BRUCELLOSIS
IN THE GREATER
YELLOWSTONE AREA

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS    2101 Constitution Ave., N.W.    Washington, D.C.   20418

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The authors responsible for the report were chosen for their special competence and with regard for appropriate balance.

This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

The project was supported by the Department of the Interior Cooperative Agreement No. 1443CA000197005. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 97-80670
International Standard Book Number 0-309-05989-5

Cover photographs: Dale R. McCullough, Berkeley, California

Copyright 1998 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

National Academy Press (http://www.nap.edu)
800-624-6242
202-334-3313 (in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area)

Printed in the United States of America

BRUCELLOSIS
IN THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE AREA

NORMAN F. CHEVILLE is Chair of the Department of Veterinary Pathology at Iowa State University. He received the DVM degree from Iowa State University (1959) and MS (1963) and PhD (1964) from the University of Wisconsin. In 1968, he served a sabbatical year at the National Institute for Medical Research, London, studying under Anthony Allison. The honorary degree Doctor Honoris Causa was conferred by the University of Liège in 1986 for outstanding work in veterinary pathology. Dr. Cheville began his career at Army Biological Laboratory, Fort Detrick, Md., in the Veterinary Corps of the U.S. Army, 1959-61. After 3 years as research associate at the University of Wisconsin under Dr. Carl Olsen, he moved to the National Animal Disease Center as Chief of Pathology Research, 1964-89, and later as chief of the Brucellosis Research Unit, 1989-1995, during which he led the team that developed a new vaccine for bovine brucellosis. In 1995, he was appointed chair of the Department of Veterinary Pathology at Iowa State. Dr. Cheville has been Secretary-Treasurer and President of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists, President of the Conference of Research Workers in Animal Disease, and Editor of Veterinary Pathology. His honors include Outstanding Achievement Award, USDA, 1991; Distinguished Scientist Award, ARS, USDA, 1990; Alumni Merit Award, Iowa State University for "outstanding contributions to human welfare and professional accomplishment" in 1978. He has published more than 200 papers and 7 books.

DALE R. MCCULLOUGH is Professor of Wildlife Biology in the Ecosystem Sciences Division of the Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management and Resource Conservation in the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley, where he holds the A. Starker Leopold endowed chair. He received his BS in wildlife management from South Dakota State University (1957), MS in wildlife management from Oregon State University (1960), and PhD in Zoology from University of California, Berkeley (1966). He was a Professor of Resource Ecology in the School of Natural Resources at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor from 1966 to 1979, and in 1980 he moved to his present position at the University of California. His research interests concern the behavior, ecology, conservation, and management of large mammals, in which he has endeavored to integrate new areas of conservation biology into traditional wildlife management approaches. He has spent sabbatical leaves in the outback of Australia studying three co-occurring species of kangaroos, and in Taiwan studying the elusive Reeves' muntjac, a small forest deer. He has served previously on three NAS/NRC committees reviewing wildlife management issues. He has published more than 100 papers and five books. Among his honors are three outstanding book of the year awards from the Wildlife Society and being named a distinguished alumnus by South Dakota State University and Oregon State University.

LEE R. PAULSON is Program Director for Resource Management in the Board on Environmental Sciences and Toxicology. She has served as project director or senior staff officer for numerous National Research Council studies, including Setting Priorities for Land Conservation, Hazardous Materials on the Public Lands, Animals as Sentinels of Environmental Health Hazards, The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence, and Monitoring Human Tissues for Toxic Substances.

BOARD ON AGRICULTURE

BOARD ON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND TOXICOLOGY

COMMISSION ON LIFE SCIENCES

Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) has been the subject of much debate and national attention. In the conduct of this study, we had the opportunity to hear many views and deeply held convictions. But at the heart of the controversy over bison management is the need for a solid scientific underpinning. To that end, we directed our efforts to identifying current research and reviewing previous research. We made every effort to represent accurately consensus views of researchers and other experts. It is our hope that this report will provide a basis for future endeavors related to managing brucellosis in the GYA and that science can be melded with policy to resolve many of the difficult issues faced by the governmental parties involved in brucellosis management. Each entity has been faced with pressures to act in the best interests of their commercial or recreational users. We further hope that this report will provide a beginning for use of emerging technology to develop a plan appropriate to the task, and one that is in best interests of the nation.

