winter and spring without access to
range without enormously deep snow cover. During or after harsh winters
bison will wander to lower elevation, sometimes across the park
boundaries, in search of food and milder weather conditions (Meagher
1989).
Under current regulations, bison that cross the park boundary are
either hazed back into the park or shot. This policy has resulted in
nearly 5,000 animals being killed in the last 12 years, with more than
1,000 slaughtered in the winter and spring of 2005--2006 alone (Buffalo
Field Campaign 2007). The primary reason given for this killing is the
threat of disease transmission between bison and cattle, particularly
the bacterial infection brucellosis.
Brucellosis, bison, cattle, and elk
Brucellosis is caused by a bacterial zoonosis whose symptoms have
known to medicine since the 3rd century BC (Cutler et al. 2005).
Various strains of brucellosis may infect a wide range of mammals
including humans, rodent, marine mammals, ungulates, goats, sheep, and
pigs. Pathology in humans includes a suite of flu-like symptoms that
may persist for years or even decades. These symptoms may be so severe
that the bacterium that causes brucellosis in pigs (Brucella suis) was
developed as a biological warfare agent by the United States
(Greenfield et al. 2002).
The species that infects cattle and other ungulates is Brucella
abortus. While humans may contract this disease through the consumption
of unpasteurized dairy products from infected cattle or goats, or
inhalation of the bacterium or contact with infected tissues including
the consumption of raw meat, concerns with bison and brucellosis are
centered on possible transmission to cattle, not humans.
Brucellosis infection in ungulates may cause the abortion of
fetuses, temporary sterility, and occasionally calf mortality (Reynolds
et al. 2003). Before considering the factors that make brucellosis
transmission from bison to cattle extremely unlikely, we must consider
how bison came to be infected with this pathogen in the first place.
As mentioned, the symptoms of brucellosis in humans have been known
for millennia and were recorded in ancient Greece; hence it is obvious
that this disease was known in the Old World. An examination of the
evolutionary history of bison and B. abortus in addition to this
disease's animal hosts, genetics, and biochemistry has revealed that
this pathogen was introduced to the New World as an infection of
domesticated cattle. Further examination of historic documents also
revealed that ranched bison in Yellowstone most likely contracted the
disease from cattle being kept in the park by employees sometime around
1917, when the first recorded abortions of bison occurred (Meagher and
Meyer 1994). This disease and its symptoms in bison were never recorded
or mentioned by Native Americans or European Americans anywhere on the
continent before the incidents in 1917. In the analysis cited (Meagher
and Meyer 1994), they analyzed the possibility of disease transfer
through cattle fostering of bison calves yet concluded this means of
disease transfer to be unlikely because the milk feedings occurred
about 13 years before brucellosis was ever detected in bison.
While transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle can occur,
as proven under controlled, experimental conditions (Davis et al.
1990), the chance of this actually happening under natural conditions
is remote indeed, and there has never been a documented case of
brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle in the wild. In fact, the
origins of this disease in bison appear to be a result of forced
proximity to cattle.
Under unmanaged conditions, bison and cattle are generally
separated spatially and temporally and thus are unlikely to come into
contact with each other, especially during the period of time when
female bison are giving birth or when livestock may otherwise come into
contact with potentially infectious materials. In fact, existing cattle
grazing allotments bordering the Park are not utilized at a time when
elk or bison are calving and thus may potentially abort. Hence, cattle
are not present at an appropriate time or place for exposure to
brucellosis from bison or elk (Thorne and Kreeger 2002).
Although the USDA may claim that bison are more likely to pass
brucellosis to cattle than are elk due to their gregarious nature, this
argument does not apply in the area around Yellowstone where elk are
artificially concentrated over food. In fact, this feeding practice is
recognized as the primary reason that elk can successfully serve as a
reservoir for B. abortus (Godfroid 2002). In fact, elk that had been
congregated around feeding stations have been implicated in the most
recent transmission of brucellosis to cattle from wildlife in Idaho
(USDA website). As of this winter, nearly 7,000 elk were counted in the
northern region of the Park and across the border on adjacent lands
(Yellowstone National Park 2007). The park estimates that at least
15,000 elk winter within the park with nearly 30,000 present within its
borders during the summer (YNP website).
Considering that the vast majority of cattle in the GYA area are
vaccinated against brucellosis as calves and the chance of transmission
from bison is highly improbable, the policy to test and vaccinate wild,
free-ranging bison simply does not make sense. It is a severe
overreaction by state and federal authorities who disregard the
public's interest in balancing concern for livestock production with
the imperative to protect wildlife in the America's first and most
famous national park. Such actions can be equated to combating rabies
in pet populations by attempting to test and vaccinate free-ranging
bats, foxes, skunks, and raccoons. In both of these cases, the
financial and logistical costs of such actions, in addition to the
excessive stress caused to these animals, far outweighs the
infinitesimal risk of actual disease transmission. It is a radical
overreach, and it should be discontinued.
Current Treatment of Bison in Yellowstone
The NPS, USDA and its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS), the U.S. Forest Service, and the State of Montana completed an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Interagency Bison Management
Plan for the State of Montana and Yellowstone National Park in November
2000. Under this plan, animals within the park boundaries are subject
to capture, testing, and vaccination for brucellosis. If animals test
positive, they are shipped to slaughter. If animals leave the park,
efforts are made to haze them back into the park. If these efforts
fail, the state allows hunters to shoot the animals.
The Yellowstone bison roam a unique ecosystem and are one of the
few remaining bison herds that is not known to have ever been interbred
with cattle. Moreover, these are large, powerful wild animals that are
not accustomed to close human contact and hence will make all efforts
to avoid capture. Forcing these creatures into pens and into restraints
is excessively stressful and may jeopardize the survival of young
animals subject to unnecessary handling.
As mentioned, the bison that cross the park boundary are subject to
hazing and killing. The animals that venture outside of YNP are not in
any real danger of coming into contact with cattle. Additionally,
federal and state authorities do not just target females, but also male
bison, despite the fact that these animals pose absolutely no risk of
transmitting brucellosis to cattle. They do not have placental
material, and therefore pose no risk of transmitting brucellosis to
cattle. In contrast, the elk that roam throughout Forest Service
grazing allotments outside of Yellowstone are not subject to such a
severe no-migration policy even though they are known to carry
brucellosis. This inconsistency is very difficult to reconcile--one
wildlife species that does demonstrate an exposure to brucellosis is
allowed to range freely outside of YNP, and the other species with
brucellosis exposure is subject to a strict no-migration policy.
The livestock industry would just as soon see no large ungulate
populations, or wolves, outside of the park, since any ungulates
competes for grass during a small portion of the year with cattle. That
is the subtext for this controversy. But the elk have a stronger
political lobby of hunters and wildlife watchers and the task of
eliminating them from Forest Service lands would be a very difficult
political and logistical exercise. They have instead chosen to draw the
line with bison and do not want to see any competition from this
species. The brucellosis issue is at worst a red herring, and at best
an overblown overreaction by the livestock industry.
