Bill to ban relocation of Yellowstone bison stalls

The House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee has tabled a bill that would have banned the relocation of quarantined Yellowstone National Park bison to anywhere in Montana, except the National Bison Range near Moiese.

Senate Bill 337, sponsored by John Brenden, R-Scobey, would have prohibited the relocation off specially quarantined Yellowstone Park bison, even though the animals are certified to be free of brucellosis, an infectious disease that can cause cattle to abort their calves.

At the bill's hearing Brenden said the bill would prevent further spread of the disease that has cost the Montana cattle industry millions of dollars.

But state livestock officials, bison conservation groups and the Fort Peck and Fort Belknap tribes, said that there was no need to fear brucellosis transmission to cattle because the bison would be certified to be free of the disease and would be heavily monitored upon relocation

Officials from the Fort Peck Fish and Game Department argued that the bill's real intent of was to keep their tribe from acquiring the animals.

Brenden did not return calls for comment Friday.

- by CNS reporter Lauren Russell. (Photo courtesy of the National Bison Range.)

Bill would restrict relocation of Yellowstone bison

Bison hunker down in a spring snowstorm in Yellowstone National Park's Lamar Valley. Plans to relocate some of park's bison have proved controversial this session. (By Stefanie Kilts, Copyright 2008)

By LAUREN RUSSELL
Community News Service
UM School of Journalism

HELENA – An eastern Montana senator is trying to prevent the Fort Peck Reservation – and anywhere in the state besides the National Bison Range – from getting bison from Yellowstone National Park, even if they’re certified brucellosis free.

Senate Bill 337, sponsored by Sen. John Brenden, R-Scobey, would prevent state wildlife officials from moving quarantined Yellowstone bison to other parts of the state, including the Fort Peck and Fort Belknap reservations, which have applied to receive them.

Brenden said the bill, which passed the Senate 31-19, is intended to protect ranchers and landowners who worry the animals may still carry the disease, which can cause cattle to abort their calves.

“In my neck of the woods, in northeastern Montana and other areas, I’ve heard from property owners, ranchers, farmers and what have you who are very much against it,” Brenden told the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee Thursday. “It’s costing our ranchers and farmers a lot of money to not be brucellosis-free, and I don’t know why we would want to be experimented on. There’s still a lot we don’t know about brucellosis.”

The bison at issue are part of a study started by state and federal wildlife agencies in 2005 to decide if, after years of quarantine and monitoring, some Yellowstone bison can be reintroduced to the range. Chris Smith, deputy director of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, said that a group of 41 bison has already been approved for relocation to the Wind River Indian Reservation in central Wyoming.

Supporters of the bill included representatives from the Montana Stockgrowers Association, the Montana Cattlewomen’s Association, the Montana Farm Bureau Association and county commissioners from Valley and Phillips counties.

They questioned the validity of claims that the bison would be brucellosis free, and they fear the bison could escape to mingle with cattle, exposing them to the disease that has cost the beef industry millions in recent years.

“We spent $33 million to gain (class free status) in 1985, so the livestock industry’s pretty sensitive to this issue right now, and the possibility of these animals getting shipped around to different parts of the state – and how other states will view this – is a huge concern to us,” said Jay Bodner of the Stockgrowers Association.

When Montana lost its brucellosis-free status after two separate cases of brucellosis were discovered in the Paradise Valley in 2007 and 2008, the state was downgraded to Class A status, meaning livestock producers have to test all sexually intact cattle over 18 months of age within 30 days of export. The testing is costly.

“Our members are on high alert when it comes to brucellosis,” said Ariel Overstreet of the Montana Cattlewomen’s Association. “That has been a multi-million dollar hit to our industry.”

But officials from FWP and the Department of Livestock testified that the feds have given the relocation of the animals a green light, based on the same rigorous brucellosis testing standards that the cattle industry uses for its beef.

“The bison quarantine feasibility study uses sound science – science based on the code of federal regulations and state law, and the protocols that are being used far exceed those accepted for livestock or movement of bovines around the nation,” said Marty Zaluski, a veterinarian for Livestock Department. “And it’s the same science that in fact cattle producers in Montana use to argue that our cattle are safe.”

Smith said the bison would only be moved to areas that demonstrate the ability to meet strict management standards.

“It’s very well thought out, very carefully conducted, and it would only be implemented in whatever areas we chose to bring the bison,” Smith said. “You can bet that wherever we translocation these animals, we are going to make sure the facility is secure.”