We are deeply grateful to the many colleagues who have contributed data for the manuscript during its development. A great many people have been most generous in providing us with much data, information, and observations on brucellosis, on the Greater Yellowstone Area, and on a wide variety of animals and their behavior. We wish to acknowledge in particular Drs. Steven Olsen (USDA), Mitchell Palmer, Jack Rhyan (USDA), and Beth Williams (University of Wyoming) for contributing data, graphs, and photographs of brucellosis in bison. The perspective of Mary Meagher, who has spent a lifetime with bison, was invaluable. Tom Thorne and Terry Kreeger, of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, whose studies of diseases of wildlife and initiative in organizing the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Commission, were responsible for much of our practical understanding of brucellosis in elk of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The work of the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee, particularly under the influence of Drs. Dan Huff and Bob Hillman, was crucial to our understanding of the cooperation and compromise that will be required to solve this brucellosis dilemma. Data obtained from the current bison study in the YNP by Keith Aune (Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks), Peter Gogan (U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division), Jack Rhyan, Tom Roffe (USGS, BRD), and Mark Taper (Montana State University, Bozeman) gave great insight into where we are going with brucellosis in Bison bison.

Additional thanks and appreciation are due to Joel Berger, University of Nevada, Reno; Mark Boyce, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point; Wayne Brewster, Yellowstone National Park; Steve Cain, Grand Teton National Park; Franz Camenzind, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Wyoming; Andrew Clark, State Veterinarian, Oregon; Ron Cole, Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge, Oregon; Walt Cook, University of Wyoming; Lynette Corbeil, University of California San Diego; Don Davis and James Derr, Texas A & M University; Phil Elzer and Fred Enright, Louisiana State University; Darla Ewalt, USDA, APHIS; Phillip Farnes, Snowcap Hydrology, Bozeman, Montana; Elmer Finck, Emporia State University, Kansas; Robert Garrott, Montana State University, Bozeman; Eric Gese, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado; Mike Gilsdorf, USDA, APHIS; Scott Grothe, Montana State University, Bozeman; Sam Holland, State Veterinarian, South Dakota; Tom Lemke, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; John Linnell, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research; Paul Nicoletti, Florida State University; Richard Ockenfels, Arizona Game and Fish Department; Rolf Peterson, Michigan Technological University, Houghton; Paul Rebich, Bigsky Beefalo, Montana; David Sands, Montana State University; D. J. Schubert, The Fund for Animals, Meyer & Glitzenstein, Washington, D. C.; Steve Sheffield, Clemson University; Bruce Smith, National Elk Refuge, Wyoming; Scott Smith, Wyoming Game and Fish Department; M. Stewart, USDA, APHIS; Ken Taylor, Alaska Department of Fish and Game; John Weaver, Wildlife Conservation Society; and Randall Zarnke, Alaska Department of Game and Fish, Fairbanks.

Several persons gave of their time and expertise to review this document, and we thank them for their critical input: Beverly Byrum, Ohio Department of Agriculture, Reynoldsburg; Franz Camenzind, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Wyoming; Robert Ehlenfeldt, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Madison; Will Garner, Logan, Utah; Burke Healey, State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City; Daniel Jarboe, Ft. Detrick, Maryland; R. Langford, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C.; Robert Mead, Washington Department of Agriculture, Olympia; Gordon Orians, Seattle, Washington; David Pascual, Montana State University, Bozeman; Duncan Patten, Bozeman, Montana; George Seidel, Colorado State, Ft. Collins; Morton Swartz, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Steve Torbit, National Wildlife Federation Rocky Mountain Natural Resources Center, Boulder; Fred Wagner, Utah State.

