Thoughts On Brucellosis

I had some thoughts and questions about the <a href="http://nowherethoughts.net/sarpysam/archives/2634-Seven-Montana-Cows-from-One-Herd-Have-Tested-Positive-for-Brucellosis.html">recent Brucellosis issue</a> in Montana.<br />n<br />nI was really wondering if the seven cows that tested positive were vaccinated for brucellosis? This was the case in Wyoming when they originally discovered cattle near the park had Brucellosis. It was in all ready vaccinated cattle. Yesterday evening I had the answer to this question delivered to me so it was a question no more. I've heard a little more about the situation from the proverbial horse's mouth. My source of information informs me that the cattle that tested positive were vaccinated against brucellosis. So this leads to another question, why the hell do we bother to vaccinate if the vaccine isn't very effective? I realize that there are quite a few people in Montana that don't vaccinate but there are a lot of people, including me, who do. Why do we bother if apparently the vaccine has a failure rate of 35%? Something to think about.<br />n<br />nAnother question, why is it necessary to destroy the whole herd of cattle for a few cows testing positive? This doesn't make a lot of sense. When they originally eradicated brucellosis in the state they took blood sample from all the cows and only destroyed those that tested positive or tested suspect twice. Why can't they do that here? Why not bleed all the cows and only destroy those who test positive? Wouldn't this make more sense than randomly destroying all the cows for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time? It sure would to me. The government doesn't look at it that way though. Killing them all is just easier. They are going to destroy this whole herd of cattle and the owner more than likely will get no compensation for it. They vaccinate their cattle for brucellosis and still will have to sacrifice them to the all powerful government because it is easier on them. This should change.<br />n<br />nThe cattle that tested positive for brucellosis had been in the Paradise Valley near Emigrant. According to the information I've heard, the cattle were a lot closer to Yellowstone National Park than Emigrant so it sounds to me like the reservoir of brucellosis infection that is Yellowstone National Park is more than likely to blame for this little outbreak we are now having. Whether this infection comes from the bison or the elk, I don't care. The problem is the reservoir of infection that is allowed to exist in the Greater Yellowstone Area. I don't have an answer on how to clear up the brucellosis problem in the park. Between the elk and the bison in the area, there are too many wild animals spread over too large of area to control. Ignoring the problem of the brucellosis infection in the Park will not make it go away. It just prolongs the problem and costs people like the ranchers who cattle are going to be destroyed a lot of money and heartache. <br />n<br />n<strong>Question everything. Maria Mitchell</strong>