From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Hunting @ Yellowstone (Was Bowhunting wounding...)
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:55:40 GMT

In article <168C8E67C.DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU> WFPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.170854.26500@clpd.kodak.com>
>black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
> 
>>In <1992Dec3.201906.10682@icd.ab.com> Ken Whitehead writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> .... (Check out the winter kill of elk in Yellowstone that has occurred
>>> every year since the Fund for Animals "saved" them from the hunters if
>>> you don't know what I'm talking about;  you'll be appalled, I guarantee
>>> it.)  ...
>>
>>Ken,
>>
>>I believe that you are seriously misinformed here.  The shooting of elk
>>(and other wildlife) in Yellowstone National Park has been outlawed
>>since 1894 by an Act of Congress.  The recent "winter kill" is a result
>>of the fires of 1988 and the ensuing short-term food scarcity.  It has
>>nothing to do with Fund For Animals' efforts.
>>
>>The Fund For Animals has worked to stop the slaughter of BISON who
>>wonder outside the park boundaries.  These animals are killed, not
>>because they're starving, but because of an irrational fear that they
>>will spread brucellosis to cattle.
>>
>Hunting of elk @ Yellowstone DOES go on OUTSIDE the boundaries of the park
>and because many of the elk that summer in YNP (Yellowstone Nat'l Park)
>migrate out during the fall and winter, they are subject to harvest.
>It's questionable how much this affects the total elk population inhabiting
>YNP.  ...

I gather that you're suggesting here that Ken meant to say "winter kill
of Yellowstone elk who wandered outside the park" instead of "winter
kill of elk in Yellowstone." Either way, it didn't seem logical to pin
the blame for any purported elk winter kill on the Fund For Animals
organization, which has concentrated more on the shooting of bisons and
the perceived threat of brucellosis transmission to domestic cattle.

>...The brucellosis issue IS largely argued in an irrational context.
>Most of the debate rests on myth and almost no data are ever presented.
>However, research now ongoing is trying to establish the risk posed
>by brucellosis in elk.  Estimated 70% elk are infected, but transmission to
>domestic livestock appears likely to be very low because to become infected
>an animal must come into contact with reproductive products of an infected
>individual (e.g., placental tissue) and these don't persist in the environment
>long.  ...

As far as you know, are there any confirmed cases of inter-species
brucellosis contamination?  How about any cases of transmission from
wild animals to domestic stock?

>...Stay tuned because until the data are in, lobbiests are going to make
>this a major issue.

I assume that you're referring to lobbyists for the animal/environmental
groups (including the Greater Yellowstone Coalition) who will present
evidence that the brucellosis threat is greatly exaggerated (if not
non-existent), and lobbyists for the ranchers/farmers who support an
opposing view?

> 
>Wm Porter
>Professor - Wildlife Biology
>State Univ. NY - College Environmental Science and Forestry

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals