August
1999
Bison
and Brucellosis: The Wedge Issue between Environmentalists
and Ranchers
By Martin Rowe
|
|
|
In the winter of 1996-1997 the state of Montana
had what it thought was a bison problem. (Although the words are often
used interchangeably, the large animals that used to be at home on the
range are more properly called bison rather than buffalo.) Bison had been
leaving Yellowstone National Park at its northern edge to reach the relatively
snow-free grounds where they could find food for the winter months and
calve. Although bison are protected in the Park because they are on federal
land, it is up to the states to control wildlife outside the Park, even
though the land the animals walk on may be public-owned.
The bison were considered a threat because of brucellosis, a disease originally
given to bison by the infected cattle of settlers brought to America from
Europe. Brucellosis causes cattle to abort their fetuses, although it
apparently does not taint the meat. While ranchers had managed to eradicate
it in cattle, brucellosis was still present in bison and the ranchers
were fearful that bison would reinfect their livestock, which can happen
if cattle eat grass tainted by bison females’ afterbirth. The reinfection
of the cattle would mean that the state of Montana would lose its brucellosis-free
status, causing livestock prices in that state to plummet.
That winter, therefore, Montana killed on the spot or shipped away to
slaughter some one thousand bison—nearly a quarter of the total number
of bison who lived in the Park. The massacre caught the attention of the
media, especially when Montana shipped hunters in to shoot the docile
animals from their cars. (One naturalist confided that shooting buffalo
was about as sporting as shooting a sofa.) In a stirring gesture recalling
previously generous gifts to their peoples, the state of Montana gave
the buffalo meat and skins to local Native Americans.
Buffalo Nation
Of course it wasn’t always like this. Once the bison
covered, like the Native American nations who depended on them for their
survival, vast stretches of the North American continent. Like them, they
were virtually wiped out in deliberate mass extermination. Between 1850
and 1880, Euro-Americans killed an estimated 80 million bison, so that
by the end of the century there were fewer than 1,000 left, most in captivity,
and only 23 in Yellowstone Park itself. By 1954, this number had grown
to 1,500, although Park officials decided that the Park could only support
400 bison and began to kill them. By 1966, when the Park Service decided
to let Nature decide how many bison the Park could tolerate, there were
397, a number that grew to 2,750 by 1988. By 1995, this number had increased
to 4,500. Then came the severe winter, when the state of Montana and the
weather combined to reduce the bison population by nearly one-half. Today,
around 2,500 buffalo remain in the Park.
To many, the fact that the national symbol for Yellowstone and the West
should still be slaughter fodder is an outrage—especially when there
seems so little need. The northern rim of the Park, where the bison are
being shot, is the grazing area for eight ranchers, all of whom have permits
to graze on public land. Many people, from the most radical of environmental
groups to the most conservative, have offered solutions to the brucellosis
situation. The federal Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)—the
organization that determines whether a state can call itself brucellosis-free—has
indicated that it will waive its requirements in the case of these bison.
Others have offered money to the eight ranchers to move their cattle elsewhere,
either permanently or just for the two months that brucellosis may be
active on the bison afterbirth. Advocates for the bison have pointed out
that elk also carry brucellosis, and because of their greater numbers
pose more of a risk to cattle than bison. Yet Montana does not kill elk,
mainly because hunters (a hugely powerful lobby) refuse to allow the state
to kill the animals when they can do it themselves. Some groups have suggested
the use of a brucellosis vaccine—which is available—either for
the bison or cattle. In all cases, the ranchers and their allies in the
state government have refused to budge or change their policy.
Manmade Problem
It is not simply the presence of cattle around the Park
that is leading to the slaughter of the bison; another manmade problem
is quite literally leading them to leave the Park. Every year, some 100,000
snowmobilers congregate in the western part of the Park, polluting the
air with the fumes and noise from their cacophonous engines. Yellowstone
offers 200 miles of groomed trails where snowmobiles can go. Unfortunately,
the bison use these trails as well, and often end up outside the Park
where they are shot. Efforts by conservationists to curtail snowmobiling
in certain areas (let alone stop it completely during the calving season)
to prevent bison from leaving the Park have been met by resistance from
organizations who claim it is infringing on the rights of those who wish
to enjoy the Park. Conservationists argue that it is better for the bison
to starve to death in the Park (where they will be part of the food supply
for the equally hungry predators) than becoming victims of a shoot-to-kill
policy.
There is currently an environmental impact assessment (EIS) being undertaken
to assess the risks to cattle of the brucellosis virus. Conservationists
and animal rights groups such as Friends of Animals have been pushing
to avoid what Tom Skeele, Executive Director of Predator Project, fears
will be the ultimate solution: the culling of bison until the entire herd
has been cleared of brucellosis. Some experts suggest that up to 50 percent
of the bison herd may have the virus. Meanwhile, the Buffalo Field Campaign
(BFC, formerly known as Buffalo Nation) uses civil disobedience to interrupt
the annual winter slaughter of the bison. BFC complains that it is the
wildlife agencies that should be managing the bison herds rather than
the Montana Department of Livestock, which currently has jurisdiction
and is clearly not a disinterested party. BFC notes that 98 percent of
the land the bison use outside Yellowstone is National Forest land. The
Forest Service, says BFC, should close the grazing allotments of cattle
owners. Finally, BFC and others point out a further obvious fact. The
bison move from public land (Yellowstone) to public land (Gallatin National
Forest), therefore, the people own the land, and surveys suggest that
the people want the bison—not the cattle—to have right of way.
