National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Summary
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Revisiting Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24750.
×
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Revisiting Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24750.
×
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Revisiting Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24750.
×
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Revisiting Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24750.
×
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Revisiting Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24750.
×
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Revisiting Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24750.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Revisiting Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24750.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Revisiting Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24750.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Revisiting Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24750.
×
Page 18

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

1 Introduction 1. BACKGROUND Brucellosis, a zoonotic bacterial disease, was first noted in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) in 1917 and has been present in the GYA since then. In 1998, the National Research Council (NRC, now referred to as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, or “the National Acade- mies”) was asked to review the scientific knowledge regarding Brucella abortus transmission among wildlife—particularly bison and elk—and cattle in the GYA (NRC, 1998). That study considered the mechanisms of transmission, risk of infection, and vaccination strategies. It also assessed the infection rate among bison and elk and described what was known about the prevalence of B. abortus among other wildlife. Since that study was conducted, brucellosis has re-emerged in domestic cattle and bison herds in the GYA. From 1990 to 2001, no infected domestic herds were identified. However, between April 2002 and November 2016, 22 beef cattle herds and 5 domestic bison herds were found to be infected. Brucellosis is a nationally and internationally regulated disease, and the GYA is the last known B. abortus reservoir in the United States. Brucellosis infection and its management have multiple consequences for the local GYA economies (related to livestock and wildlife), and can potentially affect export of domestic livestock nationally and internationally. In cattle, B. abortus infection results in late-gestation abortion, decreased milk production, loss of fertility, and lameness. Placental infection with production of very high numbers of bacteria is the dominant pathologic manifestation associated with transmission. A similar clinical syndrome occurs in bison infected with B. abortus (Rhyan et al., 2009). In the United States, brucellosis is no longer a major human health concern (CDC, 2012). However, in less-developed countries, brucellosis in humans result- ing from direct exposure to infective material and consumption of unpasteurized milk products is a seri- ous recurring illness; it is consistently one of the most economically important zoonoses globally (McDermott et al., 2013). Brucella bacteria have been found in flies (Musca autumnalis) associated with cattle and lungworms of seals (Garner et al., 1997); however, there is no current evidence that suggests that these are important vectors of disease transmission. Brucellosis is endemic in bison and elk in the GYA. The GYA is home to more than 5,500 bison that are the genetic descendants of the original free-ranging bison herds that survived in the early 1900s. Roughly 60% of Yellowstone bison are seropositive for Brucella (Hobbs et al., 2015). The GYA also is home to more than 125,000 elk, whose habitats are managed through interagency efforts, including the National Elk Refuge and 22 supplemental winter feedgrounds maintained in Wyoming. Seroprevalence in feedground elk ranges from about 10 to 40% (Scurlock and Edwards, 2010). Feedgrounds reduce the seasonal loss of elk in winter, thereby increasing the elk population and changing other elk behaviors, such as those related to parturition. Comingling of elk with cattle is the cause of current brucellosis outbreaks in cattle. Although most cattle in the GYA are vaccinated with B. abortus strain RB51, it does not necessarily prevent infection while it does reduce abortions (Olsen, 2000). 10 Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Revision