Representatives from the Fort Peck and Fort Belknap reservations said they had doubts about the true intentions of the bill, saying opposition to the tribe’s management of the bison – not the threat of disease – is the real reason for the ranchers’ fears.

“They’re using the threat of disease as an excuse,” said Robert Magnun, director of the Fort Peck Tribes Fish and Game Department. “If I thought the bison had the brucellosis, I wouldn’t bring them here.”

Tracy King, a councilman and former tribal president of Fort Belknap, said that the tribe has successfully managed a small herd of bison for 40 years, and brucellosis isn’t a problem. The tribe would use the Yellowstone bison in ritual practices and as a healthy food source in their attempt to combat diabetes.

“Our record is far better than that of Yellowstone National Park,” he said.

Jonathon Proctor, representing Defenders of Wildlife, agreed. “This bill is really about tribal wildlife agencies and a lack of trust in their ability to manage the bison,” he said. “Let’s work with them to help them manage them.”

Brenden said his bill wasn’t intended to discriminate against the tribes but to prevent situations in which poor management could lead to bison getting out onto private land.

“There isn’t anybody that could guarantee that buffalo, any livestock of any kind, will never get out of a fence or enclosure,” Brenden said. “People think this is a bill that’s anti-tribe. I’m no anti-Indian or anti-tribal person … it comes from a management situation, and it’s not just the tribes I’m picking on. Anybody could have gotten these bison. It’s just that we’ve had so much trouble with the tribe at Fort Peck with their buffalo getting out … I don’t call that responsibility.”

The Fort Peck tribe’s Magnun said later that though some people have spoken out about not wanting the reservation to acquire the bison, most who have participated in local public meetings have been supportive, not “overwhelmingly against it,” as Brenden said last week’s hearing.

Magnun also said that though the bison occasionally escape their enclosure, fish and game officials are quickly on hand to round them up.

“Sometimes those bulls do get out, they push right through the fence. But when they get out, we push them right back in,” Magnun said.

Other opponents of the bill included the Confederated Salish and Kootenai tribes, the governor’s office, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, the Yellowstone Buffalo Foundation and the National Parks Conservation Association.

Bill would give FWP the power to manage bison

The old Supreme Court chambers were crammed with those hoping to testify on the controversial bill. (Photo by Molly Priddy)

HELENA -Wildlife groups and others squared off with the ranching industry today over a bill that would strip the state Department of Livestock of its responsibility for managing bison that wander from Yellowstone National Park.

House Bill 253, sponsored by Rep. Mike Phillips, D-Bozeman, would give the job to the state Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. As wildlife, bison should be managed by wildlife professionals, he told fellow legislators.

“We have operated under a paradigm that says the Department of Livestock can manage wild bison,” Phillips told the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee.

Phillips said FWP would do a better job of working with of private landowners near the park. The switch also would allow the Department of Livestock to concentrate more specifically on the fight against brucellosis, a disease that causes cows to abort their offspring.

Phillips said the Department of Livestock has angered some landowners by going on their property, without permission, to haze bison. “They have interpreted that to mean trespassing is legal,” Phillips said.

The bill's supporters spoke in three-minute increments for an hour and a half. Many were from rural towns near Yellowstone National Park who said they were tired of the bison being hazed near their property.

Jim Bailey, representing the Gallatin Wildlife Association, said the Livestock Department has mismanaged the animals, allowing Montana to lose its brucellosis-free status in the process.

“We’ve been managing brucellosis with a feather,” Bailey said, adding, “We’ve been managing bison with a hammer.”

Other supporters said bison are wildlife and should be allowed to roam freely as they had for generations. Many said the number of bison slaughtered annually by the state was overkill.

But ranchers and their representatives told legislators they feared what would happen if the Livestock Department stopped managing the animals.

“The question is disease, not bison,” said John Bloomquist, lobbyist for the Montana Stockgrowers Association. He said other states would surely question Montana’s ability to manage brucellosis if FWP, an agency without a disease control department, took over.

Bob Hanson, president of the Montana Farm Bureau Federation, said the bill would not help Montana get its brucellosis-free status back.

“We feel that it puts the cattle industry at risk,” Hanson said.

Others also said the bill does not address eradicating brucellosis from Montana.

“It does nothing to solve the problem, and you’ve heard time and time again the problem is disease and wildlife,” said Sen. Rick Ripley, R-Wolf Creek.

Other opponents included the Montana Association of Counties, the Montana Board of Livestock and the Citizens for Balanced Use.

The Department of Livestock was given primary authority to manage bison by the 1995 Legislature.

-by CNS correspondent Molly Priddy