We are also grateful to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt for making this work possible, as well as administrators and scientists within the National Park System of the U. S. Department of Interior, and in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Special thanks are owed to Margaret Jaeger and Thomas Kucera for their dedicated work in gathering information from scattered sources and preparation of the manuscript. Special thanks also are due to Kathy Iverson for arranging meetings, logistics, and travel and to Stephanie Parker, who designed and crafted the web page to keep the public informed of project progress.

And finally, it has been our good fortune to work with Lee Paulson as project director—incisive, enthusiastic, highly literate, and up-front, she brought to the project the capacity to shift rapidly through conflicting opinions to identify and focus on essential items.

Norman F. Cheville  
Dale R. McCullough  

Background
Structure of This Study

Bison and Cattle
B. Abortus Infection and Transmission

Persistence in Pregnancy
Periodic Bacteremia in Chronic Infection
Transmission to Scavengers and Predators
Shedding in Mammary Glands and Milk
Shedding in Feces
Infection in Males
Detecting Infected Animals

Serology

The False-Negative Serologic Test
The False-Positive Serologic Test
Bacterial Culture
Correlation of Serology with Bacterial Culture
Immunity
Likelihood of Infectiousness
Minimum Infectious Dose
True Prevalence of B. Abortus in GYA Bison and Elk

Bison
Elk
Infection in Other Mammals in the GYA

Canids
Moose
Horse
Bear, Deer, and Other Big Game

Bison, Elk, and Cattle
Epidemiologic Evidence of Transmission from Wildlife to Cattle
Bison and Elk Behavior and Transmission
Transmission by Other Species of Ungulates
Potential Role of Carnivores in Transmission
Role of Other Wildlife Species
Bison Movement Out of Yellowstone National Park

Weather and Bison
Natural Regulation in YNP Bison
Influences of Plowing and Grooming Snow
Bison in Grand Teton National Park and the National Elk Refuge
Elk in the Greater Yellowstone Area

Northern Elk Herd Movements Out of Yellowstone National Park
Other Elk Herds in the GYA
Effects on Reproductive Potential
Risk of Transmission

Bison to Cattle
Elk to Cattle
Elk to Bison
Bison to Elk
Elk as a Reinfection Pathway for Bison
Other GYA Wildlife to Cattle
Transmission to Humans in the GYA
Other Species of Brucella and Brucellosis in Wildlife

Existing Vaccines

Strain 19

S19 in Bison
S19 in Elk
Strain RB51
Other Vaccines
Efficacy

Strain Survival
Route

Parenteral Injection
Biobullet
Oral
Dose
Age
Other Factors to Consider
Duration of Immunity
Serologic Responses
Biosafety of Vaccines

Clinical Signs of Disease
Bacteria in Body Secretions
Bacteria in the Bloodstream
Persistence in Regional Lymph Nodes
Immune Response
Absence of Inflammation or Chronic Tissue Injury
Capacity to Induce Abortion
Experimental Recrudescence
Genetic Stability
Vaccination Program Success

Previous Bison-Vaccination Programs in National and State Parks
Approaches to Controlling or Eliminating Brucellosis in YNP
Field Delivery of a Vaccination Program for YNP Bison

Vaccine DeIivery in Food or via Injection
Venereal Immunization
Vaccination of Cattle
Limiting Cattle Near Park Borders to Steers
Effects of Test-and-Slaughter Programs on Genetic Diversity
Natural Regulation and Brucellosis Control
Adaptive Management

Agenda, 24-26 July 1997, Bozeman, MT
Agenda, 4 August 1997, Jackson, WY
Evaluation of Brucella abortus Vaccine Strain RB51 in Bison, Philip H. Elzer and Donald S. Davis
Evaluation of the Vaccine Efficacy of RB51 Administered Orally in Elk, Philip H. Elzer, Gerhardt G. Schurig, Fred M. Enright, and Donald S. Davis
Issues in Vaccination for Brucellosis, Fred M. Enright
Oral RB51 Vaccination of Elk: Tissue Colonization and Immune Response, Wyoming Game and Fish Department with Louisiana State University and Virginia Polytechnic Institute
RB51 Vaccination of Elk: Safety and Efficacy, Wyoming Game and Fish Department with University of Wyoming, Louisiana State University and Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area: What is the Problem?, Paul Nicoletti
Safety and Efficacy of Existing Vaccines to Prevent Brucellosis in Bison, Steven Olsen
Lesions and Sites of Tissue Localization of Brucella abortus in Female Bison from Yellowstone National Park: Preliminary Results, Jack C. Rhyan, Keith Aune, Thomas J. Roffe, Thomas Gidlewski, Darla R. Ewalt, and Michael Philo