Introduction B. abortus isolates recovered from infected cattle very closely resemble or are indistinguishable from iso- lates in wild elk. Over the past decade, seroprevalence in some elk herds increased without direct expo- sure to feedground elk. This finding suggests that brucellosis is now self-sustaining in free-ranging elk distant from the feedgrounds, and thus accounts for increased risk to cattle. Other factors that increase the complexity in managing brucellosis and the Yellowstone ecosystem include the 1995 reintroduction and subsequent recovery in numbers of grey wolves in Yellowstone, changes in land use, and changes in fed- eral and state regulations. The GYA now is home to 400-450 wolves (Jimenez and Becker, 2015), which prey primarily on elk. Furthermore, the grizzly bear population has increased, with 150 having home terri- tories in the Park itself (Yellowstone Park, 2016) and approximately 500-600 with ranges in the GYA (USFWS, 2016). These changes have led to movement of elk outside Yellowstone National Park and into areas where increased exposure to cattle can occur. In 1998, bison were the primary focus of the NRC’s evaluation of brucellosis in the GYA. Since that time, the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP) was implemented to achieve the spatial separation of bison and cattle, which has dramatically reduced the risk of bison transmitting B. abortus to cattle. Bi- son remain an important focus, but it is clearly evident that the rate of transmission from elk has increased significantly. The GYA is a complex and dynamic ecosystem that requires a reanalysis of changed and changing factors, and recommendations on strategies and goals in light of those factors. 2. THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE AREA The GYA (see Figure 1-1) has been defined as the general area including and surrounding Yellow- stone and Grand Teton National Parks, spanning about 400 km north-to-south and 200 km east-to-west (White et al., 2015). The general boundaries of the GYA were delimited by the Greater Yellowstone Co- ordinating Committee in 1994 (McIntyre and Ellis, 2011). The GYA consists of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks as core natural areas that are surrounded by six national forests, three national wild- life refuges, state lands, Bureau of Land Management land parcels, and private and tribal lands (White et al., 2015). These areas are administered by many different federal and state management entities. The federal agencies responsible for overseeing those lands include the National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM)—which are part of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)—and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (FS). The state agencies include Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MDFWP), Montana Department of Livestock, Wyo- ming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), and Wyoming Livestock Board. 2.1 Terminology The GYA is included within an area that has been referred to as the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), one of the largest, mostly intact, temperate ecosystems in the world (Keiter and Boyce, 1991). The GYE was originally defined as the range of the Yellowstone grizzly bear (Craighead, 1991; Gude et al., 2006), but ecosystem boundaries are somewhat subjective and dependent on movements and interac- tions among many species. For the purposes of this report, the area of interest includes the GYA, but also areas in and near the GYA where brucellosis is known to occur in elk and bison and where there is a risk of transmission to domestic livestock and domestic bison herds (see Figure 1-2). Areas with brucellosis presence or risk of transmission are included in the brucellosis designated surveillance areas (DSAs) of eastern Idaho, southwest Montana, and western Wyoming. Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Revision 11

Revisiting Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area g i r e FIGURE 1-1 Map of the Greater Yello 1 e owstone Area by jurisdiction. SOURCE: NP 2016. b PS, 2.2 Bison and Elk Popu a ulations As of 2016, the GYA support more than 5,500 bison. The great ma o G ts 5 ajority are fou in the Ye und ellow- stone National Park (YYNP) herd wh varies in size between 3,000-6,000 animals. Sin 1998, whe the hich n 0 nce en previous NRC brucello report wa written, th YNP bison population h increased from 3,000- N osis as he n has d -4,000 to 4,000-5 5,000. YNP bison are prim b marily found within the Par boundaries but they also use areas ou w rk s, utside of the Par to the nor and west. The YNP he consists o two subhe rk rth erd of erds, central a northern, with and , some interchange betw ween them. In contrast to 1998 when the were cons ere siderably mor bison in the cen- re e tral herd than in the northern herd, there are no more biso in the nort t ow on thern herd. A second and much smaller he of about 700 bison has a core range inside of Gra Teton Na erd 7 and ational Park w most win with ntering on the Naational Elk Re efuge (Koshm 2015). mrl, 12 Pre epublication Copy—Subje to Further Editorial Rev ect r vision

In ntroduction FIGURE 1-2 Map show wing GYA bou undary and des signated survei illance areas as of 2016. SOU s URCE: White et al., 2015. Ther are more th 125,000 elk in the GY Several h re han e YA. herds have win ranges in and around YNP, nter n including the northern Yellowstone winter range herd, which was, up until recently, the largest herd in the l e GYA. A second set of herds, the Ja s f ackson herds, have winter ranges in the southern par of the GYA in- e rts A, cluding th USFWS National Elk Refuge and su he N R urrounding a areas near the town of Jackson. The Ja e ackson herd has been larger th the northe Yellowsto herd for t past two decades. Wit b han ern one the thin YNP, elk have k been man naged by NPS under a pol S licy of natura regulation, in which it i hypothesiz that the a al is zed area is large enou for popul ugh lations to be regulated by food limitati on or predati ion, without a need for art tificial reductions However, YNP elk rang extend be s. Y ges eyond park booundaries. Elk outside YN are manag by k NP ged state and federal wildlife managem ment agencies. YNP provid summer r . des range for 6-7 elk herds, m of most which spe the winter at lower elev end r vations outsid YNP (NPS 2015). de S, Prepublic cation Copy— —Subject to Fu urther Editori Revision ial 13