What should be done
Bison are large roaming ungulates that require vast tracks of land
with suitable forage to exist and flourish. While there are an
estimated 200,000 to 300,000 bison living in North America today, the
vast majority of them are in a semi-captive state. Best-guess estimates
conclude that there are only about 12,000-15,000 free-roaming bison
left on the continent. In comparison, according to the National
Agricultural Statistics Service, there are nearly 100 million cattle
living in the United Stats at present a number which meets or exceeds
the historic numbers of bison estimated to have inhabited the whole of
the North American continent.
The Yellowstone bison draw to tourists from around the world that
seek to experience the wild character of the unique GYE landscape and
its robust complement of native wildlife species. Is there one place in
our nation where we can allow them to roam, or must we subvert bison
protection to cattle interests in every single ecosystem in the United
States?
Bison should be permitted to traverse the borders of Yellowstone in
search of food in the winter and early spring. There is no biological,
ecological, or even economic reason why these animals must be corralled
in Yellowstone National Park and treated like a group of shaggy,
unowned cattle. The animals roam principally on America's public lands,
and they deserve protection.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify
NOTES
Buffalo Field Campaign 2006. Online database available at:
http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org accessed March 2007.
Cutler, S.J. et al. 2005. Brucellosis--new aspects of an old
disease. Journal of Applied Microbiology 98: 1270--1281.
Davis, D.S. 1990. Brucella abortus in captive bison. I. serology,
bacteriology, pathogenesis, and transmission to cattle. Journal of
Wildlife Diseases 26(3): 360--371.
Gates et al. 2005. The Ecology of Bison Movements and Distribution
in and Beyond Yellowstone National Park: A Critical Review with
Implications for Winter Use and Transboundary Population Management.
University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Available online: http://
www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/gatesbison.htm
Godfroid, J. 2002. Brucellosis in wildlife. Rev. Sci. Off. Int.
Epiz. 21(2): 277-286.
Greenfield, R.A. et al. 2002. Bacterial pathogens as biological
weapons and agents of bioterrorism. American Journal of the Medical
Sciences. 323: 299--315.
Lowery, G. H. Jr. 1981. The Mammals of Louisiana and its Adjacent
Waters. Louisiana State University Press 565 pp.
Meagher, M. 1989. Range expansion by bison of Yellowstone National
Park. Journal of Mammalogy 70(3): 670--675.
Meagher, M. and M.E. Meyer. 1994. On the origin of brucellosis in
bison of Yellowstone National Park: a review. Conservation Biology
8(3): 645--653.
Noss, R. F. 2002. A multicriteria assessment of the
irreplaceability and vulnerability of sites in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. Conservation Biology 16(4): 895--908.
Parmenter et al. 2003. Land use and land cover changes in
Reynolds, H.W. et al. 2003. Bison. Pg. 1009-1060. In: The Wild
Mammals of North America: Biology Management and Conservation 2nd
edition. G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman (eds.) The
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Thorne, T. and T. Kreeger. 2002. Management options for the
resolution of brucellosis in the GYA. In: T.J. Kreeger (ed.),
Brucellosis in Elk and Bison in the Greater Yellowstone Area
(Proceedings of the national symposium), September 17--18, 2002.
USDA website: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/brucellosis/
cattle.htm#About%
20Elk accessed March 2007
Yellowstone National Park 2007. Press Release: 2006-2007 Winter
Count of Northern Yellowstone Elk available online: http://www.nps.gov/
archive/yell/press/nycwwg.htm (accessed March 2007).
NOTE: Additional information submitted for the record by Mr.
Pacelle have been retained in the Committee's official files.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Hagenbarth.
STATEMENT OF JIM HAGENBARTH,
MONTANA STOCKGROWERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Hagenbarth. Mr. Chairman and members of this
Subcommittee, my name is Jim Hagenbarth. As a representative of
my family and of the families of the Montana Stock Growers, I
thank you for this opportunity to testify in regard to the
disease and landscape issues that impact Yellowstone National
Park, the greater Yellowstone wildlife populations and
especially the landscape.
The testimony I submit today is taken from years of
livestock experience and generations of resource management.
Our family's history in this region began in the 1860s with
gold fever and progressed to livestock production in the 1880s.
Today my brother, my son and myself take pride in managing
portions of this same landscape. Hopefully my testimony will
provide insight to this committee on facilitating responsible
management of the resources in this area under your control.
Brucellosis is an intercellular bacterial disease affecting
animals and humans. It has taken 50 years and a $3 billion
battle for APHIS and the livestock industry to eradicate
brucellosis from the cattle herds of America. By using a
marginal vaccine and an iron will, a will that was tempered by
setbacks due to the enormity of the task and the resilience of
this disease, the nation's cattle herd has become brucellosis-
free.
The lessons learned from this experience and the emotional
scars left by the losses incurred has led to the tenacity
displayed by APHIS and the livestock industry in attempting to
manage diseased wildlife in the greater Yellowstone area. It is
understandable that the general public and possibly this
committee does not comprehend the seriousness of our dilemma in
Yellowstone.
Brucellosis in Yellowstone was first recorded in bison in
1917 and in elk in 1935. This disease was controlled in the
Park until a nature regulation policy was adapted in 1967.
Under this policy the brucellosis exposed populations of
wildlife in the greater Yellowstone area have increased to the
point that this area's livestock industry is in jeopardy. It is
unimaginable that a policy in Yellowstone has enhanced an
exotic disease that has held bison captive to either starve in
the Park or leave and be slaughtered.
Montana has received a black eye because we accept our
obligation to society to be a responsible resource and wildlife
manager. In the west ranchers' ability to harbor open space is
much more important to society than the production of food and
fiber. Brucellosis in wildlife in the greater Yellowstone area
has the potential to drive economically viable ranching
interests out of business. We must design a long-term plan to
meet this challenge.
Time is running short yet science is developing new tools
that will give us different alternatives in eradicating
disease. We need to gather all the involved interests in order
to reach our goal. If we fail, if we fail, the GYA will be
fragmented beyond recognition because as we lose the rancher
the last crop planted will be a subdivision. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hagenbarth follows:]
Statement of James F. Hagenbarth,
Representing the Montana Stockgrowers Association
My name is Jim Hagenbarth. I am thankful to the Committee for the
opportunity to testify on behalf of my family and the Montana
Stockgrowers Association, one of the oldest livestock associations in
the United States and offer you insight into the issues that involve
the ``Yellowstone National Park Bison''. My brother, son and I own and
manage a livestock operation in southwestern Montana and southeastern
Idaho. This business was put together from scratch in the late 1930's
by my Father after he completed the dispersal of my Grandfather's
failed livestock holdings in the same area in the early 1930's. Our
family's history in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) began in the
1860's in the goldfields of southwestern Montana and southeastern
Idaho. As the gold disappeared, development of a livestock enterprise
began in the early 1880's and we still manage portions of the same land
resource. In 1904 my grandfather, Frank Hagenbarth, had a survey made
of the Targhee Forest and sponsored this area as a National Forest to
President Theodore Roosevelt and the President promptly set aside the
Targhee as a National Forest. The majority of the Targhee lies in the
GYA and borders the west boundary of Yellowstone Park. We take great
personal pride in the land resource that we manage and hopefully my
testimony will provide insight to this committee on facilitating
responsible management of the resources in this area under their
control.
