Split State Concern

<a href="http://www.theprairiestar.com/articles/2007/10/26/ag_news/local_and_regional_news/local10.txt">Ranchers voice concerns over proposed split-state status</a><br />n<br />n<blockquote>Montana cattlemen have a choice to make – to pursue a split-state status in the case of another brucellosis outbreak around the Yellow-stone National Park – or not.<br />n<br />n“The governor is leaving it up to the cattle industry,” said Jan French, Board of Livestock member from Hobson, Mont., during a recent meeting discussing split-state status in Lewistown, Mont. “I'm pretty sure we will lose our brucellosis class-free status at one time or another, but this is an option.”</blockquote><br />n<br />nTo start with, I am not so sure the Governor is giving us an option. The majority of the members of the Board of Livestock are beholden to the Governor for there position and the Montana Cattleman's Association (MCA), which is in lock step with the Democratic Party, has also come on board favoring the Governors split state idea. This is an interim step until the membership can vote on the idea but the leaders of the MCA are really pushing it. It will be interesting to see what the members of MCA think of the split state idea if they are allowed to vote on it. That's neither here nor their though.<br />n<br />nBack to the split state idea though. Anybody that reads here knows I am not in favor of this split state idea. It is going to cost the state and cattle producers a lot of money for not much good. There is no proof that other states <a href="http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/10/29/news/state/22-cattle.txt">will respect the split state status</a>, North Dakota says they won't, so all the money and work on it might not be for any good at all. <br />n<br />nI would like to point something out about the split state status. If we were to have a buffer zone around Yellowstone National Park right now, it would be a Brucellosis free zone and the rest of Montana would be suspect since the Morgan's place, which recently had a Brucellosis problem is not within the buffer zone. It would fall in the state of Montana so actually one more Brucellosis case would screw Montana where it would take two in the buffer zone. Kind of backwards isn't it?<br />n<br />nI want to point out one thing. All of this split state status is because of the recent Brucellosis outbreak at the Morgan's place in Bridger. Some of the cows on the place were traced back to Emigrant which is very close to Yellowstone National Park. So the assumption is that the Brucellosis that was found in the Morgan's herd was from wildlife in Yellowstone National Park. <strong>This has never been proven</strong>. As far as I am aware they have never been able to pinpoint where the Brucellosis came from that affected the Morgan's herd. My sources indicate that some of the Corriente cattle in the Morgan's herd, which they bought, were not vaccinated for Brucellosis and the herd they came from was not vaccinated. Again the same thing here, there is no proof one way or the other that these cattle are how the Brucellosis got into the herd but it is an interesting bit of information.<br />n<br />nSo why are we having this split state discussion when we have <u>absolutely no concept</u> how the Morgan's herd was infected? Since there is no proof, lots of speculation but no proof, it came from Yellowstone National Park, why are we having this argument? If we knew for sure it came out of Yellowstone national Park, it would be one thing but we don't. I know, we are doing it just in case. But if there is a second case we are screwed anyway. I don't feel the split state status is the answer. Putting our time and effort into leaning up the Brucellosis reservoir in the wildlife is a better idea. Not sacrificing ranchers in the buffer zone for the supposed safety for the rest of us.<br />n<br />n<strong>Logic is the technique by which we add conviction to truth. Jean de la Bruyere </strong>