Casper Star-Tribune from Casper, Wyoming • 32

Casper Star-Tribune Thursday, January 26, 1995 Brucellosis and the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstake Your odds of winning the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes are better than cattle getting brucellosis from free-roaming bison and Ed McMahon was just seen in your neighborhood. The hysteria surrounding the bison-brucellosis issue fostered by the livestock industry On permits and permission to apply Making up the lost wool subsidy TT 107 submitted by Rep. Frank Moore, R-M HD6, Douglas, would amend state game licensing laws governing issuance of deer or antelope M. licenses in areas in which all permits authorized are not purchased or in which 'additional harvest is desired." The bill has been rewritten since its birth. That was a good idea.

As it read it was not a good bill and would have caused many hunters to scream. It still will make them scream. Basically, the bill would require hunters to secure permission to hunt from private landowners before they could apply for the leftover licenses in areas where there is no public land. If the license is good for an area including public lands, the applicant would have had the option to obtain permission from the 'appropriate state or federal authority to hunt" on lands within the area for which the license was issued. Opponents of the bill have suggested that landowners would charge hunters for the permission needed just to apply for the license.

A landowner could charge all prospective hunters for the permission that enables them to enter the draw, then subsequently charge an access fee on those ultimately lucky enough to draw a license. demonstrates how clearly innuendo and mythology can override reason. First let's look at the presumed risk. When the media nenorts that Rfl the wild is for a domestic cow to ingest fluids from an aborted fetus infected with brucellosis. Here's the catch: bison aren't aborting brucellosis infected fetus.

In addition, the bacteria within the aborted animal has to remain viable for transmission to occur. Brucella bacteria are extremely sensitive to drying and heat. The bacteria quickly dies outside of the body, although it can remain viable for months if frozen. However, most aborted animals are almost immediately consumed by scavengers like coyote. Furthermore, abortion in bison if it were to occur is most likely to happen between March and June.

This is a time most domestic animals are physically separated from wild bison. Finally, domestic livestock can and are vaccinated against brucellosis. The vaccine is 65-70 percent effective. For domestic cattle to contract brucellosis from bison requires that the bison be an infected female. She must carry brucellosis Now what is odd about the entire bison -brucellosis affair is that the elk carry the disease.

Thirty-three percent of the elk tested in Jackson Hole, for example, were infected. Since there are 23,000 elk congregating on feedgrounds (tlie usual place of transmission), and assuming an average of 311 percent infection, there are something like 7,600 elk with brucellosis rouming around northwest Wyoming And what's more, elk do aloil. So why aren't federal and state agencies shooting elk? With more than elk, and 4,000 bison in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, elimination of the disease from wild animals is currently not possible, nor feasible. So what can be done? First, close the elk feedgrounds. Second, physically separate cattle and bison during the March-June period wlien bison if they carried brucellosis potentially could abort Third, remove all domestic livestock from public lands in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to remove With more than 90,000 elk, and 4,000 bison in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, elimination of the disease from wild animals is currently not possible, nor feasible.

So what can be done? George Wuerthner percent of the bison in "KiUiiLULiflpif1- Yellowstone test positive for brucellosis, they are saying that 50 percent of the animals have the anti-body present in their blood against the brucellosis bacteria All this means is that at some time the animal or its mother (bison calves can get the anti-body from their mother's milk) was exposed to brucellosis bacteria and developed anti bodies. It doesn't imply that the animals have brucellosis. I would test positive for measles because I was exposed to the disease as a chilH and nWolniwl anti-bodies. Yet I don't have the disease now, nor could I infect anyone with measles. But even the Dresence of brucellosis haeteria in the body doesn't mean that animal can infect anotner animal.

Bison that are infected with brucellosis aren't necessarily infectious. in the uterus where it can be transmitted to her fetus, which then must be aborted. The abortion has to take place near or within a cattle herd. A domestic cow has to beat the coyotes and ravens to the aborted bison fetus and lick it while the bacteria is still viable. Finally, that domestic cow has to be one of the small percentage of cows without vaccine protection.

The odds of all these variables coming together in one place, at one time, are about as likely as the Beatles getting together with Elvis for a reunion concert That is why the transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle has never been documented. me overlap between wildlife and domestic animals, reducing the chance of transmission. Fourth, provide individual livestock producers with federal insurance against any losses resulting from wildlife induced brucellosis financial losses. Fifth, mail in that Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes form immediately, you may already be a winner. George Wuerthner, a longtime resident of the Rocky Mountain West, holds a masters certificate in science communications and is currently pursuing a PhD.

in conservation biology and geography at the University of Oregon. Tom Bishop Infected bison bulls, for example, cannot transmit the disease to domestic cows since the only mode of transmission in male bison is through reproduction. Bison bulls can't successively mate with domestic cows for behavioral as well as anatomical reasons. Even among infected female bison, not all individuals can effectively transmit the disease. 1he only way transmission could possibly occur in It a fun way to make up for the lost wool subsidy.

