• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Montana Loses Bangs Free Status

A

Anonymous

Guest
Second brucellosis case found



By SCOTT McMILLION Chronicle Staff Writer

Bozeman Daily Chronicle

June 10, 2008



LIVINGSTON n Brucellosis has been detected in a Paradise Valley cattle herd, the Montana Department of Livestock announced Monday.



That means the Montana beef industry loses its brucellosis-free status; it also means extra expense and labor for ranchers all over the state.




Gov. Brian Schweitzer said Monday he was saddened but not surprised by the news, an event he has predicted several times.



“It’s not a proud day,” he said. “But it’s not one that didn’t come without a lot of predictions.”



Federal scientists at a laboratory in Ames, Iowa, confirmed the presence of the disease in one cow Monday, the state DOL said in a written news release.



"In this particular case, the owner did everything right,” state Veterinarian Marty Zalusky said. “The cow had been vaccinated twice and was part of a herd management plan.”



DOL spokesman Steve Merritt said he’d been ordered not to identify the owner. Schweitzer said the herd was in the Pray area, about 20 miles south of Livingston.



The case illustrates how existing brucellosis vaccines are not 100 percent effective.



In May 2007, the disease was found in a cattle herd from Bridger that had mixed with animals from a Paradise Valley herd. That discovery led to the destruction of 301 cows and 284 calves, a move required by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.



With the second outbreak of the disease comes the automatic loss of Montana’s brucellosis-free status. That means all bulls and non-spayed female cattle older than 18 months must be tested for the disease 30 days prior to being shipped out of state, according to the federal rules.



It could mean destruction of the infected animal’s home herd.



After the outbreak in Bridger, Schweitzer began pushing for a “split-state status” for the area adjacent to Yellowstone National Park, the nation’s last reservoir for the strain of brucellosis that affects cattle. The split-state status, if achieved, would have meant that if brucellosis was found inside the special zone near the park, the rest of the state would have been unaffected.



However, he met intense opposition from the Montana Stockgrowers Association and a number of local ranchers.



The Montana Cattlemen’s Association, another trade group, supported the governor.



He accused the Stockgrowers of “mischaracterizing” the split-state proposal.



“I just wish the Stockgrowers would have agreed with the Cattlemen’s Association and we could have moved ahead,” Schweitzer said. “Had we implemented split state, this wouldn’t have affected the rest of the state.”



Schweitzer dropped the idea in November in the face of the intense opposition. He said Monday that he believed the status could have been achieved by now if the beef industry had gotten behind it.



Stockgrowers Executive Vice President Errol Rice said Monday he disagreed with that. Working out the complicated rules for the split-state status would have taken up to two years, he said, adding that he still opposes split state.



Both elk and bison carry brucellosis. The disease has a much lower occurrence rate in elk, but they tend to wander farther and mix more with cattle. The brucellosis in the Bridger herd likely came from elk, scientists said last year.



Bison are subjected to hazing and slaughter if they leave the park. Elk are subjected to neither.



Schweitzer stressed that consumers have nothing to fear about consuming Montana beef, but losing the brucellosis-free status could prove expensive for people who raise purebred breeding cattle.



A deal was in the works to export some Montana cattle to Russia, he said, but that could be quashed by the brucellosis news.



“This maybe puts it on the back burner for a few years or maybe kills it altogether,” he said.



bozemandailychronicle.com
 

Kato

Well-known member
A few years ago, elk were blamed for Tuberculosis around Riding Mountain National Park in Manitoba. They went ahead with establishing a zone around the park, and it worked really well. It was a real nuisance for those close to the park, and had some really wierd rules for people who lived just across the road from the edge of the zone, but in the long run it was worth the trouble. The elk were subject to a lot of testing and surveillance too. There was all kinds of paperwork to move these cattle, and they spent a lot of time testing and retesting, but they seem to have settled things down nicely now.

Go for zoning.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kato said:
A few years ago, elk were blamed for Tuberculosis around Riding Mountain National Park in Manitoba. They went ahead with establishing a zone around the park, and it worked really well. It was a real nuisance for those close to the park, and had some really wierd rules for people who lived just across the road from the edge of the zone, but in the long run it was worth the trouble. The elk were subject to a lot of testing and surveillance too. There was all kinds of paperwork to move these cattle, and they spent a lot of time testing and retesting, but they seem to have settled things down nicely now.