Revisiting Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area 3. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEXITY OF THE GYA 3.1 Regulatory Authority of Various Species Cattle, bison, and elk are managed by different state and federal agencies. For cattle, the U.S. De- partment of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) has regulatory oversight of livestock, with objectives to safeguard livestock health, maintain the economic viability and trade capabilities of the U.S. cattle industry, and protect public health and food safety (Clarke, 2015). USDA-APHIS has the national authority to suppress and prevent the spread of any contagious and infec- tious disease of livestock, which could include establishing quarantines, regulating the movement of live- stock, and seizing and disposing of livestock (Clarke, 2015). Similarly, state departments of agriculture or their equivalent have regulatory oversight of livestock and are responsible for protecting producers, trad- ing partners, and public health in their respective states. Bison and elk move across wide ranges of land, and not surprisingly their management crosses ad- ministrative boundaries. The NPS has jurisdiction in managing bison within Yellowstone and Grand Te- ton National Parks. Outside the national parks, bison are under the authority of state agencies and may be considered as either wildlife or livestock, depending on the context. In Wyoming, bison are considered wildlife in designated specific areas adjacent to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks (Becker et al., 2013). In Montana, the Yellowstone bison population is considered as wildlife, with the Montana De- partment of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks managing hunting on lands adjacent to YNP and with the Montana Department of Livestock in charge of disease control management (Becker et al., 2013). For the purpose of brucellosis management, USDA considers all bison removed from YNP as alternate livestock (Becker et al., 2013). Only in the event of a national disease emergency would USDA-APHIS have authority over wildlife. For elk, DOI has jurisdiction inside Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, the USDA FS is responsible for providing habitat on National Forest lands, the BLM has authority over its land parcels, and the USFWS (DOI) manages the National Elk Refuge. With regard to the states, the state wildlife management agencies in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have authority over elk population management anywhere outside of the national parks. In addition to the state and federal agencies, there are three Native American Indian reservations in the near vicinity of the DSA: Fort Hall, Wind River, and Crow. The Fort Hall Reservation of the Shosho- ne-Bannock Tribes is in south eastern Idaho (over 2,000 km2). The Wind River Reservation created for the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes is approximately 9,000 km2, and is located on the eastern side of the Wind River mountains in Wyoming. Wild bison were recently translocated into the Wind River Reservation in 2016. The Crow Indian Reservation for the Crow Tribe is located in Montana north of the Bighorn mountains (9,300 km2). 3.2 Coordination and Management of Bison and Elk Among Agencies Yellowstone elk populations migrate, disperse, and utilize habitats outside of the national parks and are managed by state wildlife authorities for recreational hunting. This means that despite any policy of natural regulation or ecosystem process management of the NPS, elk populations that spend a part of the year inside Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks can be and are managed by state game man- agement agencies through hunter harvests, to varying degrees. The extent to which hunting controls elk populations relative to habitat and food limitation and winter weather inside YNP and GTNP has been insufficiently recognized or characterized. Clearly a major goal of state wildlife authorities is to produce thriving and sustainable populations of wildlife, primarily for hunting and fishing. However, state wildlife authorities also serve multiple stakeholders. For example, MDFWP manages Montana’s fish and wildlife populations and habitats while balancing the interests of groups such as hunters, outdoor recreationists, visitors, landowners, and the general public (MDFWP, 2004). Consistent with the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System in sustaining healthy wildlife populations (USFWS/NPS, 2007), the mission of 14 Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Revision