In the winter of 1996-1997, the Yellowstone National Park (YNP) bison (Bison bison) population was more than 3,400 animals. Harsh weather that winter forced record numbers of bison to leave the park in search of forage; other animals in the park starved. National attention focused on management strategies—including shooting bison—used to prevent the possible spread of brucellosis from park bison to cattle that are grazed on land adjacent to the park.

Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) is a disease caused by Brucella abortus, a bacterial organism transmitted primarily by contact with products of birth or abortion or by milk. B. abortus probably is not native to North America but was introduced with European cattle and then transmitted to wildlife; it was first detected in YNP bison in 1917 and has been present ever since. Brucellosis can be transmitted from one species to another, and concern has been expressed for many years over the potential for wildlife in the GYA to spread brucellosis to cattle that graze on land in or adjacent to the GYA and for cattle then to transmit the disease to other species, including humans.

In response to public discussion of whether brucellosis transmission by bison or elk (Cervus elaphus) is a threat to domestic livestock and whether vaccination or other management strategies might prove useful in controlling potential transmission, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt asked the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a 6-month study of brucellosis in the GYA. The Board on Agriculture and the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology began the study in May 1997 to look specifically at the following issues:

• The extent of bison infection with brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area and the potential of developing a vaccine program.

• The transmission of B. abortus among cattle, bison, elk, and other wildlife species.

• The relationship, if any, between bison population dynamics and brucellosis.

• The ability of serology testing to estimate true infectiousness.

• The efficacy and safety of existing vaccines for target and nontarget species and the need for new (including bison-specific) vaccines.

• The nature and likely successes or limitations of a wild animal vaccination program.

• Key factors in reducing risk of transmission from wildlife to cattle and among cattle.

Some claim that the possibility that bison or other wildlife transmit brucellosis to cattle is remote and that no management strategies are needed. Others claim that any risk of transmission is unacceptable for public health and economic reasons, and brucellosis must be eradicated from the wild. This study assesses the current state of knowledge about brucellosis infection and transmission, makes recommendations for further research, and examines the implications of various management options.

CHARACTERIZATION OF BRUCELLOSIS INFECTION

Brucellosis can be transmitted among species; in humans, it is usually characterized by a fluctuating body temperature. Although rarely fatal, human brucellosis is recurrent and debilitating. The success of treating individuals varies widely, and lifelong infection is not unusual. Human brucellosis is not a widespread health threat today in North America because of efforts to eradicate brucellosis in cattle and the use of sanitary procedures (such as pasteurization) in milk processing; human infection that does occur today generally is among people who handle infected tissues, such as veterinary workers and hunters. The hallmark sign of brucellosis in cattle, bison, and elk is abortion or birth of nonviable calves.

Because of its potential to be transmitted to humans, brucellosis is one of the most regulated diseases of cattle in the United States. Cattle shipped interstate are tested routinely only for brucellosis and tuberculosis, although other diseases cause markedly more morbidity and mortality. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) established the national brucellosis eradication effort in 1934 to address public health concerns and the economic consequences to the cattle industry resulting from infected herds; that effort implemented the standards for testing, quarantine, and elimination that remain in place today. Since 1934, an estimated $3.5 billion in federal, state, and private funds has been spent on brucellosis eradication in domestic livestock. The present National Brucellosis Program is run by the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which has a goal of eradicating brucellosis from U.S. cattle and captive bison herds by 1998. Only 12 cattle herds were infected at the time of this report.