Go for zoning.

After the outbreak in Bridger, Schweitzer began pushing for a “split-state status” for the area adjacent to Yellowstone National Park, the nation’s last reservoir for the strain of brucellosis that affects cattle. The split-state status, if achieved, would have meant that if brucellosis was found inside the special zone near the park, the rest of the state would have been unaffected.



However, he met intense opposition from the Montana Stockgrowers Association and a number of local ranchers.



The Montana Cattlemen’s Association, another trade group, supported the governor.



He accused the Stockgrowers of “mischaracterizing” the split-state proposal.



“I just wish the Stockgrowers would have agreed with the Cattlemen’s Association and we could have moved ahead,” Schweitzer said. “Had we implemented split state, this wouldn’t have affected the rest of the state.”



Schweitzer dropped the idea in November in the face of the intense opposition. He said Monday that he believed the status could have been achieved by now if the beef industry had gotten behind it.

That is what the Depart of Livestock, Governor, and Montana Cattlemans Association tried to set up-a separate zone around the Park-- but the MSGA started playing politics with it-and the Gov got tired fighting them- and said the "Heck with you all"..... MSGA sold out 95% of the cattle owners in the state to play thier little "we don't like the Gov and we aren't going to agree anything he wants to do" games..... :( :mad:

I wonder how many of those MSGA members around the state now are going to still think they were right in opposing the "split state" regions so that 95% of the state wouldn't be affected. Now we all have to "Pay the Piper"... :( :mad:

Since the government has no policy in effect and no intent to control the brucellosis in the parks wildlife- we will have this coming up all the time- unless we can separate out that area and require all cattle coming out of there to be tested...
 

Ranchero

Well-known member
Caused by factors inside the state. Gee whiz OT I didn't think you could be infected by anything except them dog gone foreigners diseased cattle. So sorry to here about you losing your bangs free status. Maybe we could ship you some of our cattle to start over. Our state is a bangs free state.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Now its Wyoming!!!!

State lab confirms brucellosis in Daniel-area cattle
By The Associated Press

CHEYENNE, Wyo. - The Wyoming State Veterinary Laboratory said it has confirmed positive brucellosis tests for two cows from a Daniel ranch.

The state reported last week that blood tests taken at a sale barn first showed the cows had brucellosis.

The cows then were sent to the state veterinary lab, where the brucellosis bacterium was cultured from the tissues of both cows.

The Wyoming Livestock Board and USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service said they plan to test the rest of the ranch's herd to see if more cattle are infected. The state has not released the name of the ranch where the brucellosis occurred.

The Wyoming Livestock Board said the rancher will have to decide whether to slaughter the entire herd or conduct repeated testing and removal of animals that test positive.

If the rancher decides not to slaughter the herd, it could endanger Wyoming's federal status as brucellosis-free.
 
You know, that split status wouldn't sound nearly as swell right now if that corriente heifer came down with bangs 100 miles from Yellowstone, which is exactly what happened last year with that herd of Corriente near Bridger.

Had that been the case this year, and split state been enacted, then the only official bangs free area would be a little strip of the state rubbing up against Yellowstone Park. THE REST of Montana, that is the other 95 percent of the state, would be getting is bangs free status revoked. Yeah the Gov. would have looked like a freaking genius.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Treasure State Tate said:
You know, that split status wouldn't sound nearly as swell right now if that corriente heifer came down with bangs 100 miles from Yellowstone, which is exactly what happened last year with that herd of Corriente near Bridger.

Had that been the case this year, and split state been enacted, then the only official bangs free area would be a little strip of the state rubbing up against Yellowstone Park. THE REST of Montana, that is the other 95 percent of the state, would be getting is bangs free status revoked. Yeah the Gov. would have looked like a freaking genius.


My understanding is that both cases originated in the Paradise Valley north of the Park- south of Livingston....That the cattle found near Bridger, had come from near Emigrant- near the Park...
If their had been a buffer zone- those cattle would have had to have been tested before being moved out of the area into any other part of the state...

