print page | send as email | email editor

A potential vaccination program against brucellosis for Yellowstone National Park bison might protect only a quarter of the herd after 30 years and could actually make the bacteria stronger, according to National Park Service documents.

The 30-year $9 million vaccination program would involve the use of air rifles to shoot “bio-bullets” at the bison. The analysis of the vaccination program came in a draft environmental document just released.

The issue raises questions about the intensity of wildlife management in the world’s first national park and whether that management should be driven by neighboring livestock interests. Bison migrate outside Yellowstone in the spring, where stockmen fear they can spread brucellosis to cattle, with potentially devastating results.

The possible vaccination program is “astonishing,” said Darrell Geist, habitat coordinator for the Buffalo Field Campaign. The nonprofit is based in West Yellowstone, Mont., and keeps tabs on the bison herd.

 Yellowstone is seeking public comment on the plan through July 26. Elk also carry the disease and are considered more likely to spread it to cattle.

After penetrating the bison’s skin, the special bullets would dissolve, releasing the vaccine. Inoculated animals would be marked with a paint ball.

Environmental groups have panned the idea, saying the vaccine, called SRB51, is not effective and the money could be put to better use. Language in the draft environmental document indicates the vaccine won’t protect the entire herd and could make matters worse.

Under one scenario, in which calves and yearlings would receive the vaccination, models show “approximately 25 percent of the target group received protection from the vaccine under this alternative.”

Another part of the environmental document raises the possibility that an “imperfect vaccine” like SRB51 could make the bacteria more virulent.

“Using less-effective vaccines or delivering the vaccine to a relatively small proportion of the eligible animals can lead to adaptive changes in the disease pathogen that select for variants able to evade the immunological response induced by the vaccine,” the document says. “These vaccine-adapted variants can then spread in the population, reduce the efficiency of the vaccination program and result in longer-term evolutionary changes in the host-pathogen association.”

“To reduce these problems, highly efficient vaccines should be quickly delivered to a large proportion of the eligible animals to lead to disease suppression or eradication,” the document said. “In bison, the vaccine SRB51 is an imperfect vaccine that does not offer protection from [brucellosis].”

Geist had more criticism.

“One thing that really struck me is that even their best modeling after 30 years and $9 million and vaccinating half the wild population [each year], maybe one in four buffalo will gain some protection from brucellosis,” he said. “Another major impact is that the strain of brucellosis might become more virulent, persistent and [able to spread more]. It may adapt to this ineffective vaccine.”

The vaccination program would be “based on uncertainty,” Geist said. “There’s no scientific consensus that SRB51 is effective.”

Other conservation groups also said SRB51, which was developed for cattle, is one of their chief problems with the proposal.

“There hasn’t been much of an advance made [in brucellosis vaccines] in the last 10 years,” said Mark Pearson national parks program director for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition in Bozeman, Mont. “And this scheme for remote delivery of a vaccine doesn’t seem very effective or reliable either.

Shooting a bio-bullet out of an air gun is considered less effective in delivering the vaccine than a shot with a syringe, he said.

While the bison might take the vaccine readily the first year, previous hunting and research efforts show that bison become “pretty leery pretty quickly,” Pearson said.

“They quickly figure out the vehicles and individuals,” he said. “You’ve got to be within 30 yards of [the bison]. I’m sure the first year will work fine, but the bison will probably wise up to that scheme. That’s another thing that makes the long-term viability of this unlikely.”

Both Pearson and Geist said the vaccination would be unlikely to increase tolerance for bison outside the park.

“It’s to provide an extra layer of comfort to the three livestock producers left in West Yellowstone,” Pearson said. “The real reason is part of this larger political dance among these five interagency partners that have competing visions and missions for bison in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Federal and state agencies around Yellowstone have an Interagency Bison Management Plan that seeks to control the spread of brucellosis and preserve the park bison herd. It calls for the killing of some wandering bison, even inside Yellowstone’s borders.

In addition to problems with efficiency and effectiveness, unspent bio-bullets could pose an environmental hazard, said Patricia Dowd, Yellowstone program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association.

“We have to ask if using air guns with a paint chamber and a vaccination chamber is the way we want to see wildlife managed,” she said. “You go into the park and there’s a bison with bright orange paint on its hindquarters.”

“How does that affect not only the wildlife but also the visitor experience?” she asked. “It’s a question of how much is too much in terms of wildlife management in Yellowstone National Park.”

Park officials acknowledge that vaccinating bison has its problems.

“It’d take a lot of effort, a lot of money and a lot of time, and there would be a limited result,” Yellowstone spokesman Al Nash said.

The environmental document has no “preferred alternative,” an option that agencies typically identify as the one that will most likely be implemented, Nash said. In addition to vaccinating only calves and yearlings, the document includes a “no action alternative,” which would keep things status quo with only limited bison vaccination at the park’s Stephens Creek capture facility. Another alternative would vaccinate both adult and young bison.

“We promised the agencies [that are part of the Interagency Bison Management Plan] that we would do an analysis,” Nash said. “It’s part of our commitment to see how we can move bison management forward.

“It was never intended to be, and is not, a solution to the issues of brucellosis and bison in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem,” he said. “We’ve done this, and we’re looking forward to what the public has to say.”

Geist said the Buffalo Field Campaign is proposing a fourth option.

“Our alternative is to allocate that $9 million to buy out the cattle and leave [the bison] alone,” he said. “Let [bison have access] to the forage they need to maintain their own health and well-being.”

The comment period on the bison vaccination plan lasts until July 26.

People can send comments to Superintendent, Yellowstone National Park, Brucellosis Remote Vaccination Program for Bison DEIS Comments, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190.

Comments can also be submitted at www.parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?parkID=111&projectID=10736&documentId=34079.