Finding a relatively simple solution to the seemingly intractable and ridiculously expensive conflict involving bison migrating from Yellowstone National Park and cattlemen who fear bison will spread disease to their livestock may not be all that difficult.
Persuading people to accept that solution? Well, now, that promises to be very difficult.
This issue has simmered for decades, boiling over at times. It's cost uncounted millions of dollars in studies and various half-measures aimed at controlling a disease threat that's debatable to begin with.
The cattle industry and, for many years, the state of Montana have advocated the most complicated possible solution: eradicating brucellosis from Yellowstone's bison and elk. It was difficult enough to do with domestic cattle herds and seems unlikely to be accomplished with populations of highly mobile wild animals. Making matters harder, the park's wildlife is managed by the National Park Service, which makes a point of maintaining the “wild” in wildlife in the world's first and possibly most beloved national park - and enjoys broad, national public support for doing so. Bison are an American icon, and the American public, still carrying the collective guilt of nearly wiping out the species in a massive 19th century killing spree, has demonstrated overwhelming support for maintaining wild bison in Yellowstone. Even if it were possible, there aren't going to be any big bison and elk roundups with the animals tested, tagged and culled with an eye toward ridding them of an endemic disease. The cost of doing so wouldn't make sense, even if there weren't a perennial glut of cattle on the market.
Yellowstone is a vast park, but it's still finite. It can accommodate just so many animals. Bison and elk naturally disperse as populations rise, and they also seek more hospitable wintering grounds outside the park.
Animals migrating out of the park have been countered with stopgap measures. They've been hazed back into the park, captured and hauled off for slaughter, shot by marksmen, shot by hunters. These are measures that address the problem somewhat, but do not solve it.
A practical, permanent solution does exist, however.
The conflict arises from the potential commingling of bison and cattle. We probably can't eradicate the disease and aren't going to get rid of the bison, but we do something different with the cattle.
Perhaps the most effective approach would be to quit grazing cattle adjacent to Yellowstone National Park. By retiring leased grazing allotments on public lands and buying grazing rights from relatively few ranchers, we could create a veritable buffer zone that effectively eliminates the potential for Yellowstone's wildlife to spread brucellosis to cattle. This is an approach that could benefit everyone: the public would have its wild bison roaming free, Montana's cattle industry would be free of the sword of Damocles hanging over its brucellosis-free classification, and the ranchers directly affected along the periphery of Yellowstone might well make as much or more money selling their grazing rights than they ever did raising cattle.
Creating a buffer zone by buying grazing rights would also make it easier to use sport hunting to manage the numbers of bison that leave the park. Hunting is the primary means of controlling wildlife numbers, but legitimate hunting requires fair chase - otherwise it becomes unsavory and politically unpopular slaughter. It's going to be hard to significantly expand hunting and harvests of bison without proving them more room to roam.
Gov. Brian Schweitzer came out in support of this very approach this spring, saying everyone would be money ahead - and Montana's ranching industry more secure - by paying a few ranchers not to graze cattle.
The Montana Stockgrowers Association couldn't agree less. It's dead-set against the very idea, calling it a “dangerous precedent.” Association President Bill Donald, writing in a recent edition of the Montana Stockgrower newsletter, warned, “The folks that graze cattle in an area that is the habitat for an endangered or ‘wannabe' endangered species, such as sage grouse, bull trout or titmouse, have come to the conclusion that it is not wise to give up grazing rights in perpetuity to satisfy someone with a beef about the grazing of cattle.”
Yellowstone-area landowners who attended a meeting recently expressed unanimity in their opposition to selling grazing rights to resolve the bison conflict. That's not encouraging, because this is the kind of idea that can only be entertained on a willing-seller, willing-buyer basis.
Landowner opposition isn't just a matter of economics. Raising cattle isn't just a business. It's also a lifestyle and a culture. Those are priceless, says association Executive Vice President Errol Rice.
Agreed. But no one's actually contemplating buying up all the grazing rights in Montana. There's no threat to the Montana cattle industry or ranching culture here. The only actual danger is that, by insisting that cattle must remain wherever they once ranged, including along the edge of Yellowstone, cattlemen throughout Montana will ultimately pay the price that comes through the loss of a brucellosis-free classification. If the cattle industry wants to worry about threats to their industry and way of life, that's the thing to worry about.
We've spent just enough time messing with cattle to question the sanity of anyone who isn't in it hoping to make a buck. Even as a profit-making venture, it doesn't always add up. A good businessman might hold out for the right price, but surely wouldn't bar the door to an economically advantageous proposition. Individual ranchers would have to crunch the numbers to see what makes sense, but the decision ought to be easier for the cattle industry overall: A few ranchers around Yellowstone raising several hundred or maybe 1,000 head of cattle makes no significant positive difference to the industry's viability. Those cattle are, however, a constant danger to the entire industry's brucellosis-free status.
And while we're all thinking about dollars and sense, it might be good for the rest of us to give more thought to just how many millions of dollars we ought to spend in perpetuity conducting studies, hazing and hauling bison, and worrying about the expense of brucellosis to an industry that isn't all that interested in economics.
No rancher should be denied the right to graze cattle on his own land if he chooses. By the same token, no taxpayer ought to give up part of his hard-earned paycheck to keep applying ineffective half-measures to a problem so easily solved. At the end of the day, bison and brucellosis are the cattlemen's problem. We're all for being neighborly and helping them, but only if they are going to reasonably consider a solution.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)