It can definitely happen in other parts of the state- but the odds around the Park- where cattle and infected elk and bison comingle regularly on feeding and calving grounds is much higher.....Prior to this latest one, Wyoming has had 4 positive herds- all near the Park and Idaho had several- all connected to the Park...

The herds in Wyoming and Idaho “most likely were infected by elk,” said Teresa Howes, spokeswoman for the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, which oversees the federal brucellosis-eradication program.

And right now, to many I have talked to, the Governor is looking like the man that had a good idea and the MSGA is looking like a bunch of idiots....Especially when its known that much of the argument and the false info put out by the MSGA was just because of politics, because they don't like the Gov and he slighted them in his political appointments- and they've been in pout mode with him ever since.... :(
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
Oldtimer, why should we make the ranchers that live next to the park pay the price of the government's handling of the wild life? If they had got this zone put in, who says they don't keep adding to the zone!!!! I say we stand together as a state and make the government do something about their wildlife problems.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ranch hand said:
Oldtimer, why should we make the ranchers that live next to the park pay the price of the government's handling of the wild life? If they had got this zone put in, who says they don't keep adding to the zone!!!! I say we stand together as a state and make the government do something about their wildlife problems.

Be great if you could actually do it- but we've been standing together to force the government to do something for as long as I can remember- and yearly it seems they do less....Years of meetings and gumsflapping- and nothing changes.....Could be time to try something different....

And as daily there become more and more out of staters californicating these western states, that just want to look at the elk and bison- and less involved in farming and ranching-- the voice of those in ranching becomes much less.....

Just like the current Administration and their USDA (King George and his dancing Fools)- are much more concerned on setting up zones and regions in Argentina so they can import FMD beef to the US or figuring out how they can help Tyson import chickens from the Avian flu areas of China to be worried about little things like helping their own states producers eradicate disease from the Governments wildlife......And disease prevention/eradication is something that seems to have been lost in their job description anymore (even proposing to end the National Bangs vaccination program) --as long as they can get a Federal Bureaucratic system into place so the can track it around the country and place responsibility/liability.......

I always wonder how many $Billions of US taxpayer dollars the USDA would have already spent in already solving the problem if this had involved a disease threatening the profibilitiy of Achmeds and Ali Babba's camel herds in Iraq :???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The last two paragraphs hit the nail on the head- and the last sentence pretty well sums up the direction needed to be taken...

MCA PLEDGES SUPPORT TO RESOLVE BRUCELLOSIS ISSUE



Montana Cattlemen’s Association is deeply concerned about the second confirmed case of brucellosis in our cow herd. The event was not unexpected but nonetheless profoundly disappointing.



Brett DeBruycker, President of MCA, stated “I am deeply concerned about the significant adverse economic effect that losing our brucellosis free status will have on Montana family producers. While the effect will be challenging to all producers, the purebred industry will feel the pain immediately.”



Dennis McDonald, past President of MCA, said “I am disappointed the industry has not moved previously with a comprehensive management plan that would have addressed the issue of brucellosis in Yellowstone Park wildlife, particularly in view of the reservoir of the disease being in close proximity to domestic cattle housed around the Park.”



Bruce Lee, MCA director from Choteau, emphasizes “The problem is with several species of wildlife, not just bison.”



Kim Baker, MCA Vice-President notes “To solve our brucellosis problem producers need to leave their political agendas at home and work toward a rational and comprehensive solution for the viability of the Montana cattle herd.”



MCA has great confidence that, at the end of the day, our Board of Livestock will serve the industry well. MCA pledges its support and cooperation as Montana moves forward to a new and far-reaching plan to solve the brucellosis problem. It’s obviously time to understand that old and out-dated management plans have failed the industry and new ideas and approaches will be the road to real solutions.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Governor says "I told you so"!!!!!! :wink:

A letter from the Governor

Dear Friend of Montana's Livestock Industry:

As you know by now, increased testing in the Paradise Valley has yielded a second case of brucellosis in the state, which means Montana will be downgraded from “class free” status to “class A” status within a matter of weeks. Livestock producers will now be required to test bulls and non-spayed females 18 months or older, 30 days prior to interstate movement.

I assure you that I will do everything in my power to see that Montana regains its class free status as quickly as possible, and that we keep it. We can apply to regain status one year from the date the last reactor was destroyed, or May 27, 2009. At that time, USDA will conduct its review and hopefully restore the state's status.

