“iv Heady-"2 ~~ " - ' ' ul guilt}. " ‘~ '5“ is . nag} ‘ “Lad

(JH‘U .illi‘ll'l Th: ; .n‘

i'm

mugs-Mn, 3;: c «r. .,

‘ Misﬁts

BIN ULLETIN BISON ' 1‘. r; e; was?) ;""1.;ay‘;-. w‘ l v P ‘: 6h Alums}. 1996M“: long-awaitgigmportptthej. q?

,Nm ‘ am my 'a' 566' '-

., 7.; té‘ﬁiépubUC. ~ 91 . - *‘lr’iended Mhﬁwﬂ free-Wm“ h

-. oxaﬁEWbﬁatﬁédesti-hymd mm;w.cﬁlpt¥°:ﬁml. * r:

'» “be deﬂor'r’as‘ Wlargest wildlife conservation

: Write Wmmﬁedemuan strongly disagrees, with

- efrmipd‘gggn'! ’ .111; Win”

WOW Some“ mmntaofﬂre aWelyAﬁoobison in

and WWWG National Park GWBNP) are

- “dnfectaedawiah eitherzbwine‘rbrueellosis. tuberculosis. or both diseases. Agriculture Canada advocates the

* ' .slaughtert'o ,Canada’s 'bruoeilosis-free' status

' .. tariguqenablqithe Canadian cattle herd tobe declared 'ftuberculosis-free.‘v (Fon more information on the issue.

. '* see Nature Canada. spring 1990 andAlmanac, Vol.4. No. 1 .) The panel has concluded that no risk. however small, of nansmissiongfeitlier disease to humans. cattle. or healthy bison in the MacKenzie Bison Sanctu-

‘ my 0485le acceptable. ‘ , ’ ‘ , ,-

. --Si.§ee 1925. when thegﬂrst plains bison were released in WBNP. there has been no documented case of cattle or humans contracting either disease from the herd in the park. And the possibility of contact between the WBNP and MBS herds is based on a single sighting by tourists of three bison to the south of the M38. a sighting that could not be conﬁrmed by government ofﬁcials who attempted to ﬁnd the animals. Despite the

cation of the erdsting bison is the only method of elimi- bison now living in Wood Buﬁ'alo National Parkyand

surrounding areas be removed and replaced bydisease- free wood bisoh.‘

v ‘ iastbis'bmin the region; to “aim slam " " ng presénléase' d3" ; this“

‘se‘ﬂb‘rt‘td have‘ ’ . aiéubi'sporﬂ" ‘ es ever undertaken- in Canada ' I ﬁ' “V ‘ '

eased bison are

lack of evidence of risk. the panel concludes that "eradi— ;

. nating the risk" and recommends that "all free-ranging '

' ~. 3} . Mg - r‘ ‘1‘."l‘,'1"1-“£2l.‘3;l 1- ' @331, up ‘

amndquestio kasi~ biiity . ' nting dtmuﬁﬂmshughuoflme .. bison. ﬁgmjlot minonty‘: 05-6ng

'r the success of memmdddsduuonz th strnplyz" accepts. «m faith. that it 57‘dlll- »

_}ence'-is applied. even thougmhehisonaangem a

i vast wildemoss mmposednfmbedﬂﬂm terrain. and no comparable feat hasWWmmMﬁthted. ifonly one diseased , . “ .muliaV'e been for naught. v . n {ﬂow}: 3 ~ . _ . What's more. the “attention on- WBNP‘andmakcaml . ..f V . _. _ "@rmntlve -‘ efforts outside of me'w&.v‘%@mgmwd.'tw close to the parkand’ammmmm habitat.

LYet the panel doesaotmalge'asinglg recommendation » requiring the agricultural sector the risk through use of permanent buﬂ'es .bisonlproof .fencing. or vaccination. NorEdpes itgrecprnmend restric- tionson cattle grazingin the quthe establishment of a plan for agricultural developmentlinthe region. the

, absence of which it accepts ~-

Neither does the lithe, dis- . . ' . ._.rep1aeed with healthy bison. there remains a distinct possibility that tuberculosis and /or brucellosis mayreappear in the replacement herd. Although Canadalwas declared bru- cellosis-free in October. .1985. several cases of the dis- ease have been reported since that time-This demon- strates that the disease can remain undetected in ani- mals {or years. he disease could also enter Canada Via imported cattle. If either scenario takes place. the largest and most diverse gene pool of bison irrthe world will have been destroyed at an expense oil more than $20 million and absolutely nothing will have been accomplished. One of the panel's justiﬁcations for the slaughter is to

y

-14-