The geographic location of our livestock operation requires
movement of cattle across state lines. This movement subjects our herd
to the animal health requirements of both Montana and Idaho and at
times the federal regulatory authority of the United States Department
of Agriculture's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS),
depending upon the livestock disease status of both states. I have been
actively involved in the development of these regulations due to their
potential impact on our business. This participation placed me on the
Montana Board of Livestock from 1985 to 1997. During this time the
brucellosis exposed bison from Yellowstone Park were migrating into
Montana during the winter and the foundation was being laid for the
development of the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP). Due to the
devastating impacts brucellosis exposure could have on our operation
and interstate movement of our livestock, I studied every aspect of
this disease and it's far reaching implications. The information I have
assimilated over the years and the experiences of being involved are
the sources from which my testimony is drawn.
Yellowstone National Park (YNP) was established in 1872 and wide-
spread hunting occurred until 1883. The earliest population estimates
were 600 bison in 1880 and 300 in 1892. I am not sure if bison were
native to the Park or if these remnant populations were forced there by
hunting pressure on the plains. In 1902 Congress appropriated funds to
save YNP bison from extermination. Fewer than 50 wild bison remained in
the Park and the herd was augmented with 21 bison from semi-
domesticated herds in Montana and Texas. These introduced bison were
maintained in enclosures initially at Mammoth and then at the Buffalo
Ranch in the Lamar Valley until 1952. Periodically there were some wild
calves added to the ranch herd and some ranch herd bison released to
the wild. In 1917 tests indicated brucellosis infection in bison at the
Lamar Buffalo Ranch. From 1925-1967 bison management emphasized
restoring bison to previous ranges in the park and population control
with a range-based carrying capacity of 425 bison. Periodic culling
occurred either through capture and shipment or shooting. During this
period more than 9000 bison were removed by management actions. The
largest population of 1,477 head occurred in 1954. In 1967 YNP began a
policy of natural regulation for bison and the actual count was 397.
From 1967 until the IBMP was finalized in December of 2000 a series of
federal, state and joint management plans were used to control the
winter migration of brucellosis exposed bison from the Park. Some of
the removal was accomplished through hunts authorized by the Montana
legislature. In 1985 Montana's cattle herd became brucellosis free. In
1991 the Fund for Animals asked the U.S. District Court for injunctive
relief to stop the harvesting of bison outside park boundaries.
Injunctive relief was denied. In 1994 several states required
additional testing requirements for exported Montana cattle due to the
disease risk of disease exposed and seropositive bison outside YNP. In
January of 1995 Montana filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court
against the federal government, related to Department of Interior
policies that caused diseased and diseased-exposed bison to enter into
Montana and Department of Agriculture policies that might revoke
Montana's brucellosis-free certification based on the mere presence of
diseased wild bison in the State. In November of 1995 the U.S. District
Court accepted the settlement agreement submitted by Montana, the
federal government and the Royal Teton Ranch. Among the provisions of
the settlement was a schedule for completion of a long-term management
plan and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); and, concurrence that
bison management, according to the provisions of the settlement, is
consistent with Montana's brucellosis-free status. In December of 2000
the IBMP was completed and dictates how bison are to be handled as they
leave YNP. The plan manages the risk of brucellosis transmission from
bison to cattle through area-specific strategies to maintain temporal
and spatial separation between bison and cattle. This plan includes
vaccination protocols appropriate for both bison and cattle. This plan
is very specific as to areas (zones) where specific numbers of bison
can be outside the park. This plan is adaptive and changes can be made
where sound scientific research indicates that the risk of transmission
is acceptable to the Montana State Veterinarian in consultation with
APHIS. Provisions are made in this plan that outlines the consequences
of parties not living up to their commitments. In March of 2006 the
Western States Livestock Health Association (an association of state
veterinarians) passed a resolution reminding the GYA states of Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming that temporal and spatial separation must be
maintained between infected elk/bison and cattle. Future communications
to the states clarified that compliance with the IBMP will allow the
states to retain their status, but failure to do so may require the
western states to consider additional requirements and sanctions upon
the GYA states. In the last couple of years Wyoming and Idaho have had
cattle exposed and infected with brucellosis through contact with
infected elk, not bison. Both states lost their brucellosis free status
and had to go through testing procedures and re-certification by APHIS.
Wyoming has since regained brucellosis free status and Idaho is under
review.
When eradicating brucellosis from YNP bison was being discussed in
the early 1980's, it was the general consensus that if the bison became
disease free, brucellosis would not sustain itself in the wild elk
herds. This does not seem to be the case now. Eighty percent of the elk
population in Wyoming is dependent upon winter feed grounds. These elk
are being fed to either give them subsistence because of lack of native
winter range to sustain the current numbers or keep the elk from using
livestock feed lines and exposing cattle to brucellosis. There are
twenty plus feed grounds in Wyoming and the incidence of disease vary
between areas, but it can be as high as twenty percent seropositivity.
Congregating elk on winter feed grounds exposes large numbers of
animals to disease due to abortions of infected females. The aborted
fetus and birthing fluids and membranes pose the greatest risk of
infection with this disease. Some feeding of elk in southeastern Idaho
occurs because of loss of winter range to development, elk populations
wintering in non traditional areas, and strategic feeding to keep
separation between elk and livestock. Feeding of elk by any entity
other than the Fish and Game department is illegal. In Montana feeding
of wildlife is illegal. Due to displacement of some elk by development
and large numbers, wintering herds are growing and concentrating on
winter ranges in southwestern Montana valleys. This is causing concern
because the concentration of elk during this period exposes more
numbers of the herd to disease. Predation and harassment of elk by
wolves has impact on the behavior of elk. In Wyoming wolves are moving
elk off feed grounds into nontraditional poor winter ranges or close to
cattle feed lines. In Montana wolves are concentrating elk into large
herds and often close to the valley floors where livestock reside.
Management of these herds is becoming more difficult and brucellosis
will sustain itself in these populations, regardless of the brucellosis
in the bison. Consequently, brucellosis eradication in the GYA includes
YNP bison and many of the elk herds in the GYA states that are exposed.
The brucellosis infection of cattle from elk in Wyoming and Idaho is
testimony that elk are a real threat and need to be dealt with. The
fact that cattle have not been infected by infected park bison relates
to the efficacy of the IBMP.
Brucellosis is an infectious and contagious intracellular parasitic
bacterial disease of animals and humans. It was first recognized in the
Mediterranean area and was at first thought to be an exotic form of
typhoid fever. In 1886 a British surgeon, Sir David Bruce, first
isolated the bacteria from the spleen of a human fatal case. In 1887
Bernard Bangs, a Danish physician, found cattle to be reservoirs of
undulant fever which was causing abortion in dairy cattle. Brucellosis
was undoubtedly introduced to America via livestock brought by the
early explorers and settlements. Brucella abortus, the species most
commonly associated with brucellosis in cattle in the U.S., causes
abortion, dead or weak calves, reduced milk yield, lower weaning
weight, and lowered fertility. In humans, Brucella abortus causes
undulant fever, a disease characterized by intermittent fever,
headaches, fatigue, joint and bone pain, psychotic disturbances and
other symptoms. It is contracted through exposure to infected animals
and their products. Livestock and slaughter industry workers and
consumers of non pasteurized milk products have typically been at
highest risk of contracting the disease. Cases have decreased as
brucellosis eradication in domestic livestock has progressed and dairy
products were pasteurized. Two of the last cases in Montana involved
hunters that contracted brucellosis from dressing cow elk during a late
season elk hunt northwest of YNP in the Ennis, Montana area.