I have been advocating for a better brucellosis management strategy since taking office. I began in the spring of 2006 to call for a solution that would prevent the entire state from losing its brucellosis status if another case turned up in the area next to Yellowstone. I feared that without the creation of a small, separate management zone immediately around the Park, increased testing would result in Montana suffering the same fate as Idaho and Wyoming, which lost their disease-free status.

In May 2007, Montana's first case was discovered in a Bridger cattle herd, resulting in the destruction of 585 animals. Again, I offered the idea of a small, separate management zone. I requested a meeting with USDA, and was encouraged to learn that they could provide for “split-state status,” in the area immediately surrounding the Park. It would have involved increased testing and other precautionary measures. Less than 5% of Montana's cattle or land area would have been affected.

Plenty of misinformation and division surrounded this split-state status idea. I asked the Montana Board of Livestock to work with the livestock industry to consider an appropriate course of action. The Montana Cattleman's Association supported the idea of split-state status, while the lobbyists and leadership of the Montana Stockgrowers Association continued to mischaracterize the idea, generating pockets of intense opposition.

It was my hope that all of Montana's livestock industry would work proactively with the Board of Livestock to address the situation. If we had laid the groundwork for split-state status last year, the entire state's cattle industry would not now be subject to loss of class free status. Recently, some have claimed that Montana during the past year couldn't have implemented split-state status in this small area quickly enough to prevent our present statewide loss of status. I find that hard to believe, considering that to begin to regain our status we will now have to implement statewide measures in only a matter of weeks.

Governor Brian Schweitzer
 

mrj

Well-known member
Guys, you can clearly see that OT automatically is against anything MSGA supports. That could be because he believes they affiliate with the 'wrong' national organization.

It is pretty clear the MT gov is playing politics with this issue, too.

The fact that the wildlife herds will be encouraged to increase in size with the additional territory of the buffer zone.

Then, of course, the government will have an excuse to acquire even more land. Apparently that is what OT wants, judging by his diatribe here.

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mrj said:
Guys, you can clearly see that OT automatically is against anything MSGA supports. That could be because he believes they affiliate with the 'wrong' national organization.

It is pretty clear the MT gov is playing politics with this issue, too.

The fact that the wildlife herds will be encouraged to increase in size with the additional territory of the buffer zone.

Then, of course, the government will have an excuse to acquire even more land. Apparently that is what OT wants, judging by his diatribe here.

mrj

Maxine - your on the gin again and babbling..... :roll: Right now the Gov. is having a great time telling your NCBA affiliates "I told you so"--and there is a whole bunch of producers in the state that now see maybe he was right- and they were wrong.....

For 30-40 years we've tried to get the feds to do something-- nothing happened except Gov. Racicot and Conman Burns got buffalo guts dumped in their laps at one of the thousands of meetings held and The Park Service released wolves to eat the bison and elk--which immediately moved away from the park- preferring a menu of beef, sheep and the guard dogs.... And our current Administration is too busy trying to set up split state regions in Argentina for their elite buddy importers to import FMD beef, than worry about US producers or eliminating the disease from their wildlife.. :mad:

Until the Park Service/USDA actually becomes involved in elimination of the disease than it is up to the State to keep the disease from the cattle- and the diseased cattle from spreading it to the rest of the cattle in the State...

This will need a comprehensive program too--like the Gov was proposing- not just the current hazing/shooting of bison that come off the park that evidently didn't work.....It will take more...

This was not only a buffer zone-and did not involve taking any land or removing cattle from any land (altho the Gov has suggested that in past plans that got shot down) but split state status- possibly with the counties surrounding the Park being in one region- and the other 53 or 54 counties being in the other region ....Then with the finding of this last animal- only the Park Counties region would have lost their Bangs Free status and the other 95% of the state would not.....

This is a huge state- my county is the size of the state of Delaware and is 300 miles from the Park- actually being closer to ND or SK....But now with the "politics played do nothing new" policy of MSGA's- producers in Bainville, Alzada and Libby have the same restrictions as those right next to the Park :???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
They are saying that while several of the cattle involved in both cases were corriente- they are/were not from Mexico...

