Search

Abstract: Yellowstone bison (Bison bison bison) are managed to reduce the risk of brucellosis (Brucella abortus) transmission to cattle while allowing some migration out of Yellowstone National Park to winter ranges in Montana. Intensive management near conservation area boundaries maintained separation between bison and cattle, with no transmission of brucellosis. However, brucellosis prevalence in the bison population was not reduced and the management plan underestimated bison abundance, distribution, and migration, which contributed to larger risk management culls (total >3000 bison) than anticipated. Culls differentially affected breeding herds and altered gender structure, created reduced female cohorts, and dampened productivity. The ecological future of plains bison could be significantly enhanced by resolving issues of disease and social tolerance for Yellowstone bison so that their unique wild state and adaptive capabilities can be used to synergize the restoration of the species. We recommend several adaptive management adjustments that could be implemented to enhance the conservation of plains bison and reduce brucellosis infection. These findings and recommendations are pertinent to wood bison (Bison bison athabascae), European bison (Bison bonasus), and other large ungulates worldwide that are managed using best practices within a risk framework. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Yellowstone bison Bison bison are chronically infected with brucellosis (caused by the bacterium Brucella abortus), which raises concerns about possible transmission to cattle when they migrate to winter ranges outside the Yellowstone National Park. We monitored bison from April to mid-June during 2004-2007 to estimate the timing and location of parturition events that may shed tissues infected by B. abortus. Observed abortions (N¼29) occurred from January through 19 May, while peak calving (80% of births) occurred from 25 April to 26 May, and calving was finished by 5 June. Observed parturition events (N¼115) occurred in the Park and on the Horse Butte peninsula in Montana, USA, where cattle were not present at any time of the year. Allowing bison to occupy public lands outside the Park where cattle are never present (e.g. Horse Butte peninsula) until most bison calving is completed (late May or early June) is not expected to significantly increase the risk of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle because: 1) bison parturition is essentially completed weeks before cattle occupy nearby ranges, 2) female bison meticulously consume birthing tissues, 3) ultraviolet light and heat degrade B. abortus on tissues, vegetation and soil, 4) scavengers remove fetuses and remaining birth tissues and 5) management maintains separation between bison and cattle on nearby ranges. Allowing bison to occupy public lands outside the Park through their calving season will help conserve bison migratory behaviour and reduce stress on pregnant females and their newborn calves, while still minimizing the risk of brucellosis transmission to cattle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Concerns over migratory bison (Bison bison) at Yellowstone National Park transmitting brucellosis (Brucella abortus) to cattle herds on adjacent lands led to proposals for bison vaccination. We developed an individual-based model to evaluate how brucellosis infection might respond under alternate vaccination strategies, including: (1) vaccination of female calves and yearlings captured at the park boundary when bison move outside the primary conservation area; (2) combining boundary vaccination with the remote delivery of vaccine to female calves and yearlings distributed throughout the park; and (3) vaccinating all female bison (including adults) during boundary capture and throughout the park using remote delivery of vaccine. Simulations suggested Alternative 3 would be most effective, with brucellosis seroprevalence decreasing by 66% (from 0.47 to 0.16) over a 30-year period resulting from 29% of the population receiving protection through vaccination. Under this alternative, bison would receive multiple vaccinations that extend the duration of vaccine protection and defend against recurring infection in latently infected animals. The initial decrease in population seroprevalence will likely be slow due to high initial seroprevalence (40–60%), long-lived antibodies, and the culling of some vaccinated bison that were subsequently exposed to field strain Brucella and reacted positively on serologic tests. Vaccination is unlikely to eradicate B. abortus from Yellowstone bison, but could be an effective tool for reducing the level of infection. Our approach and findings have applicability world-wide for managers dealing with intractable wildlife diseases that cross wildlife–livestock and wildlife–human interfaces and affect public health or economic well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The conservation of bison in Yellowstone National Park, from near extinction in the late 19th century to a recent high of 5000, has led to long-term societal conflict regarding perceived overabundance, trans-boundary movements, and potential transmission of brucellosis from bison to livestock. We synthesized available information to address two central questions in this debate: (1) has the Yellowstone bison population surpassed numbers that can be supported by the forage base in the park; and (2) why do some bison move outside the park during winter, even when numbers are below food-limited carrying capacity? A spatially-explicit model of the system that integrated abiotic variables with biotic processes indicated bison have not reached a theoretical food-limited carrying capacity of 6200 in Yellowstone National Park. However, more bison began to migrate earlier to lower-elevation winter ranges as numbers increased and climatic factors interacted with density to limit nutritional intake and foraging efficiency. A gradual expansion of the winter range as bison numbers increased enabled relatively constant population growth and increased food-limited carrying capacity. Current management actions attempt to preserve bison migration to essential winter range areas within and adjacent to the park, while actively preventing dispersal and range expansion to outlying areas via hazing and removals (i.e., dispersal sink). A population of 2500–4500 bison should satisfy collective interests concerning the park’s forage base, bison movement ecology, retention of genetic diversity, brucellosis risk management, and prevailing social conditions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]