Since the cooperative State-Federal program was begun in 1951,
approximately $3.5 billion in State, Federal and Industry funds have
been spent on brucellosis eradication. Using surveillance, vaccination,
quarantine, herd management, and herd depopulation with indemnity
payment, the program has been successful in reducing the number of
known infected herds from 124,000 in 1957 to 0 at this time. Texas and
Idaho are in the process of applying to APHIS for reinstatement of
their class free status classification. After 50 plus years of
experience in eradicating this disease in cattle and the availability
of a vaccine that is only 70% efficacious, APHIS and producers have
recognized that whole herd eradication is the preferred method for
domestic livestock. The nature of the disease and the poor immune
response of its host to vaccination render mitigation through risk
management a dangerous alternative to depopulation. Latent infections
have often caused major setbacks in eradication efforts. Most producers
who have not dealt directly with eradication efforts and practically
all other publics do not understand the tenacity displayed by APHIS and
state veterinarians when asked to allow risk management strategies
other than depopulation and total eradication. Only with the
development of more efficacious vaccines that can be delivered orally
or injected, will brucellosis be eradicated from the elk and bison that
are infected in the GYA.
In a brucellosis class free state, contracting brucellosis in any
domestic livestock herd will automatically require depopulation. If two
herds are found infected in a state, the state loses its class free
status and must meet APHIS testing protocols of large populations of
test eligible animals to regain their status, not to mention the
testing of all test eligible cattle that are exported out of state. It
took 30 years of testing and 33 million dollars for Montana to achieve
its brucellosis free status in 1985. In the early 1990's a wildlife
outbreak in Wyoming cost the Parker Ranch 1.1 million dollars for loss
of cattle, out-of-pocket costs and loss of future earnings. Since 1970
our business has spent over 260 thousand dollars vaccinating and
testing for brucellosis and we have never had the disease. The Market
Cattle Identification (MCI) trace back program requires every sexually
intact female over two years of age that is processed at a federally
inspected packing plant to be tested. This program is an excellent
surveillance tool to identify any outbreak of brucellosis that may
occur nationally. APHIS and the livestock industry have expended
millions of dollars and have exerted tremendous effort while enduring
much pain and agony eradicating brucellosis from our domestic cattle
herds. The livestock producers in the GYA that are being exposed to
infected elk and to YNP bison, if the IBMP is not adhered too, are very
apprehensive that we can withstand the challenge that brucellosis
infected wildlife presents. We need help from the scientific and
research community to develop more efficacious vaccines that will
eradicate this disease from the wildlife in the GYA and effectively
protect our domestic livestock herds. There must be population control
through hunting and or other methods (birth control) if brucellosis is
to be contained and eventually eradicated from the elk in the GYA and
the bison in YNP. For the Secretary of the Interior to not allow
population control of bison in YNP and the Park Service to use a
natural regulation policy to hide behind in managing a bison herd that
is infected with an exotic zoonotic disease that serves as the host for
infection of elk and livestock in the GYA, is irresponsible and
unimaginable. By not accepting their responsibility of population and
disease management, the Department of Interior (DOI) and YNP are
sentencing the YNP bison to the option of starving to death in the park
or facing harassment, testing, and slaughter because they carry a
disease that threatens other wildlife, livestock and the integrity of
the landscape in the GYA. Due to geography and how the bison migrate,
the current and past Governors of Montana, the Montana Stockgrowers
Association, the Montana Board of Livestock, and APHIS have taken a
stand against this disease and have gotten a black eye because we
recognize the impacts this disease can have. If we cannot eradicate
this disease, the livestock production from the GYA states will be
discounted by those states and countries we export to, severely
impacting our industry. This could also become a trade issue and used
as leverage against us in the international market place for our
healthy and wholesome cattle and beef products.
The landscape in the GYA is changing. Urban America has fallen in
love with the open spaces of the rural west. The ranching and farming
community accepted the challenge of the Homestead Act and other
legislation that allowed us to settle the west and develop the
infrastructure that supports what we now have. This job must have been
well done because everyone is seeking the open space we nurtured. It is
quickly becoming apparent that the livestock industry's value to
society is the preservation of open space, rather than the production
of food and fiber. The private land that was homesteaded has some of
the best water and soils and provides some of the most productive
wildlife habitat in the GYA. The cumulative effects of the abuse of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) to change land use, bureaucratic
nightmares involving government programs along with air and water
quality laws, planning and zoning, estate taxes and just the challenge
of managing a private business in America today is about to take its
toll. The inability of the current players involved to find solutions
to the disease and population issues in the bison and elk in the GYA
may very well be lead to the demise of the ranching community in the
GYA. One must recognize that the last crop harvested by a rancher in
the GYA will be a subdivision. This development in the GYA will
fragment the landscape and destroy the wildlife habitat that makes this
area important to society today and tomorrow. We must not venture down
this path. Just visit Jackson Hole, Wyoming, or the Teton Basin in
Idaho or the Madison Valley in Montana and you will get a feeling for
what is coming if we lose the working ranch community.
I have served on three consensus groups in the last fifteen years
dealing with resource and watershed issues. In these groups all
interests are represented and their concerns are understood. In every
instance we have been able to find a solution that enhances the
resource or species of concern and satisfies all interests. This
process is time consuming and difficult, but once one begins listening
to and trusting each other, positive solutions are produced. In talking
with the scientific community, great strides are being made in disease
control and tools are becoming available that will help us achieve
brucellosis eradication the GYA elk and bison herds. We need all the
interested parties to join together to design a long term plan with
solid intermittent steps to achieve the eradication goal. The stakes
are too high to proceed down the path we are going. The loss of the
livestock on our western ranges is insignificant compared to the loss
of the men and women who own and manage these ranches and have the
knowledge, fortitude and love of the land to keep it productive,
sustainable and open. If we lose this culture, the GYA and its wildlife
habitat and openness will be fragmented beyond recognition. The bison
has become a symbol of the American west. How appropriate it would be
to start with the YNP Bison in finding solutions that will stop this
disease that is threatening to take all that we have worked for. This
can be done and must be done and we need the help of our new neighbors
and friends that have come west to seek the same values and
opportunities that lured our predecessors out of the nest. It is time
to go to work.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Dr. Kay.
STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES KAY, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Kay. I would first like to thank the Chairman and the
Subcommittee for inviting me to testify here today. My PhD is
in wildlife ecology, and I am presently associated with the
political science department at Utah State University. I spent
more than 20 years studying in Yellowstone National Park. I
have also done extensive research for Parks Canada in the
southern Canadian Rockies.