Mexican cattle weren't source of outbreak, they say
By JENNIFER McKEE
Gazette State Bureau

HELENA - State officials and the owner of a Paradise Valley cow found to have brucellosis have quashed a rumor that the disease came to Montana from exotic Mexican cattle, not local wildlife.

"Absolutely not," said Christian Mackay, executive officer of the Montana Board of Livestock. Mexican cattle "were not the source of the outbreak."
----------------------------------
The U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) also did a genetic analysis of tissue from one of the cattle infected in 2007. APHIS concluded that the disease did not come from cattle, said Rachel Iadicco, an APHIS spokeswoman, a finding that runs counter to the Mexican-cattle theory.

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/06/19/news/state/33-cattle.txt
 

Ranchero

Well-known member
Their are not very many ranches with Coriente cattle here in Mexico. In Mexico the word "coriente" generally refers to an UGLY cow or animal it's not considered a breed here. Mexicans have been continually upgrading their herds for many years thus getting rid of the "coriente' cattle for good. Since we only do roping as an everyday part of ranch work and not for sport, their is no market for coriente cattle here except for a few U.S. stock contracters looking to buy cheap cattle. But they are rare and hard to find here in Mexico. Most coriente cattle are produced in the U.S. today. Just FYI.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
They are saying that while several of the cattle involved in both cases were corriente- they are/were not from Mexico...

Mexican cattle weren't source of outbreak, they say
By JENNIFER McKEE
Gazette State Bureau

HELENA - State officials and the owner of a Paradise Valley cow found to have brucellosis have quashed a rumor that the disease came to Montana from exotic Mexican cattle, not local wildlife.

"Absolutely not," said Christian Mackay, executive officer of the Montana Board of Livestock. Mexican cattle "were not the source of the outbreak."
----------------------------------
The U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) also did a genetic analysis of tissue from one of the cattle infected in 2007. APHIS concluded that the disease did not come from cattle, said Rachel Iadicco, an APHIS spokeswoman, a finding that runs counter to the Mexican-cattle theory.

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/06/19/news/state/33-cattle.txt
RUMOURS starting in Montana??????

Hard to imagine that happening right Oldtimer?. :roll: :roll: :oops:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kim Baker, MCA Vice-President notes "To solve our brucellosis problem producers need to leave their political agendas at home and work toward a rational and comprehensive solution for the viability of the Montana cattle herd."

MCA pledges its support and cooperation as Montana moves forward to a new and far-reaching plan to solve the brucellosis problem. It's obviously time to understand that old and out-dated management plans have failed the industry and new ideas and approaches will be the road to real solutions.



MCA PLEDGES SUPPORT TO RESOLVE BRUCELLOSIS ISSUE

Montana Cattlemen's Association is deeply concerned about the second confirmed case of brucellosis in our cow herd. The event was not unexpected but nonetheless profoundly disappointing.

Brett DeBruycker, President of MCA, stated "I am deeply concerned about the significant adverse economic effect that losing our brucellosis free status will have on Montana family producers. While the effect will be challenging to all producers, the purebred industry will feel the pain immediately."

Dennis McDonald, past President of MCA, said "I am disappointed the industry has not moved previously with a comprehensive management plan that would have addressed the issue of brucellosis in Yellowstone Park wildlife, particularly in view of the reservoir of the disease being in close proximity to domestic cattle housed around the Park."

Bruce Lee, MCA director from Choteau, emphasizes "The problem is with several species of wildlife, not just bison."

Kim Baker, MCA Vice-President notes "To solve our brucellosis problem producers need to leave their political agendas at home and work toward a rational and comprehensive solution for the viability of the Montana cattle herd."

MCA has great confidence that, at the end of the day, our Board of Livestock will serve the industry well. MCA pledges its support and cooperation as Montana moves forward to a new and far-reaching plan to solve the brucellosis problem. It's obviously time to understand that old and out-dated management plans have failed the industry and new ideas and approaches will be the road to real solutions.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It looks like some of the States are doing exactly what was proposed by the Gov. in his plan, before "cow politics" stepped in the way :roll: - dividing the state into regions- altho the proposal the Gov. had was much less of an area than what is now being done- and if it had been set up at the time, may have left the rest of the state virtually unaffected...


