Yellowstone Elk, Buffalo Pose
Sticky Problems For Stockmen

HELENA, Mont. — Buffalo and elk from Yellowstone National Park have never been particularly welcome on surrounding rangeland, but a tangle of disease, federal rules and environmental protection laws have made a tarbaby of them. The more they try to free themselves from the mess, the more deeply neighboring stockmen find themselves mired.

Each time they ally themselves with one faction in the multifaceted, multi-round fight, they find their new allies on the opposing side in the next round. And vice versa.

Environmental activists last week accused the National Park Service of breaking the law by capturing and killing buffalo inside Yellowstone National Park, and asked a federal judge to stop it.

The attorney for five activist groups suing the Park Service called the federal agency's action the "senseless slaughter" of the animals. Lawyer Jim Angell urged U.S. District Judge Charles C. Lovell to order the killing stopped.

But state and federal attorneys argued there must be a way to control buffalo that might otherwise wander from the park and possibly spread brucellosis to livestock.

Although he did not immediately rule on Tuesday, Lovell seemed unconvinced that the Park Service was doing anything illegal.

In pointed questioning of Angell, the judge wondered why the Park Service would not have the power to manage Yellowstone wildlife to prevent them from endangering people and habitat in the park.

In an earlier ruling, Lovell recalled, he found that left uncontrolled, the animals would raise havoc in and near the park and that the brucellosis carried by half the park buffalo represented a real threat to cattle.

On Sept. 17, the Sierra Club, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Gallatin Wildlife Association, Jackson Hole Alliance for Responsible Planning and the American Buffalo Foundation sued to stop the temporary buffalo management plan adopted by the federal government and Montana officials earlier this year.

The plan requires all buffalo exposed to brucellosis and all pregnant buffalo captured near West Yellowstone from Nov. 1 through April 30 to be killed, along with animals about to leave the park near Gardiner. In other areas, buffalo would not be killed until outside the park.

Angell contended that intercepting buffalo before they leave the park will result in more being killed than under the old plan that made the state responsible for killing the animals that wandered from the park in search of winter forage. The groups he represents do not object to that approach, he claimed.

But Justice Department attorney Martin Lalonde said the groups failed to show they were being harmed by the management plan and should not be given a court order blocking the plan. He also disputed Angell's contention that more buffalo will be killed, arguing that a larger kill would occur under the old approach.

Lovell had earlier agreed to allow the State of Montana to participate in the suit, filed initially against the federal government.

The state has a "direct and substantial interest in this case," Lovell ruled in granting the state Justice Department's request to become a defendant in the suit.

He agreed with the state's argument that its interests are not adequately represented by the federal agencies named as defendants in the suit.

The state had argued that Montana has a big stake in the suit because it threatens a pact that requires the National Park Service to share responsibility for controlling the buffalo as they leave the park in search of winter forage.

The migrating buffalo have long been a concern because many are believed to be infected with brucellosis, which could be transmitted to cattle. That would threaten the state’s brucellosis-free status under federal animal health laws and could severely disrupt livestock marketing in Montana.

The interim management plan calls for a state-federal operation that includes capturing or killing infected buffalo before they leave the park.

If the suit results in that process being halted, the state told Lovell, Montana would be alone in efforts to control the animals by shooting them after they leave Yellowstone.

Wyoming stockmen, meanwhile, have their own concerns about exposure of their livestock to brucellosis, both from buffalo and elk.

Two of three meetings late last month to discuss a proposed brucellosis management plan drew considerable opposition from stockmen and eco-activists as well.

About 200 people Wyoming turned out in Jackson, Wyo. and mostly pummeled the plan.

Under the proposal, buffalo and elk can be hazed or killed if they move into areas such as occupied cattle allotments or cattle feedlines. Also, a cattle surveillance program calls for holding and testing herds known to have been with buffalo or elk in Park, Teton, Sublette and northern Lincoln counties.

Meanwhile, all cattle that graze in Grand Teton National Park would be tested annually for the disease.

But many attending the meeting in Jackson said the plan goes too far in an attempt to manage cattle herds and wild buffalo and elk. Other said it seemed illegal.

In addition, Teton County ranchers Brad Mead and Bill Cawley and area livestock veterinarian Ken Griggs questioned the need for the management effort.

They say the vaccination program they use works.

But the presence of the disease makes buyers from other areas wary of certain cattle. That's why several groups want to keep Wyoming's brucellosis-free status, said Ron Micheli, director of the state Agriculture Department.

While the chances of the disease spreading are slim, Micheli said some veterinarians from other states have the perception that Wyoming does not deserve its class-free status.

"Other states are saying we will not buy cattle from Wyoming," Micheli said. "Now that's reality."

Michieli termed the issue "the most frustrating problem I have ever dealt with in my life. Until we show other states that we are intent on solving this problem, we've got a problem."

A subsequent meeting in Pinedale drew more opposing views.

"This kind of program is going to put me out of business," said Paula McNeel. "I want to know how I'm going to be compensated."

McNeel and her husband, Bob, own a ranch that is in an elk migration route.

Several critics of the plan favored putting the onus on the animals that pose the threat, suggesting that buffalo and elk should be subjected to rigorous test and slaughter programs that could eliminate the disease.

Ranchers Stan Murdock and Dan Budd said they worried that cattle vaccinated with Strain 19 vaccine, which has been used in the area for more than 50 years, will show false positive results. That would mean they have to hold their cattle off summer range areas until the tests are verified.

Under the proposed management plan, a new vaccine, RB 51, would be used. That vaccine would not register false positives, said State Veterinarian Don Bosman.