Yellowstone is presently managed under what is termed
natural regulation. This though is more than simply letting
nature take its course for it entails a specific view of how
nature operates. According to the Park Service, predation is an
assisting but nonessential adjunct to the regulation of bison
and elk populations. Instead, ungulates are limited by their
available food supply, termed resource or food limited. The
Park Service contends that ungulated populations well self-
regulate without overgrazing the range.
This means that wolves and other predators only kill the
animals slated by nature to die from other causes and thus
predation has no effect on elk or bison numbers. Under natural
regulation the Park Service claims that thousands of bison and
elk have always inhabited Yellowstone. The Park Service also
contends that present conditions in Yellowstone are similar to
those in the past. Now if this were true then earlier explorers
should have found Yellowstone teaming with wildlife and the
range should be as overgrazed in the past as it is today.
Historical data however paint an entirely different
picture. As part of my research I have conducted a continuous
time analysis of all first person historical accounts of
Yellowstone exploration. Between 1835 and 1876, there were 20
different expeditions. They spent 765 days in the ecosystem on
foot or horseback. They saw bison only three times, none were
in the present confines of Yellowstone Park.
Today there are approximately 4,000 bison within the Park
as well as an estimated 100,000 elk in the ecosystem yet those
same explorers reported seeing elk only once every 18 days, and
their journal contained 45 references to a lack of game or
shortage of food. In addition, none of the early explorers--and
I emphasize none--reported seeing or killing a single wolf,
another indication that ungulates were rare and present
conditions are entirely outside the range of historical
variability. Similarly, archeological data indicate there are
more bison and elk in Yellowstone today than any point in the
last 10,000 years.
Why are bison leaving the Park? According to the Park
Service, bison are leaving the Park today are simply following
historic migration routes down the Madison River Valley to the
west and Yellowstone River Valley to the north.
Interestingly, however, that is not what the Park Service
said in 1973 when the agency formulated its natural regulation
program, and I would refer the committee members to attachment
eight of my testimony. This is from the Park Service scientific
monogram in 1973 that laid out the whole natural regulation
paradigm for bison. You will see there is no bison movements
either to the north, down the Yellowstone River Valley or to
the west, down the Madison River Valley.
In that document as well as other earlier documents the
Park Service said that Yellowstone's bison population would
naturally regulate at 1,000 to 2,000 animals. As we all know
that has not proven to be the case. The Park Service has since
suggested that the reason the bison population has grown beyond
the numbers the agency predicted was because the Park roads
have improved to facilitate over-the-snow vehicles during
winter, and this is what started the whole snow machine debate.
It has been hypothesis that the use of snowpacked roads
reduced the energetic cost of bison moving through deep snow
and opened new areas to bison foraging which in term allowed
bison numbers to increase. Recent research, however, has shown
that hypothesis to be false, and the National Academy of
Science has concluded that grooming Park roads has had nothing
to do with the increase of bison above earlier predictions.
As bison numbers have grown, the animals have steadily
overgrazed the range. It should come as no surprise then that
bison are simply leaving Yellowstone Park and the animal is
looking for something to eat. As explained in a recent book
called Yellowstone's Destabilized Ecosystem, this is the latest
word on whether the Park is grazed or overgrazed, published by
Oxford University Press, one of the leading publishers of the
scientific book. It is a synthesis of all the research that has
been done in Yellowstone Park. Not only is it seriously
overgrazed but natural regulation is a failed management
philosophy.
Not only has Yellowstone's bison population not self-
regulated as earlier predicted by the Park Service, no ungulate
population anywhere in the world has self-regulated without
first causing extensive resource damage. Instead, the natural
state of the Yellowstone ecosystem included native hunters who
kept bison and other populations at very low levels and
actually promoted biodiversity. Native people, not wolves, were
the system's keystone predator, and it was not until native
populations were decimated by European introduced diseases and
the survivor was banished from Yellowstone with the second
superintendent Norris that bison elk populations erupted to
unnatural levels.
So what then is the solution to the bison overpopulation
problem? I suggest that Congress revisit the treaties of 1851
and 1868 which predate the establishment of Yellowstone Park
and under which various tribes already claim hunting rights in
Yellowstone. The previous Park Service witness said that they
had no hunting rights in the Park. My understanding is that is
not what the native people think and Congress may want to
revisit that issue.
Thus one way to reduce overgrazing and to keep bison from
leaving the Park would be to honor the United States' previous
commitment to Yellowstone's original owners and allow them to
hunt in the Park. After all, aboriginal hunting has been a
natural ecosystem process for more than 12,000 years, and as
such is in keeping with the Park Organic Act and subregulations
to maintain natural conditions.
For how this might be accomplished, I suggest we look to
our northern neighbors. Parks Canada has the most stringent
environmental protective statutes of any park service in the
world for they added an amendment to their organic act which
says that ecological integrity shall be given first priority in
all management tools. Shall not will or may. Shall mandates
compliance. There is no wiggle room for the government
bureaucrats.
So based on extensive archeological research, Parks Canada
has developed ecological integrity standards that include both
native hunting and native burning. First Nations are already
allowed to hunt in various Canadian national parks and are the
bison restoration program that I have been involved in in Banff
National Park, First Nations will be allowed to hunt bison in
the park to maintain ecological integrity. Native hunting will
be used to prevent bison from leaving the park as well as to
prevent overgrazing.
Parks Canada is also working out a directive to allow First
Nations to hunt elk and other animals in national parks to
prevent resource damage from unnaturally high ungulate
populations. Again, we must remember that parks with native
hunting are natural and parks without native hunting like
Yellowstone are entirely unnatural and totally outside the
range of historical variability.
Would not giving bison additional land outside Yellowstone
solve the problem? Unfortunately inadequate land has never been
the problem. Instead the present situation is a direct route of
natural regulation management under which the Park Service
assumes that bison will self-regulate, and that predation
including that by native people is unimportant to limit the
ungulate numbers.
No matter where the line is drawn under natural regulation,
bison will continue to increase until they are forced by
overgrazing and starvation to again cross that line. In fact,
giving the bison more land will only make situation worse. OK.
For the sake of argument, say that bison are given all the last
west of Yellowstone Park and the Madison drainage down to Quake
Lake or however far you want to go down. OK.
While to the north bison are given all the land down the
Yellowstone River down to the Yankee Jim Canyon or maybe
halfway to Livingston, if that is your view. Would not that
solve the bison problem? It might for a few years. OK. But
during some future winter instead of 5,000 bison coming out of
the Park, we would have 10,000 or 15,000 bison heading for
Ennis, Livingston and Helena, and the bison would still be
infected with brucellosis. This would mean killing even larger
numbers of bison or never ending calls for additional land.
Moreover, this option has already been tried, and it has
been a dismal failure. In 1932 land was added to Yellowstone
Park in an attempt to solve the elk over population problem.
This is called the boundary line addition, and is now one of
the most overgrazed areas in the Park. It did not work then,
and it will not work now.
It is also likely that bison will start summering on any
new range as has happened in other bison population build-ups.
I mean if you do not harass those bison off those areas, they
are going to just move to them.
Mr. Grijalva. Dr. Kay, if you could wrap it up.
Mr. Kay. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. The grace period that other people had has
already passed.