States leery of cattle from Montana
Nebraska sets stiffest rules for livestock from Yellowstone region
By TOM LUTEY
Of The Gazette Staff

States worried about brucellosis-infected cattle are imposing strict rules on Montana livestock and are cracking down specifically on ranches in counties surrounding Yellowstone National Park.

"We all realize, in states viewing this from afar, that Yellowstone is a huge problem," said Dr. Dennis Hughes, Nebraska state veterinarian. "I'm hoping that Montana can work its way out of this thing. From what I hear, what Montana people tell me, and Wyoming people and Idaho people tell me, it's a heck of a mess."

Of the half-dozen states to tighten rules in the past week for importing Montana cattle, Nebraska went the furthest, imposing extraordinary requirements for cattle coming from Madison, Gallatin, Park, Sweet Grass, Stillwater and Carbon counties. By car, the distance from one end of the affected area to the other is roughly 280 miles.

Idaho, Washington, Colorado, North Dakota and South Dakota also drafted rules for Montana cattle last week, though not as stringent as Nebraska's. Cattle coming into Nebraska from those counties will not only have to be certified brucellosis-free, but all animals older than 18 months in their herd also will have to test negative even if they're not going to market. Of particular concern are Montana's feeder cattle, which are calves shipped at a young age to feedlots where they're fattened for several months before heading to slaughter. Feeder cattle are a big part of Montana's $1 billion-a-year livestock industry. Few states import more Montana cattle than Nebraska.

Hughes said his state imposed similar restrictions on Wyoming counties bordering the park when its brucellosis-free status was revoked several years ago.

"There's a lot of feeder heifers that go from Montana to Nebraska, especially from those counties," said Errol Rice, executive vice president of the Montana Stockgrowers Association.

Rice said Nebraska is such a big player in Montana's cattle market that ranchers would have a hard time working around the requirements by shipping their cattle elsewhere.

Cattle farther away from Yellowstone National Park face less stringent standards, a certificate of veterinary inspection or a registered brand.

Cattle insiders said that what Nebraska essentially did was split the state into two classifications. That's not unlike what Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer has been urging the state Board of Livestock to do since last fall. However, the governor's proposal called for singling out a smaller area than the one excluded by Nebraska.

"The difference is that we know the ground, the geography. So we can use a scalpel to create a split state," Schweitzer said. "Those state vets, in lieu of any other information, what would you expect them to do?"

Schweitzer proposes drawing distinct boundaries around the Yellowstone, Gallatin and Madison river valleys, areas that bison and elk naturally travel through when leaving Yellowstone National Park. Though the area would include parts of Park, Gallatin and Madison counties, parts of those counties probably wouldn't be included.

There's no obvious wildlife corridor between Yellowstone National Park and rancher Tom Milesnick's place outside of Belgrade. By car the two points are more than 90 miles apart. He sends steers into Nebraska and yearling heifers into Iowa. Requirements for steers aren't as strict, so he wasn't too worried about the new guidelines on Monday.

He wasn't thrilled about Gallatin County being singled out, but he also couldn't argue against it.

"I don't know if it's warranted or not, but we are very close to an outbreak," Milesnick said.

As the crow flies, his ranch is probably only 60 miles from Yellowstone National Park, he said. Elk coming out of the park and meandering through the Gallatin Range probably interact with elk living in the Bridger Mountains just east of Milesnick's ranch.

Like a lot of ranchers, Milesnick said he's not sold on split-state status. He's concerned that federal officials will feel less pressured to manage brucellosis-infected wildlife if Montana ranchland bordering the park is cut from the rest of the state.

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/07/01/news/state/18-cattle.txt
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I couldn't have put it better myself....

We must work together, quickly, on brucellosis problem



By STEVE KELLY**

Great Falls Tribune - Montana

July 7, 2008



Cattle is big industry in Montana. There are approximately 2.6 million cows in Montana, which places Montana as the sixth largest state in terms of number of beef cattle. In fact, Montana is one of only nine states where cattle outnumber humans.



Cattle ranching provides more than $1 billion in annual income for producers in Montana, which makes it the largest component of agriculture, which is by far the largest industry in Montana. The cattle industry does more than feed people across the world; it provides a significant engine of growth for the Montana economy, which helps everyone, producers and others alike. Let me repeat — cattle is big industry in Montana.



