A plan to use air rifles to vaccinate Yellowstone National Park bison against brucellosis apparently is more controversial than initially thought. Park Service officials say due to interest and concerns over the project, they're extending the comment period on the draft Environmental Impact Statement another 60 days.
The move to develop such a "remote vaccine" was called for in the Interagency Bison Management Plan adopted back in 2000. If adopted, the program would be the latest evolution of brucellosis control in the park, though it certainly wouldn't mollify critics of how Montana officials haze bison back into the park, sometimes with helicopters, at various times of the year.
While the original 60-day comment period was scheduled to close July 26 -- Monday -- park officials announced Friday that they would keep it open another two months.
The purpose of remote vaccination of bison inside the park is to reduce the brucellosis infection rate in order to increase tolerance for bison on historic and essential winter range outside the park in Montana when cattle are not present. The park believes the most logical method for remote delivery of the vaccine is to use a compressed air rifle to deliver an absorbable projectile containing the vaccine.
... Due to public interest and concerns about uncertainties disclosed in the Draft EIS, the National Park Service has decided to extend the comment period for an additional 60 days.
The Draft EIS and an electronic form to submit comments on the Internet can be found at the National Park Service’s Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) website at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/yell. The Draft EIS is also available on CD or in hard copy by writing the Bison Management Program, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming 82190.
Written comments may be submitted through the PEPC website, in person, or by mail. Comments will not be accepted over the phone, by fax, or e-mail. All public comments must now be received or postmarked by midnight, September 24, 2010.
Yellowstone is home to the last free ranging and wild herd of pure plains bison. Between 40 and 60 percent of the bison have been exposed to the bacteria which causes brucellosis; a disease which can induce abortions or the result in the birth of non-viable calves in both cattle and wildlife.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
If the government is going to vaccinate the Bison at Yellowstone, they also need to do the Elk as well. They carry the same disease as the Bison, but they are not hazed back into the park nor treated in the same manner.
This is a topic that really gets me hot under the collar regarding the Bison. If the Ranchers of Wyoming and Montana would only open their eyes to what the issue really is, MONEY, then the Bison would not be treated in this cruel manner. Elk, to my knowledge and research have never been hazed back into the park! I have seen numerous videos of where the calves were seperated from the mother's at a very young age then let to die! And I am not talking one or two, I am talking hundreds! How cruel can that be? I have seen video of the hazing with the helicopters where they actually run the Bison until they drop dead! You call this humane? I don't. I find this appalling and inhumane! The same video showed that during the hazing, animals would get ripped open, lose eyes and become hurt so badly that they would have to be shot! Someone needs to wake up and see what our government is doing to these wonderful creatures that were here long before we were. The people sitting in Washington D.C. making decisions need to come to the park and actually see these animals up close and personal. There is nothing more breathe taking than to see them in the wild.
I personally know of a ranch outside of Missoula Montana that raises both cattle and Bison without issue! So there is a problem somewhere and I still contend that money is at the heart of the problem.
Bison and cattle also mix in Jackson Hole along the eastern border of Grand Teton NP. I saw this mixing in June, when there were bison calves in the herd. (That matters, since brucellosis exposure occurs around calving time.)
It would be cheaper to buy out the affected grazing leases than to pursue the hazing-and-vaccination policy. As long as taxpayers are paying for a program that benefits a relatively few ranchers, the ranchers have no incentive to change their behavior.
What if the ranchers were charged a "co-pay" of $10/head for the hazing program? Just asking.
I hope everyone will comment during this extended period. This is a real tragedy for wildlife, a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars and a hell of a thing for a National Park to do instead of protecting their wildlife !!!
Over 9 million dollars has been wasted on this effort to keep Montana beef producers happy. That could have more than bought out their range leases and left wildlife free to do what they have done for hundreds of years, move to available food in the winter ! THAT is all we ask for, a chance for these animals to survive !!! Please let them know how you feel.