Mr. Kay. After all, once bison summer on the northern great
plains, there is no biological reason for them to move back
into Yellowstone. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kay follows:]
Statement of Charles E. Kay, Institute of Political Economy,
Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-0725
I would first like to thank the Chairman and the Subcommittee for
inviting me to testify here today. I have a B.S. in Wildlife Biology
and a M.S. in Environmental Studies both from the University of
Montana, and a Ph.D. in Wildlife Ecology from Utah State University. I
am presently an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of
Political Science and a Senior Research Scientist at that University's
Institute of Political Economy. I am the only independently funded
scientist to have conducted a detailed evaluation of Yellowstone Park's
``natural regulation'' program. Not only have I conducted scientific
research on the overgrazing question, but I have also studied the bison
problem, wolf recovery, grizzly bear management, and other key issues
in that ecosystem. I have also traveled widely throughout the West and
am familiar with similar resource management problems in other national
parks. For instance, I have conducted extensive research in the
southern Canadian Rockies for Parks Canada. This included work in Banff
National Park on bison reintroduction. I am also one of the leading
experts on aboriginal influences and the original state of nature.
My research in Yellowstone and Canada has been widely published in
books and scientific journals and I have submitted copies of those
papers to the committee's staff. I have previously testified before
this Subcommittee on ``Science and Resource Management in the National
Park System'' and I have testified before the House Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health on ``The Decline of Aspen in the Western
United States.''
Yellowstone is a great national treasure, but as the Subcommittee
that oversees national parks, you face many difficult issues--such as,
Why are bison leaving Yellowstone Park? Will giving bison additional
land outside Yellowstone solve the problem? and, Is there a solution to
the brucellosis issue? I will address each of these, in turn, but first
some background information.
Yellowstone is presently managed under what is termed ``natural
regulation.'' This, though, is more than simply letting nature take its
course for it entails a specific view of how nature operates. According
to the Park Service, predation is an assisting but nonessential adjunct
to the regulation of bison and elk populations. Instead, ungulates are
limited by their available forage supply-termed resource or food-
limited. The Park Service contends that ungulate populations will self-
regulate without overgrazing the range. This means that wolves and
other predators only kill animals slated by nature to die from other
causes and thus, predation has no effect on bison or elk numbers. In
the debate over reintroducing wolves, the Park Service has denied that
wolves are needed to control elk or bison populations in Yellowstone
Park. Moreover in the current effort to remove wolves from the
Endangered Species List, the Park Service and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service deny that wolves have had or are having any major
impact on ungulate populations anywhere in the West, including
Yellowstone. Thus, if you think predators limit ungulate numbers, then
by definition, you do not believe in ``natural regulation.''
Under ``natural regulation'', the Park Service claims that
thousands of bison and elk have always inhabited Yellowstone. The Park
Service also contends that present conditions in Yellowstone are
similar to those in the past. Now if this was true, then early
explorers should have found Yellowstone teeming with wildlife, and the
range should have been as overgrazed in the past as it is today.
Historical data, however, paint an entirely different picture.
As part of my research, I have conducted the only systematic,
continuous-time analysis of first-person journal accounts of
Yellowstone exploration. Between 1835 and 1876, 20 different
expeditions spent a total of 765 days in the Yellowstone ecosystem on
foot or horseback, but they reported seeing bison only three times,
none of which were in Yellowstone Park itself. Today there are over
4,000 bison in the park, as well as an estimated 100,000 elk in the
ecosystem. Yet those same explorers reported seeing elk only once every
18 days and their journals contain 45 references to a lack of game or
shortage of food. In addition, none of the early explorers reported
seeing or killing a single wolf--another indication that ungulates were
rare and that present conditions are entirely outside the range of
historical variability. Similarly, archeological data indicate that
there are more bison and elk in Yellowstone today then at any point in
the last 10,000 years.
Why are bison leaving Yellowstone Park?
According to the Park Service, bison that leave the park today are
simply following historic migration routes down the Madison River to
the west and the Yellowstone River Valley to the north. Interestingly,
however, that is not what the Park Service said in 1973 when the agency
formulated its ``natural regulation'' program. Instead, after reviewing
the historical evidence, the Park Service concluded that bison had not
historically left Yellowstone Park to the west or north--I refer the
Subcommittee to Figure 11 in the Park Service's Scientific Monograph on
``The Bison of Yellowstone National Park''--see Attachment A. No new,
first-person historical journals have been discovered since the Park
Service conducted its original analysis. In early documents, the Park
Service also stated that Yellowstone's bison population would
``naturally regulate'' at 1,000 to 2,000 animals. And as we all know,
that has not proven to be the case.
The Park Service has since suggested that the reason the bison
population has grown beyond the numbers the agency originally predicted
was because park roads have been groomed to facilitate use by over-the-
snow vehicles during winter. It has been hypothesized that use of snow-
packed roads reduced the energetic cost of moving through deep snow and
opened new areas to bison foraging during winter, which in turn,
allowed bison numbers to increase. Recent research, however, has shown
that hypothesis to be false and the National Academy of Sciences has
concluded that grooming park roads has had nothing to do with the
increase of bison above earlier predictions.
As bison numbers have grown, the animals have steadily overgrazed
the range. It should come as no surprise then that bison are simply
leaving Yellowstone because the animals are looking for something to
eat. The Park Service has admitted that bison are at what is termed
``ecological carrying capacity.'' By definition this means the animals
are short of food and that grazing has altered the park's vegetation.
As explained in a recent book, ``Yellowstone's Destabilized Ecosystem''
published by Oxford University Press, Yellowstone is seriously
overgrazed and ``natural regulation'' is a failed management
philosophy.
My own research has shown that Yellowstone contains some of the
worst overgrazed riparian areas in the West. Early photographs show
that historically Yellowstone's aspen and willow communities were
ungrazed. Based on 120 repeat photosets that I have made, dating to as
early as 1871, tall willows and aspen have declined by more than 95%,
since Yellowstone National Park was established, due to excessive
ungulate browsing by unnatural concentrations of elk and bison. Not
only has Yellowstone's bison population not self-regulated, as
originally predicted by the Park Service, but no ungulate population
anywhere in the world has been shown to self-regulate without first
causing extensive resource damage.
Instead, the natural state of the Yellowstone ecosystem included
native hunters, who kept bison and other ungulate populations at very
low levels, and thus maintained biodiversity. Native people, not
wolves, were the system's keystone predator. It was not until native
populations were decimated by European-introduced diseases and the
survivors banished from Yellowstone that bison and elk populations
irrupted to unnatural levels. It is important to remember that after
the Nez Perce incident in 1877, Yellowstone's second superintendent had
the park's original inhabitants forcefully removed and then created the
myth that native people never lived in the park--all in the name of
promoting tourism. Unfortunately, the Park Service has done nothing in
the last 90 years to correct that situation.
So what then is the solution to the bison over-population problem?
I suggest that Congress and the Park Service revisit the Treaties of
1851 and 1868, which predate the establishment of Yellowstone National
Park, and under which various tribes already claim hunting rights in
Yellowstone. Thus, one way to reduce overgrazing and to keep bison from
leaving the park would be to honor the United States' previous
commitment to Yellowstone's original owners and allow them to hunt in
the park. After all, aboriginal hunting has been a natural ecosystem
process for more than 12,000 years and as such is in keeping with the
Park Organic Art and subsequent regulations to maintain natural
conditions. For how this might be accomplished, I suggest we look to
our northern neighbors.