But Moore said the intent of the bill was to have hunters who did not draw a license in the first go-round to have a preference to draw for any of the left-over licenses offered for the area in which they first attempted to draw a license. Moore felt that having hunters reenter a drawing would be fair to everyone, and that this bill would eliminate the traditional line that forms outside the Game and Fish Department building when left-over licenses go on sale. In other words, if a White A landowner could charge all prospective hunters for the permission that enables them to enter the draw, then subsequently charge an access fee on those ultimately lucky enough to draw a license. 8. Avoid "we oppose" action.

Rather, use terminology such as encourage consideration some alternate action; then spell out what that alternative action could be. limited quota area were to originally receive 400 applications and only 20 percent of those were successful in the drawing, and if the department offered additional licenses Mi tor's note: The following memo was sent Jan. 19 by Game and Fish Department Deptity Director Joe White to the department 's division chiefs, coordinators, supervisors and biologists in both headquarters and field offices For readers unfamiliar uith acronyms, we offer the following definitions: USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service MOU Memorandum of Understanding Threatened and Endangered SUBJECT: Environmental Review Considerations As part of our improving upon the effectiveness of our environmental commenting, the following procedures will be followed in the future. Division Chiefs, please assure your Headquarters and field office coordinators follow these procedures.

1. When a project or activity is being reviewed by all Divisions, comments should be limited to the expertise of each Division. For example, Wildlife Division should avoid submitting aquatic or fisheries comments; rather, Wildlife should coordinate locally with Fish Division personnel on aquaticfisheries comments originating within Wildlife. This also applies to comments on amphibians (Fish Div.) and reptiles (Wildlife 2. To the extent appropriate, clearly distinguish USFWS authorityresponsibility from our own.

Recommendations relative to the Endangered Species Act or other federal wildlife mandates should be left to the USFWS unless we have an MOU or cooperative agreement that specifies our role in that regard (eg: MOU with USFWS on coal mine reviews). species clearances should be referted to the USFWS. 3. Use discretion in review effoit expended. Extensive commenting on minor activities with minimal impacts is inappropriate.

unacceptable. 6. To the extent possible, comments should be short and concise. 7. Be supportive and complimentary of efforts of all entities and participants, when justified.

Does a "no comment" or "no concern" mean we support the proposed action or that we see the action as so benign that it is unnecessary to review? We can not in most instances determine that; field biologists have to tell us, 8. Avoid "we oppose" action. Rather, use terminology such as encourage consideration of some alternate action; then spell out what that alternative action could be. comments. We need to concentrate on constructive comments and recommendations.

2. Eliminate demanding terms such as "shall" and "must." We do not have the authority to demand. Exception when excerpted and identified as from statute or regulation. 3. Restrict comments to our areas of expertise.

Avoid reference to public opinion and never express personal opinions or speculate. Offer only professional judgements with a scientific basis (defensible). Identify whether a comment is factual and documented, or is professional opinion. 4 Be creative 'innovative in identifying opportunities or making recommendations Offer solutions! 5. Antagonistic, condescending, or slanted comments are for that area, the 80 percent who were unsuccessful would be given the first opportunity to have the additional licenses.

"The original bill was very restrictive. I felt I had to write it that way in order to get in the process, but I didn't like it, so I amended it," Moore said. Moore would like to have preference given to hunters who have written permission to hunt This is just to remind hunters to have permission to hunt a specific area," Moore said. The bill was approved by the Travel. Recreation and ildlife Committee which also sent a proposed amendment to the floor for consideration by the entire House.

A person working for the Legislative Service Office bill status hotline told a newsroom colleague that the details of an amendment cannot be given out publicly until a bill reaches the House floor. Getting what you pay for Have you read House Bill 46? The bill has its humor locked in. That is one nice tiling about the legislative session; well all legislative sessions the humor, and this session of the Wyoming Legislature is proving to be no different from past meetings Now, there Is a serious side to HB46 that will affect, or. at least could affect every outdoor person not only in the state but also those who visit the state for outdoor recreational purposes. The bill, submitted by Moore, R-HD6, Douglas, and Sen.

Pete Maxfield, DSDIO, Laramie, would initiate a recreational permit for use on state trust lands. In part the bill reads: "Purchase CONTENT AND FORMAT 1. Eliminate negativity in REVIEW EFFORT (what not to comment on) Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund answers Mech Editor 's note: The followina is the fort letter sent by attorney Douglas L. Honnald to David Mech, a renowned wolf biologist who criticized the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund for contesting the federal governments wolf reintroduction plan for Idaho in court. Victor Sher is president of SCLDF January 19.

1995 Dear Dr Mech: WOLF WATCH permit from the board of land commissioners authorizing the public to hunt fish, and engage in casual recreation as defined by W.S. 23-2-306 (b) on state lands pursuant to the rules and regulations of the board of land commissioners." The bill continues to read: "Any person fourteen (14) years of age or older shall have in his possession the conservation stamp provided in subsection (a) of this section when hunting, fishing, or engaging in casual recreation use defined by this subsection on any state land." There is more to the bill, but the rest does not pertain to the subject at hand or at processor, as the case might be. Outdoor reereationists have for some time been willing to pay a use permit to use state trust lands. This issue has been bandied around since the public was allowed to utilize the lands in question. The problem has been to find a wav to do this.