Introduction the USFWS’s National Elk Refuge is to “contribute to elk and bison populations that are healthy and able to adapt to changing conditions in the environment and that are at reduced risk from the adverse effect of non-endemic diseases.” The need for coordination among agencies in managing bison and elk led to the formation of nu- merous coordinated management plans such as the IBMP (2014) and the Bison and Elk Management Plan for the National Elk Refuge and Grand Teton National Parks (USFWS/NPS, 2007). It also led to numer- ous interagency working groups and committees, such as the Northern Yellowstone Cooperative Wildlife Working Group (which coordinates management of the northern Yellowstone elk herd) (Cross, 2013), the Jackson Interagency Habitat Initiative, and the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee (which is no longer operational). Similar GYA-scale efforts have been organized for grizzly bears (Inter- agency Grizzly Bear Study Team), and wolves (Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program, Jimenez and Becker, 2015). 4. PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY The USDA-APHIS requested that the National Academies revisit the issue of brucellosis in the GYA. The primary motivation for USDA-APHIS was to understand the factors associated with the in- creased occurrence of brucellosis transmission from wildlife to livestock, the recent apparent expansion of brucellosis in non-feedground elk, and the desire to have science inform the future course of any actions used to address brucellosis in the GYA. Although USDA-APHIS commissioned the study to inform its brucellosis eradication strategy, the GYA comprises some 145,000 km2, including state, federal (BLM), private, and tribal lands, as well as national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. Each political entity has its own mission and goals, including disease management, ecosystem management, and recreational pur- poses. This subject is of great interest to many of widely divergent backgrounds and experience, and pub- lic opinion also needs to be accounted for as YNP is a national icon. Therefore, a broader audience for the report is addressed apart from USDA-APHIS, including other federal agencies such as the NPS and the USDA Forest Service, state and tribal governments, and the public, both nationally and locally, including hunters and ranchers with economic interests in wildlife and domestic food animals in the GYA. The Statement of Task for the study attempts to address those concerns and encompass the complexity of the issues (see Box 1-1). 5. APPROACH TO THE TASK The National Academies convened a committee of 11 experts who collectively have extensive expe- rience in veterinary pathology, wildlife biology, molecular immunology, vaccinology, laboratory diagnos- tics, brucellosis regulatory program management, disease modeling, ecology, and agricultural and natural resource economics. (See Appendix A for committee membership and biographies.) Using the 1998 re- port as a launching point for the current report, the committee conducted an extensive scientific literature review to inform its current understanding of brucellosis. The committee held three meetings as part of the information-gathering process1 (see Appendix B on Open Session Meeting Agendas). The committee solicited information from multiple sources, includ- ing the sponsor (USDA-APHIS), the NPS, USDA FS, and the state governments of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. To augment its understanding of the GYA, the committee participated in a field trip through 1 As part of the information-gathering process, materials submitted to the committee (presentations and written materials) by external sources are listed in the project’s public access file and can be made available to the public upon request by contacting the Public Access Records Office: paro@nas.edu. Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Revision 15

