New Bill has Elk in Crosshairs Brucellosis

Lawmakers took their first crack at the newest chapter in Montana’s long battle with brucellosis Tuesday: Elk.

A bill sponsored by Sen. Keith Bales, R-Otter, would add to the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ duties the task of preventing disease transmission between livestock and wildlife. While those diseases include everything from tuberculosis to ungulate fever, there was no question at the bill’s afternoon hearing that brucellosis gave rise to the bill.

• Two cattle in Montana tested positive for brucellosis last year. The disease causes cows to abort. While Yellowstone bison have been the focus of brucellosis control, elk are thought to be the source of the most recent cases. “If this bill had been in place five or 10 years ago…we might not be in the situation we are,” Bales said of his bill. While Chris Smith of FWP said he does not necessarily agree with that statement, he spoke in favor of the bill as one that would allow his agency to continue its work on controlling brucellosis and other diseases.
  
  “They’re not livestock problems. They’re not wildlife problems. They’re disease problems,” he told the Senate Fish and Game Committee. Since the spring outbreak of brucellosis, FWP has killed two elk thought to be carrying the virus and has been working with landowners to control herds that threaten more cases of the disease, Smith said. Ag groups also came out for the bill.“A lot of ranchers are being overrun by elk, and they are fearful of a brucellosis outbreak,” said Ariel Overstreet of the Montana Cattlewomen’s Association. Jay Bodner, natural resources director for the Montana Stockgrowers Association, said he would like to see the bill move FWP toward practices like “strategic hazing,” something Smith said is not now in FWP’s disease control playbook.
  
  Opponents of the bill said they were concerned the wording of the bill could force FWP to devote a disproportionate amount of resources toward disease-control.v“This could set a precedent for managing wildlife for one particular reason,” said Ben Lamb of the Montana Wildlife federation.
  
  The bill, which carries a cost of $300,000 per year, was also the recipient of Budget Director Dave Ewer’s disapproval via form letter, which is being sent out to many hearings involving bills that cost money. Bales maintained Senate Bill 213’s importance.“The disease was spread to livestock from elk. Since the Department of Livestock has not authority over elk at this time, they cannot prevent that,” he said. “This will help. This will add the final key to trying to control disease.”
  
  While we at SportsmensAccess.com we agree that:
• There is a problem with elk carry brucellosis
• FWP is the agency that needs to deal with elk with this disease
• FWP would need additional funds from somewhere other it's normal operating budget to deal with managing this disease

We don't agree:

• That the elk should be shot by FWP officials. Why not have sportsmen on the game damage control list take these elk. Lower cost and less manpower spent by FWP.
• The point of view that ranchers "are being overrun by elk"

The two cows that we taken were shot on public land. Not on ranch lands. What do we do about these elk?

As we know large herds of elk gather on some private grounds with no access allowed. This is one of the tough issues that will need to be addressed. What do we do with large herds of elk that gather on private land where no hunting is allowed? Will FWP officials be able to "haze" elk of these properties? We stradle a fine line between private property rights and controlling a disease. No easy answer on this one.