The question that arises is. "What state lands'" What is the public being asked to pay for? The state lands are being sold at a clip of a thousand acres a chunk almost daily. Before anyone asks the public to start paying for a use permit to the state lands, someone should see if there are any that will be left for the public to use Before anyone pays anything, he or she might want to check and see what is left to pay for amendments to the Endangered Species Act that allow for the use of "experimental, non-essential" populations of wildlife, it ensured that native endangered species retain all of their legal protections. Congress wisely said that you must protect natural endangered wildlife still struggling for survival. The Fish and Wildlife Service cannot second-guess Congress and throw away the habitat protections of the Endangered Species Act, essentially delist Idaho's natural wolves, cut a deal with ranchers to allow them to harass, shoot, and kill wolves, and call it a day While such an approach will appease some erstwhile opponents of wolf recolonization, there's no assurance that it will promote true wolf recovery.

Dumping wolves on the ground is not 16 Wildl. Soc. Bull. 857 (1988); Mech, Wolf Population Surciml in an Area of High Road Density, 121 Am. Midi.

Nat. 3879 (1988). While you cloak your criticisms in terms of "science," the heart of your concerns are disagreements over politics, public opinion, and law. These are subjects to which our clients (National Audubon Society, Sierra Club. Predator Project, Sinapu, and Gray Wolf Committee) can lay claim to considerable expertise.

You apparently believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduction approach will succeed because by casting away the legal protections of the Endangered Species Act, public acceptance will be promoted, thereby reducing illegal mortality and promoting wolf recovery Our clients disagree with this unnecessary compromise of science in the name of "practicality We believe it unwise to withdraw crucial ESA protections for a species in an effort to buy the sympathies of those who would flout the law and illegally kill an endangered species. Such efforts are doomed in any event as evidenced by the unrelenting efforts of the Farm Bureau to halt the wolf reintroduction program in Yellowstone and Idaho and by continuing efforts in the Wyoming state legislature to encourage citizens to kill wolves outside of Yellowstone National Park. Evidently, there are MM who are so unalterably opposed to the wolfs return that no compromise could buy their (operation. ur clients fully support your goal of the "repopulation of the contiguous 48 states by wolves." We can start by celebrating the natural recolonization of northwestern Montana by 6570 wolves under full protection as endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. We can also protect those hearty, adventurous wolves that have made it into Idaho's wildlands on their own and deserve similar protections.

If the federal government wants to move additional wolves promote this natural process, we can support that as well However, when ongrcss passed the Vic Sher has asked that I reply to your letter of January 6, 1995, cencerning our lawsuit to protect Idaho's wolves. We welcome the opportunity to discuss tiiis issue with you and with the public as well First, a clarification: our lawsuit does not seek to stop the introduction of wolves to Idaho Our lawsuit only challenges the withdrawal of Endangered Species Act protections from the wolves that are naturally migrating in increasing numbers to Idaho Only by maintaining ESA protections, part icularly those concerning habitat protections, do our clients believe the wolf recovery effort in Idaho can succeed in the long term You state that there is "no scientific evidence-to support our case. To the contrary, we believe that you agree completely with the critical scientific research on which our case is based 1 Wolves that have emigrated on their own from Canada ami northwestern Montana exist in the wildlands of Idaho 2 The number of naturally recolonizing wolves in Idaho has increased in recent years For these two propositions. I refer you to the reports prepared by your former employer, the ILS. Fish and Wildlife Service.

3. Wolves, like other species, need habitat in order to survive In fact, a number of your scientific studies have documented the adverse impact of roads and associated human access on wolves See Mech. Fritts. Radde. Paul.

Wofj Distribution and Road Density in Minnesota. We believe it unwise to withdraw crucial KSA protections for a species in an effort to buy the sympathies of those who would flout the law and illegally kill an endangered species. An eye on the department Legislators should realize that although many hunters are in a bad humor with Game ami Fish personnel for the decline in numbers of the herds of deer and antelope in the state, hunters, the ones who pay the bills, are not going to acquiesce in the dismantling of the department Some legislators liave read into the situation the prospect of being able to restrict the department operations on behalf of the outdoor recreation public to enhance other land use sectors Such is not the case Cynthia Lummis. former state senator, was chosen by Gov Jim Gennger to he his general counsel Lummis has not in the past uh. shall we say.

a Game and Fish booster Lummis "counseling" will bear watching bv the state's outdoor recreation public as well as members of the state outdoor industry, including retailers, motel and restaurant owners enough; we've got to make sure that they have a place to roam free of roads and bullets. In short, we urge your to rethink your position on this important issue. We share the same scientific goals, but we are unwilling to sacrifice those goals and ESA habitat protection for Idaho's natural wolves. Sincerely, Douglas llonnold.