| Summary:
The current Interagency Buffalo Management Plan (IBMP) calls
for the vaccination of buffalo residing in or migrating out
of Yellowstone National Park (YNP) when a “safe and
effective” vaccine and delivery system are available.
The stated purpose of the vaccination program is to reduce
the risk of brucellosis transmission between buffalo and cattle.
The initiation of vaccination programs by the Montana Department
of Livestock (DOL) and the National Park Service (NPS) are
required for moving to stage 2 of the IBMP.
Under stage 2, buffalo should enjoy greater tolerance when
migrating from Yellowstone National Park on both the north
and west boundaries. However, because of the continued and
indefinite presence of cattle on the Royal Teton Ranch near
the Park’s north boundary, the IBMP will not move to
stage 2 on the north side with the initiation of vaccination.
Statements by Montana State Veterinarian Tom Linfield indicate
that buffalo will not gain greater tolerance in the western
boundary area because of the relative inability of the currently
available brucellosis vaccines to reduce sero-prevalance in
buffalo. Therefore, vaccination of Yellowstone buffalo for
brucellosis based on the prescriptions of the IBMP will neither
result in the progression to stage 2 of the Plan nor confer
greater tolerance for buffalo exiting YNP now or in the foreseeable
future.
Agency actions: In December of 2003, USDA
APHIS issued an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for vaccination with RB51 of calf and yearling
buffalo captured on National Forest lands west of Yellowstone
National Park.
Beginning in the spring of 2004, the NPS began vaccinating
calf and yearling buffalo captured at the Stephen’s
Creek Capture Facility with RB51 vaccine. However, the agency
has no monitoring program to determine the efficacy of the
vaccine. In August 2004, the NPS published a scoping notice
for the remote delivery of RB51 vaccine to all calf and yearling
buffalo in Yellowstone. The Montana Department of Livestock
will likely approve their plans for subcutaneous vaccination
of buffalo on the north and western boundaries of the Park
with RB51 with the intention of beginning in spring 2005.
Issues: There are serious problems with all of the above-mentioned
programs:
1. Vaccination is a tool best suited for domestic
livestock: Vaccination of Yellowstone buffalo for
brucellosis is inconsistent with accepted wildlife management
techniques. Vaccination with a novel, more effective vaccine
should be focused on cattle that graze in the Greater Yellowstone
Area.
2. The efficacy of RB51 vaccine is not proven:
Research indicates that RB51 will not provide significant
protection to vaccinated buffalo. Laboratory studies have
failed to demonstrate efficacy in terms of preventing infection
or abortion. RB51 vaccine did not protect cattle from infection
when exposed to an aborted infected elk fetus. It is highly
unlikely that RB51 would prevent infection from elk in buffalo
even if the vaccine were helpful in reducing transmission
between buffalo.
3. Impact on the Buffalo: Subcutaneous vaccination
requires that buffalo be captured and tested for brucellosis.
Vaccination by this method will perpetuate capture operations
even if they become otherwise unnecessary. Remote delivery
vaccination, especially in Yellowstone National Park, will
make buffalo wary of humans and potentially more aggressive
toward park visitors.
4. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Due to the perpetual
nature of initiating a vaccination program using the less
than efficacious RB51 vaccine, the direct costs of the vaccination
program will be significant and ever increasing. Continued
focus on vaccination of buffalo will likely prevent research
into other means of addressing the risks of transmission and
rate of exposure among buffalo. Alternatively, the benefits
of vaccination with RB51 are relatively non-existent. Due
to the natural immunity buffalo develop to brucellosis and
the rarity of brucellosis-related abortions in Yellowstone
buffalo, it is unlikely that vaccination will have any impact
on reducing the already negligible risk of transmission to
domestic livestock. Brucellosis-proof cattle management plans
and habitat based long-term solutions to brucellosis in Yellowstone
buffalo will provide cost effective solutions with significant
benefit to both buffalo and the livestock industry.
Solutions: Instead of focusing on vaccinating Yellowstone’s
wild buffalo, efforts should be placed on the following common-sense
solutions that will address the concerns of the livestock
industry and allow for greater tolerance of buffalo in Montana:
1. Novel Vaccine and Cure Research: Development
of effective vaccines and cures for cattle would provide livestock
producers with the confidence they currently lack in the existing
vaccines. Research into cures for brucellosis based on studies
with canids and biophage research from the former Soviet Union
show tremendous promise but have not been sufficiently studied.
2. Cattle Management: Brucellosis-proof management
plans for cattle in buffalo habitat can be developed to insure
zero risk of transmission. Temporal and spatial separation
can be easily achieved between buffalo and brucellosis susceptible
cattle by adjusting stocking dates, age, and sex classes of
cattle in the GYA.
3. Brucellosis Regulation: Both the National
Brucellosis Eradication Plan and the international regulations
that confer brucellosis class free status could be adjusted
to provide an exemption for the GYA.
Conclusion: Vaccination of Yellowstone’s
wild buffalo for brucellosis is an ill-conceived idea that
serves only to benefit the public perception of the agencies
participating in the ongoing slaughter. The buffalo will see
no direct benefit from the vaccination program. Sero-prevalance
of Yellowstone buffalo will only drop to between 20 and 30
percent even under the agencies best estimates. Vaccination
has never and will never result in the eradication of brucellosis
from any species. Compounded with the difficulty of administering
the vaccine to wild, free-ranging animals and the high probability
of exposure to brucella bacteria from Wyoming feedground elk,
it is clear that vaccination will not achieve agency goals.
If the agencies are truly interested in further reducing the
already low risk of brucellosis transmission between wild
buffalo and cattle, then the focus should be placed on livestock
management techniques applied to domestic cattle and habitat
improvement for wild buffalo. This strategy would be far more
cost effective than continuing to study and apply cattle vaccines
to wild buffalo and lead to a solution that both the livestock
industry and the buffalo can live with until a comprehensive
buffalo restoration program is established.
Top
of page
|