Parks Canada has the most stringent environmental protection
statutes of any Park Service in the world for they added an amendment
to their Organic Act which says that ecological integrity shall be
given first priority in all management decisions--shall, unlike will or
may, mandates compliance. So based on extensive archival and ecological
research, including my Parks Canada publication on ``Long-term
Ecosystem States and Processes in the Central Canadian Rockies,'' Parks
Canada has developed ecological integrity standards that include both
native hunting and native burning. First Nations already are allowed to
hunt in various Canadian National Parks and under the bison restoration
program that is being planned for Banff National Park, First Nations
will be allowed to hunt bison in the park to maintain ecological
integrity. Native hunting will be used to prevent bison from leaving
the park, as well as to prevent overgrazing. Parks Canada is also
working on a directive to allow First Nations to hunt elk and other
animals in national parks to prevent resource damage from unnaturally
high ungulate populations. Again, we must remember that parks with
native hunting are natural, while parks without native hunting, like
Yellowstone, are entirely unnatural and totally outside the range of
historical variability.
Wouldn't giving bison additional land outside Yellowstone solve the
problem?
Unfortunately, inadequate land has never been the problem. Instead,
the present situation is a direct result of ``natural regulation''
management under which the Park Service assumes that bison will self-
regulate, and that predation, including that by native people, is
unimportant in limiting ungulate numbers. No matter where the line is
drawn, under ``natural regulation'' bison will continue to increase
until they are forced by overgrazing and starvation to again cross that
line. In fact, giving the bison more land will only make the situation
worse.
For the sake of argument say that bison are given all the land west
of Yellowstone Park in the Madison drainage from the Continental Divide
down to Quake Lake. While to the north, bison are given all the land
along the Yellowstone River down to Yankee Jim Canyon. Would that not
solve the bison problem? It might for a few years but during some
future winter, instead of 5,000 bison coming out of the park, we would
have 10,000 or 15,000 bison heading for Ennis, Livingston, and Helena--
bison that would still be infected with brucellosis. This would mean
killing even larger numbers of bison or never ending calls for
additional land.
Moreover, this option has already been tried and has been a dismal
failure. In 1932, land was added to Yellowstone Park in an attempt to
solve the elk over-population problem. This is called the Boundary Line
Addition, or BLA, and is now one of the most overgrazed areas in the
park. It did not work then, and it will not work now. It is also likely
that bison will start summering on any new range, as has happened in
other bison population build-ups. After all, bison once summered on the
northern Great Plains, so there is no biological reason for them to
move back into Yellowstone. Ecologically, it would be much better and
more natural to simply let Native Americans hunt bison in Yellowstone
National Park.
Is there a solution to the brucellosis issue?
First, it is important to note that bison in Yellowstone Park are
heavily infected, while the elk in the northern part of the park are
not. That is to say, the disease can be maintained in free-ranging
bison but apparently not in free-ranging elk. This is why elk migrating
north of the park are not a problem. Second, there is a separate bison
herd south of the park in Jackson Hole, which also is heavily infected
with brucellosis. In addition, elk on the one federal and 22 state
feedgrounds in northwest Wyoming are infected with brucellosis. So we
have two infected bison herds and one larger infected elk population,
but only where elk are artificially fed during winter south of the
park--some of those elk, though, do summer in Yellowstone.
Based on the available scientific literature, the only proven way
to eliminate brucellosis from an ungulate population is test and
slaughter. It must be remembered that the elimination of brucellosis
from the United States is national policy. Thus, the only known way to
comply with this national directive is test and slaughter. In fact, the
State of Wyoming is now running an experimental test and slaughter
program on one of its elk feedgrounds because previous attempts at
vaccinating elk have not eliminated the disease. In the coming years,
Wyoming plans to extend its test and slaughter program to two
additional elk feedgrounds. Test and slaughter have also been
successfully used to eliminate brucellosis from bison in various other
national and state parks, including Elk Island in Alberta and Custer in
South Dakota. Test and slaughter were also used to eliminate
brucellosis from the National Bison Range in Montana.
If test and slaughter had been instituted in Yellowstone 20 years
ago, we now most likely would have disease-free bison and elk herds--
and the problem would be solved. Instead, the problem has gotten worse,
while millions of tax dollars have been wasted. I suggest it is time to
stop squandering the public's money and solve the problem. The solution
has been known for many years, only the will has been lacking.
In closing, I thank the Chairman and Subcommittee for your time and
consideration.
Attachment A--Figure 11 from Meagher, M.M. 1973. The bison of
Yellowstone National Park. National Park Service Scientific Monograph
Series Number One. 161 pp.
Attachment B--Kay, C. E. 1998. Ar ecosystems structured from the
top-down or the bottom-up: A new look at an old debate. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 26:484-498.
NOTE: Attachments to Dr. Kay's statement have been retained in the
Committee's official files.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Let me just ask some quick
questions, and I think they are going to call us for a vote,
and we would like to get some information. Let me ask Mr.
Osher, does the Buffalo Field Campaign support--because that
has been part of the discussion--to support the continuation of
the management plan that exists now? Let us say if there was to
be some progress--I know we are still caught or trapped in
phase one--but some progress toward phase two, phase three, or
do you feel that that plan just needs to be abandoned and deal
with something else?
Mr. Osher. No. We do not support the continuation of the
current interagency plan. We believe that the plan is not the
product of sound science. That it was created as an adaptive
management plan but the agencies have not been able to adapt
the plan based on the new knowledge and information, including
specifically genetic information that suggests that there are
the three distinct subpopulations of bison in the Park. It is
not in the management scenario to manage to make sure those
populations remain viable. We need a new plan.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Pacelle, I grew up until I was
about five, six, seven, I grew upon a cattle ranch in southern
Arizona, and although my memory is limited but I remember my
father's discussions about the three most important things.
First for the cattle was control of the disease, and the other
was of equal--if not more important value--is the grazing space
that cattle need and then control of predators was the other
one. It brings back the point you made that maybe the concern
over the disease is secondary to the space required for grazing
for cattle. Could you expand on that if you would?
Mr. Pacelle. Well let me just say on the matter of disease
I mean we do not like to see any animal contract a disease. I
mean this one the main impact is on the pregnancy for the
animal but you know the test is basically measuring antibodies.
It is measuring exposure, and if you or I had a measles you
know at some point in our life, we would have some of the
antibodies.
I think the point that I was making about the spacing and
that others have made is that we are talking about an ecosystem
with relatively few cattle. It is very cold you know.
Yellowstone is at a high elevation. They do not over-winter
cattle there for the most part. So we really have an ideal set
of circumstances to allow bison to range freely, at least to
some limit. Most of the cattle herds are not even within 45
miles of the Yellowstone border when the bison leave the Park,
and they just go you know to small areas outside of the Park.
