Nov. 9, 2012

Initial approval was given Thursday to a list of options that may be used to try to drive down the prevalence of brucellosis in elk.

HELENA -- Initial approval was given Thursday to a list of options that may be used to try to drive down the prevalence of brucellosis in elk, but only after Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission members heard kudos and concerns about the process and the product put out by the volunteer Elk-Brucellosis Working Group.

Most of the comments were positive about the 12-member group’s work, in which hunters, veterinarians and livestock producers put in more than 12,000 man hours to come up with a list of “action alternatives” that could be used as part of the effort to keep infected elk from spreading the contagious disease to cattle.

“I’m really happy to see what the group has done, and I hope that legislatively they don’t undo what this group has come forward with,” said FWP Commissioner Bob Ream.

But Glenn Hockett with the Gallatin Wildlife Association said he was a little overwhelmed at what had been presented by the group, and said that while he didn’t want to be “the skunk at a picnic.” He was concerned that certain groups were left out of the discussion. Those people include large landowners who let elk stay on their property but don’t allow hunting and wildlife advocated who don’t hunt but care about elk, among others.

Hockett also questioned whether exposure to brucellosis is more prevalent in elk or they’re just finding it more because they’ being tested for it more, and whether elimination of the risk of brucellosis transmission, elimination of the disease itself and ending the DSA were even possible.

“I’m very concerned with your being asked to support this today,” Hockett said. “I would beg caution, ask you to table this or move for more discussion on something we are not even sure of what you’re moving forward with.”

Brucellosis can result in miscarriages in some pregnant animals, including domestic cattle, and bison and elk. While some ranchers have long feared bison would give brucellosis to their livestock, recent transmissions from wild animals to domestic are instead thought to have come from elk, leading to the formation of a Designated Surveillance Area (DSA) north of Yellowstone National Park.

The elk-to-livestock transmission threatens landowner tolerance for elk because of the direct and in-direct costs associated with repeated testing, possible quarantine and changes in land use resulting from disease regulation, according to officials with FWP. So the Elk-Brucellosis Working Group was tasked with coming up with a range of tools that could reduce the prevalence of brucellosis in elk, which could reduce the risk of transmission to livestock as well as among elk.

Ream noted that Thursday’s action was only initial approval, and the measure now would go out to the public for comments.

He added that what passed by a 3-0 vote Thursday is just a “broad framework” of ideas for small, localized groups to consider then bring to the commission for possible actions specific to a watershed or hunting district. Those groups could involve some of the parties Hockett mentioned that weren’t part of the volunteer working group.

The framework involves four alternatives, with a range of actions among those alternatives. Most of the alternatives speak toward adjusting elk distribution, since brucellosis transmission and occurrence is higher in areas where they congregate closely, like at the winter feeding grounds in Wyoming.

Under the hunting heading, FWP could develop late season hunts beyond Feb. 15; use hunt coordinators for management hunts; use the season structure to address harboring of elk by private landowners; develop adaptive hunting regulations; and/or reduce the winter herd sizes.

With the habitat alternative, the state could consider ways to promote spatial separation of elk and livestock during critical brucellosis risk periods, which typically is during elk calving season in the spring up through the period ranchers send livestock into the summer grazing areas.

Containment is another alternative on the table, which could include reducing wolf numbers in elk winter range; more intensive hazing of elk in high risk areas; public funding for fencing cattle feeding areas; allowing less elk harboring on private land; elk-proof fencing for high-risk areas; creating more Wildlife Management Areas for spatial separation; or creating incentives for landowners who harbor elk to allow public access.

The final action alternative involves research and education. That could include increased monitoring of elk that test positive to brucellosis exposure; expand research in the DSA and contiguous areas; make it easier to research brucellosis vaccines; and educate landowners who harbor elk.

“I know there are a couple things in here that will cause heartburn to some segments of the hunting community, but I think we can work through that,” said Commissioner Ron Moody.

A public comment period will run through 5 p.m. Dec. 20, and information on how to comment will be provided later this week. Any final commission adoption is slated for January.

http://mtstandard.com/news/state-and-regional/commission-gives-init...