So, when something comes along to threaten this valuable industry, we need to quickly and effectively find a practical solution to deal with it. Such is the case with brucellosis and the recent loss of Montana's brucellosis-free status. The potential damage to producers and the economy is significant. We need to address the problem quickly and with a practical solution.



My family has been involved in the industry for a lot of years and I currently operate a ranch near Fort Benton. Like a lot of ranches in Montana my labor force consists of myself and whoever of my immediate family is available from their busy schedules to help out. The prospect of having to run the cattle through the chute several more times a year in order to do the testing for brucellosis becomes quite a challenge.



Some history might be important. This is a problem that we've been dealing with for many years, but has recently reared its ugly head as a significant problem with the May 2007 discovery of the disease in a herd near Yellowstone Park in southern Montana.



The disease is believed to be transmitted from infected wild game, such as bison and elk, particularly those found in Yellowstone Park. All 585 cattle in that herd were eventually destroyed. At that time, Montana was put on "probation" and maintained its brucellosis-free status unless another case was found within 18 months.



Up until the present there have been many proposals to force the federal government to contain their bison herd in the park. These actions have been met with resistance and yielded little in the way of results. This situation is a federal matter and should probably be dealt with by our Congressmen. Once the problem enters Montana then it is our problem and the solutions are up to us.



Gov. Brian Schweitzer's proposal was to deal with the matter at hand and do it in a timely fashion. This meant we needed to contain the threat and continue to work on the uphill battle with the federal government and park bison. The governor's solution was to isolate the problem in a narrow corridor around the park, and hopefully contain it in a manageable area. If another case of brucellosis was found in the hot zone then only that small portion of the state would lose its brucellosis free status, and the rest of the state would not be impacted. Given that less than 5 percent of the state's cattle are in the area near the park, this so-called split-state solution would prevent this onerous status from affecting 2.5 million of the state's 2.6 million cows. With this near-term solution, producers would then be free to focus its efforts on longer-term solutions like the eradication of the disease in the Yellowstone herds.



Well, another cow in a herd near Pray was recently found to be infected. Since it was within the 18-month window, Montana's brucellosis-free status was lost and we've become the only state to be classified under the stigmatic brucellosis banner.



What does this mean? Quite simply, it means significant economic loss to the state. Cattlemen will have to pay to have their cows tested and vaccinated before they can be sold. A recent estimate put the hard cost of this at approximately $6 million. More important than this are the soft costs associated with the loss of our status as a state with a clean herd.



It will be easy for a potential buyer looking for seed stock to simply go to another state to get his cattle, rather than risking the small chance that buying a cow from Montana might infect his herd in another state. It seems reasonable for someone outside the state to not want to take that chance. If it drives away even a small portion of potential buyers, the cost to a $1 billion industry can quickly mount into the tens of millions of dollars and possibly a lot more.



We need to find a practical solution to this problem. When Schweitzer proposed his split-state solution a year ago, the Montana Stockgrowers Association did a good job of getting their point across at a Board of Livestock meeting. They did so in a fairly boisterous manner which slammed the door on the governor's proposal.



I accept my share of the blame for not being there to support the governor's common sense approach that looked after the great majority of his constituents that are involved in the cattle business. That is all that I can ask of one of my elected officials. I applaud him for that. I realize that groups like the Montana Stockgrowers have more on the agenda than this single issue but if we are going to effectively tackle this problem we are going to have to make it a stand alone issue, put the politics and the egos aside and do what is best for 95 percent of the producers in this state. It is time for cattle producers from all four corners of the state, most of whom will never be impacted by brucellosis, to show their support and resolve this issue and then get after the job of supporting and solving the problem in the second state around the park.



We need to support Schweitzer's split-state proposal and get the clock ticking to the time when we can be brucellosis free once again. Without split state we may fall into an endless spiral where new cases pop up every few months in the hot zone and we never get out of this mess. Anybody that believes that political rhetoric and vocal posturing can solve the problem has unfortunately already been proven wrong.



These "solutions" only serve to line the pockets of lobbyists and lawyers while the state's largest industry suffers. We can change, and we can adapt, and we can work together to solve this problem.



**Steve Kelly is a cattle rancher in the Fort Benton area.

greatfallstribune.com
 
Top