So I think that the space management issue is crucial. I
understand the Governor's concern about brucellosis-free
status. I think we really need to ask USDA some hard questions
about why it is so rigid in its definitions and why there
cannot be you know a subregion there that they select.
Mr. Grijalva. I appreciate that. Mr. Hagenbarth, let me
pose a what if. In your opinion, could the Royal Teton Ranch
move to a steer only operation? Would such a transition be
difficult, expensive? That is part of the question. But the
other part of the question, would not moving cows off the ranch
solve the problem?
Mr. Hagenbarth. To solve the problem you have to solve the
disease. You could use steers because they are not susceptible
to brucellosis. Whether or not you could run them there
economically is another question because on running steers are
different than running cows because you need a lot more
infrastructure to keep them there, and if you run steers in an
open country--like we did in our Forest Service allotment
although we had spayed heifers--it cost us six-tenths of a
pound a day. Over a 100-day grazing period, it is 60 bucks a
head.
But the real issue is disease. Disease is what is causing
the bison, which causes us to manage the bison the way we are.
But it is the elk that are causing the problems. The elk are
all over the greater Yellowstone area.
There is 20 million acres there, 20 million acres, and
those acres are open, and if we destroy the infrastructure of
the ranching community and they sell out--and I will guarantee
you those folks are just waiting with the money. You will
destroy that 20 million acres. We cannot make that sacrifice.
We have to lift up our eyes, open our ears, get a sharper
vision to see what the real issue is.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Pacelle. Can I just say something with the elk very
briefly, Mr. Chairman? You know I agree with Mr. Hagenbarth to
a degree. I mean we are not talking about bison as the only
theoretical transmitters of this disease. There are more than
15,000 elk. Even if they have a lower incidence rate the
absolute numbers of infected animals may be comparable, and why
are we allowing this no movement policy for bison yet elk range
throughout the ecosystem?
And I think the reason is that there is a stronger
constituency for the elk. There are hunting guides and
outfitters and lots of Montana hunters who want to have the elk
there.
Mr. Grijalva. My time is up. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, I will try and be quick and let you have
another shot at these guys again. I appreciate you all being
here, and I appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Hagenbarth, you established a unique picture. That is
something that we do not all visualize sometimes, and I assume
you are very serious when you say that if indeed the ranching
industry fails in this particular area it will sell out not to
other kinds of open space but it will sell out to housing
developments, it will sell out to cabins and those types of
situations. So when you talk about how you actually are the
last link of an open space in this particular area, I think it
is a compelling argument that we do not hear that often.
Dr. Kay, can I ask you a couple of simple questions that I
tried to get from the Forest Service? Is there in your studies
a historic high or historic size of the buffalo herd that
traditionally was in the Park and Park area? Like pre 1900s.
Mr. Kay. Well there are early estimates of two to 300 bison
when the Park was first established on it but I mean there is
more bison in there now than there has ever been, and this is
all after the natural regulation thing because up until 1968
the Park Service was concerned about overgrazing. They
controlled the numbers of bison in the Park.
Mr. Bishop. Let me quit being cute with these questions.
Mr. Kay. OK.
Mr. Bishop. I think I read in some other stuff you had done
in other places that in the 1920s there were about 400, 500
head of bison there. In the 1800s there was as many as 600
head. But certainly you know when the Director said there
should be 7,500--and I saw the Governor start to gag over
there----
Mr. Kay. Yes.
Mr. Bishop.--that is 10 times higher than I think we have
ever talked about the number of bison that this particular
piece of property can adequately maintain.
Mr. Kay. That is certainly true. I have not actually ever
seen that number. In this book here, when you calculate out
when the reproductive rate falls to zero, it is about 6,000
bison. OK. But what happens and there is some physiological
data on the condition of bison, they can take this by testing
the urine for protein catabolism where they start using their
muscle mass and everything, when it gets about 3,000 bison the
bison are in bad shape, and they start leaving the Park. OK.
Mr. Bishop. In the Canadian Parks when they developed a
bison reintroduction plan----
Mr. Kay. Yes. They are still working on that. They have
not----
Mr. Bishop. If there were like two or three things we could
take from their experience that we could probably transpose and
use in Yellowstone that would be effective, what would you say
those would be?
Mr. Kay. Well the main thing is their different views on
what structured the ecosystem. What were the important players
in the ecosystem, and it turns out to be it was native hunting
and native burning. It turns out lightning fires are basically
unnatural. All the burning in this country for the last 12,000
years has been native burning. Depending upon which ecosystems
you were, it was anywhere from 270 times to 35,000 times more
frequent than known lightning fire ignition rates.
So Parks Canada has looked at these various data sets. They
have talked to anthropologists and archaeologists, and because
they have a stronger native presence up there in that country,
I mean they call them First Nations that is the politically
correct thing to do when you talk about native people in
Canada. You know they are a lot more open to the ideas of you
know letting native people hunt in the park to control the
animal numbers.
Mr. Bishop. They have more active management style of
management plan up there in Canada?
Mr. Kay. That is right. What they have done is develop
ecological integrity standards. Unfortunately like natural
regulation, I mean how do you ever hold the government
bureaucrats accountable? There is no standards you know it goes
to this many bison or that many bison or this many elk, and
they just say it is all natural.
So what they have done is based on the archeological
record, the first person historical journals, and all the other
data sets they can find, pollen records and everything else,
come up with we in this country would call a range of
historical variability, and you also have to understand what
are the main processes that drive the ecosystem.
Mr. Bishop. I am sorry.
Mr. Kay. That is fine.
Mr. Bishop. No. I appreciate----
Mr. Kay. It is an entirely different approach than down
here in the United States, and unlike our Park Service that has
never asked me to take them on a field trip in Yellowstone, the
chief scientist from Parks Canada has come down and gone with
two Yellowstone field trips with me, and of course he also goes
out and looks at the Yellowstone people. But they are not doing
natural regulation in their parks. OK.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that. I appreciate also your
comments on the boundary line addition of 1932 and the impact
that that actually had. I think that historical input is
significant. Did you do any study with the brucellosis
eradication program starting in 1934?
Mr. Kay. Well I have not done any studies. I mean there was
some part of my written testimony which I did not have time to
get to had to do with the only known way of eradicating
brucellosis, and that is test and slaughter, and that as been
accomplished in various state and national parks.
Mr. Bishop. Right.
Mr. Kay. To remove brucellosis from bison. And previous
witnesses have already alluded to that fact. Everybody is sort
of looking for a silver bullet which is this vaccine that has
not been developed.
Mr. Bishop. That was probably the wrong term to use when
you are talking about this issue. I have about 10 seconds left,
and I knew we have a few that is coming up. Let me yield back
but I appreciate the panel, and I appreciate your responses,
and I am sorry we did not have more time to ask more questions.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop. With that, I
would just like to inform the panelists there were some follow-
up questions, and we will be submitting those in writing to
you, and appreciate your responses so they can be part of the
record, and be distributed to the other members of the
Committee as well.
Last closing comment. There is no doubt that there are more
bison in the Park now because it is a protected area, and as a
consequence of that there are more bison, and if you put it in
the historical context the bison used to roam from Canada to
Mexico, I think that is not a good comparison. Anyway, thank
you very much. The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]