As part of its efforts to eradicate brucellosis, APHIS certifies states as brucellosis-free, class A, class B, or class C, depending on the rate of infection in all cattle herds in a state. No states carry class B or C status today—an indication of the success of eradication strategies. A state's classification is important because if B. abortus is detected, numerous costs are incurred, such as those related to testing procedures, but perhaps the most important costs are those associated with the refusal of other states to accept a state's cattle because of the perception that B. abortus might be present. Many states prohibit importation of unvaccinated breeding cattle.

By authorizing USDA to regulate brucellosis transmission in cattle, the federal government has demonstrated concern that although a low risk, brucellosis poses a potentially great-loss situation in terms of potential economic consequences and possible human health effects. This report was written with that federal recognition in mind.

DETECTION OF BRUCELLOSIS

When present, B. abortus usually is found in the organs and tissues of the reproductive system and mammary gland, associated lymph nodes, and lymph nodes of the head and neck. Bison with non-reproductive-tract infection generally do not pose a risk of transmission to elk or cattle, although there are exceptions. But it is unlikely that large numbers of animals in a herd would be infected in lymphoid tissues without also being infected in the reproductive system or mammary gland. The two most likely events during which transmission could occur are abortion or birth.

Animais are tested for brucellosis using serologic tests (blood tests to detect that antibodies are present as a result of an infection) and bacterial cultures (where bacteria from tissue samples are grown under laboratory conditions). Both methods have flaws. A serologic result can be a good indicator of infection, but because it detects antibodies, not living bacteria, it is indirect evidence of infection or vaccination. Thus, a seropositive animal might not be infectious. Some 30-40% of bison in YNP have positive blood tests for antibodies (are "seropositive") for B. abortus; in the Jackson bison herd, 77% of the animals sampled are seropositive. About 1-2% of elk that do not frequent winter feeding grounds are seropositive, but in some feeding grounds, the rate is much higher—about37%—because dense concentrations of elk create conditions favorable to disease transmission.

An animal might be infected but test seronegative in several situations, such as when antibodies have not yet developed because the test is taken in early stages of disease incubation, when a test is not sensitive enough to detect low levels of antibodies, or when the test itself is defective. False positive tests also occur.

Finding: Seronegative results do not necessarily establish the absence of infection, because some seronegative animals in chronically infected herds are carrying live B. abortus.

Bacterial culture is the definitive test of infection, but in chronic infections, such as those present in the YNP bison herd, few bacteria might be present in an animal. That makes accurate culture difficult—obtaining the correct tissue and the correct sample size can be problematic. Therefore, although bacterial culture does not yield false-positive results, it does give false negative results.

Although high serologic responses correlate well with bacterial cultures in bison, the relationship between serologic tests and bacterial culture is difficult to ascertain, because quantitative assessments to examine the relationships have not been done. A substantial part of the differences in GYA bison between the high percent of seropositivity and the much lower percent of positive bacterial results most likely is due to culture or sampling techniques. Multiple serologic tests and bacterial cultures on the same animals over time are the most reliable method to determine infection in live animaIs.

Recommendation: Because of testing insufficiencies, seropositive bison should be assumed for management purposes to be carrying live B. abortus.

RISK OF TRANSMISSION

Much of what we know about brucellosis in the GYA has been extrapolated from research conducted on cattle. Almost no controlled research has been done concerning transmission between wildlife species and cattle. YNP and Grand Teton National Park (GTNP) bison populations are chronically infected with B. abortus, as are elk populations, but the true prevalence of brucellosis in GYA bison and elk is unknown. The risk of transmission is determined by the number of abortions that occur, the presence and survival of B.abortus in aborted tissues, and the exposure of a susceptible host. The number of abortions or fetal deaths in bison since brucellosis first was detected in the GYA in 1917 is unknown, but in the past decade, two cases have been documented. Cattle, bison, and elk are susceptible to the same strain of B. abortus, and transmission between species has been demonstrated experimentally. Epidemiologic evidence, particularly that from GTNP and the National Elk Refuge (NER) points to transmission between free-roaming bison and elk and cattle as well.

Finding: The risk of bison or elk transmitting brucellosis to cattle is small, but it is not zero.