Revisiting Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area BOX 1-1 Statement of Task In an update of the National Research Council (NRC) report Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area (1998), an NRC-appointed committee will comprehensively review and evaluate the available scientific literature and other information on the prevalence and spread of Brucella abortus in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) in wild and domestic animals and examine the feasibility, time-frame, and cost-effectiveness of options to contain or suppress brucellosis across the region. The study will examine factors associated with the increased occurrence of brucellosis transmission from wildlife to livestock and the recent expansion of brucellosis in non-feedground elk, including whether evidence suggests that brucellosis is self-sustaining in elk or if reinfection through emigration from feeding grounds is occurring. The study also will explore the role of feeding grounds, predators, population size and other factors in facilitating brucellosis infection. The study committee will examine disease management activities and vaccination strategies being undertaken or considered at the state, regional, and federal level, and evaluate the biological, animal health, and public health effects of those activities. The committee also will examine the current state of brucellosis vaccines, vaccine delivery systems, and vaccines under development for bison, cattle, and elk, as well as the effectiveness of currently available vaccination protocols. In the course of its review, the committee will explore the likelihood of developing more effective vaccines, delivery sys- tems, and diagnostic protocols for cattle, bison and elk. Throughout the study, the committee will meet with wildlife managers, animal health officials, land managers, native peoples, and other stakeholders, including the members of the public, to understand the implications of brucellosis control efforts on other goals and activities in the region and nationally. The committee will examine the societal and economic costs and benefits of implementing various measures to reduce or eliminate the risk of brucellosis transmission to cattle and within wildlife relative to the costs and benefits of allowing the persistence of brucellosis in the GYA. In a consensus report, the committee will summarize the findings and conclusions of its analysis and based on the scientific evidence, describe the likely effectiveness and trade-offs of options that could be used to address brucellosis in the GYA. In addition, the report will describe and prioritize fur- ther research needed to reduce uncertainties and advance the knowledge base on brucellosis vac- cines, vaccine delivery mechanisms, and diagnostics. YNP hosted by the NPS. The committee also gathered information from researchers who have contribut- ed to the scientific body of work on brucellosis. At each of these meetings, members of the public provid- ed comments that informed the committee in addressing its task. 6. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT The remainder of the report is divided into three sections: an overview of the current situation and a review of new information since the previous 1998 report (Chapters 2-5); an examination of integrative adaptive management approaches and tools for addressing brucellosis (Chapters 6-8); and a look at future research needed to address brucellosis in the GYA (Chapter 9). In describing recent developments since the 1998 report, Chapter 2 examines the geographic scope of bison and elk populations across the GYA, and discusses the implications of land-use changes and changing climate for bison and elk populations. Chapter 3 discusses the prevalence and epidemiology of B. abortus in the GYA. Chapter 4 provides an overview of the current scientific understanding of B. abortus and discusses how new scientific tools have been critical in contributing to the body of knowledge for understanding brucellosis transmission, patho- genesis, and risk management. The management efforts of federal, state, and regional partners are dis- cussed in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 describes integrative adaptive management approaches to be adopted as part of a strategy for addressing brucellosis in the GYA, and Chapter 7 outlines management options for managing brucellosis. Bioeconomic analysis of wildlife diseases management has emerged as a new re- search area since the 1998 report, and the use of a bioeconomic framework that can address economic and 16 Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Revision

Introduction social aspects of the issues (discussed in Chapter 8) will be critical for making decisions. Chapter 9 out- lines some remaining research gaps to understanding and controlling brucellosis in the GYA. The last chapter of the report (Chapter 10) synthesizes the concerns and provides the committee’s overall findings, conclusions, and recommendations related to its Statement of Task. REFERENCES Becker, M.S., R.A. Garrott, and P.J. White. 2013. Scale and perception in resource management: Integrating scien- tific knowledge. Pp. 29-46 in Yellowstone’s Wildlife in Transition, P.J. White, R.A. Garrott, and G.E. Plumb, eds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2012. Brucellosis Surveillance: National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System, 1993-2010. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/brucellosis/resources/surveillance. html (accessed May 17, 2016). Clarke, P.R. 2015. USDA Regulatory Oversight of Brucellosis (Brucella abortus). Presentation at the First Commit- tee Meeting on Revisiting Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area, July 1-2, 2015, Bozeman, MT. Craighead, J.J. 1991. Yellowstone in transition. Pp. 27-40 in The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Redefining America’s Wilderness Heritage, R.B. Kieter, and M.S. Boyce, eds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Cross, P. 2013. Northern Yellowstone Cooperative Wildlife Working Group 2012 Annual Report (October 1, 2012- September 30, 2012). Available online at http://www.fedgycc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2012NYC WWGFnlRpt.pdf (accessed January 4, 2017). Garner, M.M., D.M. Lambourn, S.J. Jeffries, P.B. Hall, J.C. Rhyan, D.R. Ewalt, L.M. Polzin, and N.F. Cheville. 1997. Evidence of Brucella Infection in Parafilaroides Lungworms in a Pacific Harbor Seal (Phoca Vitulina Richardsi). Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 9(3):298-303. Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. 1991. A Framework for Coordination of National Parks and National Forests in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, Billings, MT. Gude, P.H., A.J. Hansen, R. Rasker, and B. Maxwell. 2006. Rates and drivers of rural residential development in the Greater Yellowstone. Landscape Urban Planning 77:131-151. IBMP (Interagency Bison Management Plan). 2014. IBMP Adaptive Management. National Park Service, USDA- Forest Service, USDA-Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service, Montana Department of Livestock and Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks. Available online at http://www.ibmp.info/adaptivemgmt.php (accessed Janu- ary 4, 2017). Jimenez, M.D., and S.A. Becker, eds. 2015. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program 2014 Interagency Annual Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Wind River Tribes, Confederated Colville Tribes, Spokane Tribe of Indians, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Utah De- partment of Natural Resources, and USDA Wildlife Services. Helena, MT: USFWS, Ecological Services. Keiter, R.B., and M.S. Boyce. 1991. The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Redefining America’s Wilderness Herit- age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 428 pp. Koshmrl, M. 2015. Jackson bison numbers are down, as planned. Jackson Hole Daily. March 10. Available online at http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/environmental/jackson-bison-numbers-are-down-as-planned/article_ ed378467-2cae-5a23-b7ab-b7185e1731a4.html (accessed January 12, 2017). McDermott, J., D. Grace, and J. Zinsstag. 2013. Economics of brucellosis impact and control in low-income coun- tries. Revue scientifique et technique International Office of Epizootics 32(1):249-261. McIntyre, C., and C. Ellis. 2011. Landscape Dynamics in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Natural Resource Tech- nical Report NPS/GRYN/NRTR-2011/506. Fort Collins, CO: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. MDFWP (Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks). 2004. Montana Statewide Elk Management Plan. Hel- ena, MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. NPS (National Park Service). 2015. Yellowstone Resources and Issues 2015. Available online at http://www.nps. gov/yell/learn/resources-and-issues.htm (accessed May 25, 2016). NPS. 2016. Map of the Greater Yellowstone Area. Available online at https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/ greateryellowstonemap.htm (accessed May 25, 2016). NRC (National Research Council). 1998. Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Revision 17

