Thoughts on Wednesday's slaughter of 3 Yellowstone buffalo




Yesterday, I wrote a post on the issue of Yellowstone buffalo in another forum. When I wrote the post yesterday, I was not yet aware that 3 buffalo were sent to slaughter by Montana yesterday. The details you can find in the news articles, but let me here note some things.




1. This is the earliest, as far as I know, that the Montana Department of Livestock has begun slaughtering buffalo.




2. Because there are now just over 4,000 buffalo in Yellowstone, and the guidelines artificially set a limit at 3,000--anything over which, Montana does not even have to test for brucellosis--there is potential for another great disaster for Yellowstone bison this winter.




3. Montana did not test the three bison sent to slaughter for brucellosis.




4. Overshadowed by issues like snowmobiles, wolf expansion, and the de-listing of both wolves and grizzlies from the Endangered Species list, the buffalo barely have a voice on the national scene (Because I cover the newspapers,I know what's not being reported), and the main grassroots supporters--Buffalo Field Campaign--are underfunded and lack much in the way of political or organizational clout. While certain big names have offered some support (like the Humane Society of the United States), the overall political situation looks very grim. There is no great media specialist publicizing buffalo like there are for other causes.




So, more needs to be done here, and I'm trying to get the word out early this season that this needs people's attention. This is a very sad situation, and I think it is loaded with a lot of cultural significance. Yellowstone is one of the few oases where we don't try to sterilize all the interaction between all the members of the environment, where we let things act according to their nature and adjust accordingly. Unfortunately, the boundaries of Yellowstone are too small, and the one way of life runs against the ethos of another. There are difficult value judgments to be made. The ethos represented by a vibrant Yellowstone makes more sense to me than the one that uses the scantest of evidence in the name of economic good as a justification to stifle a free ranging bison population.




Okay, so I said more than a few things. I am very passionate about this; however, I believe such passion only fuels the clarity of my judgment.




--------



http://www.yellowstone-online.com/buffalo

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Note from Jim: Dave Colavito sent this to me by email. He is hoping to have it published as a letter to the editor in several publications




April 10, 2002






Backpacker:




Re: Letter To Editor






I'm learning to dread Spring, particularly this month of April. As


I pen these words, the mass migration has begun. And it's at


this time of year that it seems the struggle for wilderness is no


more apparent than at the door steps of our first national park,


Yellowstone. My wintercount has become their death-toll - the last


wild - and I find it more difficult to say, free roaming - herd of


Bison remaining within our borders. And it should not go unnoticed


that this year's toll now rings at about 90% bulls. This further


exemplifies the hypocritical agenda being played out under the guise


of protecting livestock from disease transmission - a disease whose


transmission by any reasonable measure, could take place only from


exposure to the birthing matter of cows, never minding that any


concerns over potential of transmission of the same disease from Elk


goes largely ignored. So the genocide continues. And things look


to likely get worse.




There's trouble in Yellowstone. According to a recent Montana Dept.


of Livestock report, the Reno meeting of the Western States


Livestock Health Association and U.S. Animal Health Association


Western District included passage of a resolution directed to the


Secretaries of Agriculture, Interior and Health & Human Services,


and the Centers for Disease Control. The resolution strongly urges


implementation of procedures that will eliminate Brucella abortus


(the bacterium that causes brucellosis) from Bison and Elk of the


Yellowstone ecosystem - including Yellowstone and Grand Teton


National parks and the National Elk Refuge - in the shortest


possible time. To most casual observers, this seems sensible


enough - after all, anything ending in "osis" can't be good.


But at what price? And in whose interest? The American public


should serve notice, for if some have their way, this could mean the


annihilation of America's last truly wild herd of Bison through


either their continued slaughter or, arguably worse, their


domestication. This, in spite of the fact that there are no


documented cases of brucellosis transmission from wild Bison to


cattle in a natural setting - no insignificant finding, particularly


since cattle and Bison have been sharing the range within Grand


Teton National park for decades. Worrying about the risk of


transmitting brucellosis from wild Bison to cattle would seem to be


a lot like worrying about dying in an auto accident because your


seat belt has trapped you inside a burning vehicle - available


evidence simply does not support the argument that this scenario is


of any meaningful concern.




And as the National Academy of Science report points out,


brucellosis is not merely confined to Bison and Elk but can also


infect wild predators, scavengers and domestic dogs. So an


operationally acceptable scientific level of risk for the


Yellowstone Bison seems long overdue. Are we to "sanitize" the


entire ecosystem? This notion is particularly ironic since


brucellosis is not native to North American wildlife, but is


believed to have been transmitted from domestic livestock. And even


if 100% eradication were possible (and measurable), our double


standards for risk tolerance would still need to be addressed - we


drive cars don't we? Furthermore, a recent report from the Texas


Animal Health Commission appears to speak volumes. It seems Texas


is now at risk for decertification from "free" for cattle


tuberculosis (TB) eradication. Apparently Texas livestock brokers


routinely import cattle from Mexico, where it is known that cattle


TB is a problem.




To be sure, the specter of Montana losing it's current


brucellosis-free status is an important financial concern


for Montana's vulnerable ranching community. But it's difficult for


most of us to reconcile this concern when looking again towards the


example of Grand Teton National Park. Which is all the more reason


to lend our support on this matter to Montana's ranching community,


and insist that the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Interior and


Montana's Governor, acknowledge their level of dysfunction to date


on this issue and resolve to address it in an acceptable


fashion. The U.S. taxpayer should stand tall in support of those,


who through no fault of their own, incur financial impact. Do we


not recognize the priority? Have we no empathy?




To plains Indians, continued slaughter of these Bison amounts to the


continued genocide as witnessed during the past 150yrs. This is akin


to the desecration of a church to Christians or synagogue to Jews -


only much worse, since the Bison are their relatives. Will we allow


their continued destruction to take place. Have we no shame?




Yellowstone's Bison are a national treasure. They need our help more


than ever.




Dave Colavito