>Bigfin, Question. If they
>are trying to destroy the
>elk in the name of
>brucellosis, what are they doing
>to the buffalo? I
>was under the impression that
>buffalo were heavier carriers of
>brucellosis than elk. Are
>they doing the same with
>the buffalo.
Yes, they already have an agressive test and slaughter program for bison. They have a "no tolerance" zone for bison, where any bison that migrates that far gets shot, bull or cow, even though bulls are not transmission vectors. That is why they haze bison that migrate in Montana, test and slaughter them, shoot the hell out of them, and do not let hunters shoot many of them. They want to keep them in this very small tolerance area, then get them back in YNP as soon as snow melts.
Bison are a money maker for those who adhere to the "Cuddly conservation" religion. Same groups who love wolves. They are fighting for bison, along with the tribes who have treaty rights.
Now that they have found brucellosis in elk, APHIS is laying out a very similar plan to what they are doing for bison. If you want to see the future of elk under an APHIS direction, just look at what happens to bison in the Greater Yellowstone area. APHIS is driving that bus.
Here is one of many examples that gives some idea of just what degree of impact they know their brucellosis plan will have on elk numbers, in this case the impacts in NW Wyoming.
Go to this link and read the 2012 study they funded to determine the impact of a
10% to 50% reduction in NW Wyoming elk herds to combat brucellosis. If you don't want to read it all, the conclusions on page 13 give some idea of what they expect the impact to be on elk in NW Wyoming, where 70%+/- are dependent upon winter feed grounds.
http://www.emwh.org/pdf/elk/Uninten...d for elk hunting in northwestern wyoming.pdf
I don't think they hired three PHDs to do this study, just because they wanted to spend some money. The APHIS plan to deal with brucellosis has some serious reductions in elk numbers. In this study, they use a range of 10% to 50% reductions in elk to manage brucellosis risk to cattle.
This is not something I am cooking up. If hunters do some Google searches of "brucellosis elk APHIS yellowstone" and they will see pages of it.
Given that elk on Wyoming's winter feedgrounds have a 22% seropositive (exposed to, but not necessarily carrying brucellosis) rate compared to a 3.7% rate in non-feedground elk, if I was a hunter in NW Wyoming, I would be attending some brucellosis meetings to make sure my agency was representing hunters, not being asked to become an animal husbandry organization.
In Montana, our past Governor and the Legislature already dumped our agency into bed with APHIS and told our Department to start working with them in the plan. A new one-year plan was adopted last summer that is going to result in some dead cow elk this winter. More meetings are in store for the next few months before a bigger "collaborative" plan gets finalized later this year.
I am not privy to the Wyoming G&F plans for brucellosis, but there is a tendency for Governors to have their G&F agencies do the dirty work and take the public relations hit. Oh, and in MT, hunters get to pay for all of this, with some crumbs of reimbursement dangled in front of them by APHIS. I know WY G&F (hunters) paid over $1 million for the studies to determine brucellosis on feedgrounds.
I'm not big into conspiracy theories, so when I first started reading the APHIS plans for elk, seven or eight years ago, I thought it had to be some "black helicopter" idea. Nope. They are going forward with the plan and they are happy to see hunters almost exclusively focused on wolves, rather than what is going to happen when the " brucellosis eradication" plan is implemented. It may also be an "elk eradication" plan.
If that doesn't cause hunters to take notice, they should read the APHIS strategic plan for 2010 to 2015. That plan flat out states that "eradication" of brucellosis is a strategic goal. A goal that almost all vets and scientists say is impossible, and if possible, requires depopulation of every transmission vector (read elk, sheep, deer, bison, rodents) for a long period of time.
Probably should have a completely different thread on this topic.
At the most basic level, I hope MT, ID, WY hunters have enough distaste for Federal agencies to go to their Governors and Legislators and demand that they not put elk management at the mercy of a Federal agency such as APHIS. Once that happens, and it is getting closer each month, elk in this area is going to take another big hit.
"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