Transmission of B. abortus from elk to cattle is unlikely in a natural setting, because elk usually avoid areas used by cattle and isolate themselves for birth, but elk are capable of transmitting the bacteria to cattle. If cattle in the GYA mingled with aborting elk on the feeding grounds (which are maintained to promote herd growth for recreational hunting, to keep elk from straying where cattle are present, and to prevent damage to private hay crops) they would be at high risk for infection because of the high abortion rate among feeding-ground elk and the high concentration of animals. Elk also can transmit the bacteria to bison, and this might have occurred in the GYA. Under present conditions, even if low infection rates were attained for bison, an elk-to-bison or bison-to-elk transmission eventually would occur. Many more elk than bison are present in the GYA.

Finding: If infection rates are not substantially reduced in elk, reinfection of bison is inevitable.

Finding: B. abortus is unlikely to be maintained in elk if the elk winter-feeding grounds were closed.

There is no risk of B. abortus transmission to cattle from bison if bison do not leave YNP. Strategies such as discontinuing road grooming (packing snow on park roads, which some believe provides an energy-efficient travel route for bison) have been suggested to relieve the need for artificial control outside the park. But an expanding bison population searching for forage is the fundamental force pushing bison put of YNP, and the bison population will continue to increase over several years until a high population combined with a harsh winter reduces the population again. (In contrast, northern herd elk are fluctuating about a dynamic equilibrium in response to the local food-resource carrying capacity, as well as winter stress conditions.)

Finding: Brucellosis is not a major factor in herd survival for elk or bison; among natural variables, winter mortality is the most important.

Finding: Bison leave YNP as a result of an increasing population and harsh winter weather, and under current management practices within the boundaries of YNP, the bison population will continue to grow.

Other species in the GYA, such as coyotes, grizzly bears, and wolves, can be infected by B. abortus. The transfer of infection among elk, bison, and cattle by those species is rare, although it cannot be ruled out completely. Carnivores and predators might contribute to transmission by transporting infectious materials from one site to another, but this probably is outweighed by the fact that carnivores and predators typically sanitize a site, thereby reducing the chance of transmission.

REDUCING THE RISK OF TRANSMISSION

Although the risk of B. abortus transmission is low, it can be reduced further with a combination of management options. The options for dealing with brucellosis range from doing nothing to attempting eradication of the disease.

• If nothing is done, bison and elk will be infected at the balance between the rate of transmission within and among species and the frequency of natural (that is, genetic) resistance to B. abortus.

• If a program to control brucellosis were undertaken, a variety of approaches could be exercised, some of which could be undertaken at the same time. The approaches taken would depend on short- and long-term goals. Several approaches to control and eventual eradication of brucellosis are available, including vaccination, establishment of perimeter zones, spatial and temporal separation of cattle and bison, and vaccination with herd management (which might include testing and eliminating infected animals). Those approaches could be used individually or combined, depending on the degree of control determined to be in the best national interest. Other possibilities for control might arise, particularly as vaccine development progresses.

• A program to eradicate brucellosis entirely would need to include an extensive vaccination effort, as well as a test-and-slaughter component with simultaneous elimination of all infected bison, elk, and cattle. If brucellosis were eradicated from those species, the reservoirs of B. abortus in other wild species are expected to disappear on their own. Total eradication of brucellosis as a goal is more a statement of principle than a workable program at present; neither sufficient information nor technical capability is available to implement a brucellosis-eradication program in the GYA. No good vaccine or vaccine delivery mechanism is available at present—it would be impossible to vaccinate all GYA elk, and attempts to vaccinate bison (for example, by rounding them up) likely would be very intrusive.

Some measures can be taken immediately that would provide a good first step in reducing the risk of transmission from wildlife to cattle, regardless of final goals. The concept of surveillance zones might well be applicable to risk control for brucellosis in the entire GYA. This report emphasizes bison in YNP because of the importance of that problem in recent years when bison movements in hard winters forced a response by management agencies.