Revisiting Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area Olsen, S.C. 2000. Immune Responses and Efficacy after Administration of a Commercial Brucella abortus Strain RB51 Vaccine to Cattle. Veterinary Therapeutics 1(3):183-191. Rhyan, J.C., K. Aune, T. Roffe, D. Ewalt, S. Hennager, T. Gidlewski, S. Olsen, and R. Clarke. 2009. Pathogenesis and epidemiology of brucellosis in yellowstone bison: Serologic and culture results from adult females and their progeny. Journal od Wildlife Diseases 45(3):729-739. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2016. Draft 2016 Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Great Yellowstone Ecosystem. Missoula, MT. Available online at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzly Bear.php (accessed May 16, 2016). USFWS/NPS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service), 2007. Bison and Elk Management Plan for the National Elk Refuge and Grand Teton National Park. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/ bisonandelkplan (accessed January 4, 2017). White, P.J., R.L. Wallen, and D.E. Hallac. 2015. Yellowstone Bison Conserving an Icon in Modern Society. Yel- lowstone National Park, WY: Yellowstone Association. Yellowstone Park. 2016. Yellowstone Grizzly Bears by the Numbers. Available online at http://www.yellow stonepark.com/grizzly-bear-facts (accessed May 16, 2016). 18 Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Revision

Next: 2 Geographic Scope of Populations and Disease and Change in Land Use »
Revisiting Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $65.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Brucellosis is a nationally and internationally regulated disease of livestock with significant consequences for animal health, public health, and international trade. In cattle, the primary cause of brucellosis is Brucella abortus, a zoonotic bacterial pathogen that also affects wildlife, including bison and elk. As a result of the Brucellosis Eradication Program that began in 1934, most of the country is now free of bovine brucellosis. The Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA), where brucellosis is endemic in bison and elk, is the last known B. abortus reservoir in the United States. The GYA is home to more than 5,500 bison that are the genetic descendants of the original free-ranging bison herds that survived in the early 1900s, and home to more than 125,000 elk whose habitats are managed through interagency efforts, including the National Elk Refuge and 22 supplemental winter feedgrounds maintained in Wyoming.

In 1998 the National Research Council (NRC) issued a report, Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area, that reviewed the scientific knowledge regarding B. abortus transmission among wildlife—particularly bison and elk—and cattle in the GYA. Since the release of the 1998 report, brucellosis has re-emerged in domestic cattle and bison herds in that area. Given the scientific and technological advances in two decades since that first report, Revisiting Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area explores the factors associated with the increased transmission of brucellosis from wildlife to livestock, the recent apparent expansion of brucellosis in non-feedground elk, and the desire to have science inform the course of any future actions in addressing brucellosis in the GYA.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!