Getting the Symbolism Right
Unfortunately, while conservation groups have been partly
successful in attempts to change policies, they have found themselves
on the defensive in framing the issue to appeal to the people of the Western
states. In spite of changing demographics and the suburbanization of the
West, these states remain suspicious of outside interference and new ways
of thinking. The resistance to change does not seem to be based on economic
priorities. Tourism brings more money to the state of Montana than all
extractive industries (oil, timber, and cattle ranching) combined. Moreover,
the Rocky Mountain states contribute only five percent of all the beef
“farmed” each year in the U.S. Yet the ranchers managed to persuade
Montana governor Marc Racicot to resist all efforts at compromise. Racicot
is tipped to become the Secretary of the Interior if George W. Bush wins
the White House.
The ranchers and politicians were able to feed off local people’s
suspicion of federal intervention to claim that not only was the government
interfering in a state’s right to regulate its own wildlife but that
the very symbol of the West—in this case the cowboy—was being
threatened. For the ranchers and state government, thinks Skeele, this
was a wedge issue. If conservationists and the federal government were
allowed to displace the interests of cattle ranching in favor of wildlife,
not only would that threaten the power of the beef industry, but it would
bring into question the ability of states to determine how to deal with
their wildlife.
And, says Skeele, the ranchers and states-rights people were right: what
happens to the bison will determine the future of the West. “If you
think about what the West was, the whole ability to maintain our natural
heritage and all the symbolism, that’s what the bison represents,”
he says. “It’s our natural heritage: instead of Smokey the Bear
or livestock or beef cattle.” It is, he continues, a failure to tell
the story the right way, to displace the myth of the American cowboy with
the reality of a vivid and wild landscape where the native beings—both
human and non-human—used to live in harmony. Significantly, Native
Americans are some of the most vocal opponents of the bison slaughter.
As Scott Barta, a HoCank Winnebago, writes in the Buffalo Field Campaign
newsletter: “We said no to bison slaughter for more than a hundred
years, but they keep on killing. The genocide against the bison was part
and parcel of the genocide of Indians. The recovery of the bison population
in Yellowstone was to us a portent that our spirituality and traditional
way of life could be rediscovered.”
Home on Your Range?
While Yellowstone has only 2,000 bison, the nearby
ranch of CNN and Time-Warner chairman Ted Turner has three times that
number. Turner—a firm believer in wildlife conservation—has
decided to go into bison ranching, an industry that is making some headway
in the gourmet meat market. Not only is bison meat lower in fat than cow
flesh, but bison are bigger (more meat available) and require less management
than cattle. Bison are hardier, native to America, and graze in a less
intensive manner. They do not require so much fodder in the winter and
can be kept on the same area of land for longer with less erosion and
topsoil loss. Moreover, bison cannot be herded or confined like cows and
so cannot but be free range.
The ecosystem of the great plains between the Mississippi and the Rocky
Mountains was formed by the grazing patterns of bison, and many conservationists
are calling for the reintroduction of bison as a way to regenerate the
prairie and bring back other native species (such as predators). Some
conservationists worry that commodifying bison as a food resource will
belittle a vital national symbol that represents the freedom of America.
Others argue that if Americans are not going to end their love affair
with red meat, they may as well be eating bison and helping the ecosystem
rather than eating cows and damaging it.—M.R.
Buffalo Field Campaign
P.O. Box 957
West Yellowstone, MT 59758
Tel.: 406-646-0070, Fax: 406-646-0071
Email: buffalo@wildrockies.org
Web: www.wildrockies.org/buffalo
Defenders of Wildlife
1101 14th Street, NW #1400
Washington, DC 20005
Tel.: 202-682-9400
Email: info@defenders.org
Web: www.defenders.org
Greater Yellowstone Coalition
13 S. Willson
Bozeman, MT 59715
Tel.: 800-775-1834 or 406-586-1593
Email: gyc@greateryellowstone.org
www.greateryellowstone.org
National Wildlife Federation
8925 Leesburg Pike
Vienna, VA 22184
Tel.: 703-790-4000
Web: www.nwf.org
Predator Project
P.O. Box 6733
Bozeman, MT 59771
Tel.: 406-587-3389, Fax: 406-587-3178
Email: predproj@avicom.net
Web: www.wildrockies.org/predproj
World Society for the Protection of Animals
29 Perkins Street
P.O. Box 190
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
Tel.: 617-522-7000, Fax: 617-522-7077
Email: wspa@wspausa.com
Web: www.wspa.org.uk
| © STEALTH TECHNOLOGIES INC. |
|
|