Recommendation: USDA and DOI should develop a plan to maintain a series of YNP perimeter zones with progressively increasing disease surveillance, vigorous monitoring, vaccination, and contact-reporting programs as one nears the park. The boundaries of the zones and management needed to maintain the zones should be determined jointly by USDA, DOI, and the states surrounding YNP. The plan should remain in place until brucellosis is eliminated from YNP.

It is important that a team of scientists be involved in this program and that results be analyzed and published in a refereed scientific journal.

Vaccination is an essential component of any program to control or eradicate brucellosis. Two vaccines—Strain 19 (S19) and Strain RB51—are used in cattle to protect against B. abortus infection. The vaccines do not produce complete protection in cattle, and the data available suggest that is also true for bison and elk. However, appropriate efficacy (the ability of a vaccine to produce desired effects) and safety tests have not been conducted for bison or elk; doses for commercial bison herds follow recommended doses for cattle. There are many unknowns besides correct ranges of dose for bison and elk, including appropriate routes, duration of immunity, and age and sex differences.

Recommendation: A long-term, controlled vaccination study must be conducted to assess the complete role of vaccination in brucellosis control and eradication for bison and elk.

An effective vaccination program would aid in reaching short-term disease control measures. Any program with a vaccination component would need to account for the large numbers of elk in the GYA, the high seropositivity rates in feeding-ground elk, and the potential for reinfection of bison by elk.

Recommendation: Any vaccination program for bison must be accompanied by a concomitant program for elk.

Recommendation: If the current vaccination program in elk feeding grounds is continued, it should include collection of serologic and culture data and appropriate epidemiologic analysis.

A coordinated, phased plan could be developed for research on the vaccination of bison, with phases that begin in sequence but could occur simultaneously. Such a plan might include collection and analyses of data from commercial bison herd vaccination programs that are under way, expansion of current experimental research on characterization of candidate vaccines in bison, and development of a field vaccination study of bison that are inside the GYA, but outside YNP.

The steps beyond a vaccination program are unclear. Whether a test-and-slaughter program is needed will depend on whether eradication is a feasible and desirable end point; further research on transmission and efficacious vaccines will be needed. The outcome of maintaining perimeter zones also will be important in determining whether eradication of brucellosis in the GYA is desirable.

An adaptive management approach that had research designed to provide data to reduce areas of current uncertainty should eventually give a more realistic assessment of the feasibility of eradication of B. abortus in the GYA. In adaptive management, management and research are combined so that projects are specifically designed to reveal causal relationships between interventions and outcomes, that is, to maximize learning.

Recommendation: A brucellosis program for wildlife in the GYA should be approached in an adaptive management framework.

It might prove impossible for various reasons to eliminate brucellosis from bison and elk in the GYA, so the best that could be achieved would be risk control. Bison might continue to require artificial control (such as shooting bison that leave the park), either at current or redrawn lines. Nevertheless, a cooperative arrangement to pursue systematically a pragmatic program is the best route to the highest result that can be achieved.

Recommendation: Clear short-term strategies to arrive at long-term goals must be defined and agreed upon by the federal and state entities that are involved in GYA management.

Current research and funding cannot be relied upon to sustain any long-term program effectively. As is evident from the science reviewed for this report, studies have been characterized by stop-and-go funding and elusive goals. Sample sizes have been inadequate and studies have been of insufficient duration.

Recommendation: Research priorities with sufficient funding need to be determined cooperatively and with the support of the secretaries of the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture.

If public opinion and political directions are aligned to a common goal, and if long-term commitments can be made by the federal departments and agencies involved, it is likely that brucellosis can be eliminated from YNP without loss of large numbers of bison or loss of genetic diversity. To be successful, society and government must support, over the long term, studies that define the ecology of the GYA, develop new vaccine technologies and delivery mechanisms for bison and elk, and produce diagnostic reagents with greater sensitivity and specificity.

Other factors will affect efforts to control or eradicate brucellosis in the GYA. They are as varied as weather, environmental change, and funding for research and management in our parks. As an added variable, future shifts in public opinion could determine the fate of any eradication effort-opinion not only on how we view bison and elk, but on the acceptability of having brucellosis in the park.