BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF LIVESTOCK

OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 

In the matter of the amendment of ARM 32.3.433, designated surveillance area

) )

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

 

TO: All Concerned Persons

 

1. On June 12, 2014, the Department of Livestock published MAR Notice No. 32-14-249 regarding the public hearing on the proposed amendment of the above-stated rule at page 1171 of the 2014 Montana Administrative Register, Issue Number 11. 

 

2. The department has amended the above-stated rule as proposed.

 

          3. The department has thoroughly considered the comments and testimony received. A summary of the comments received and the department's responses are as follows:

 

            COMMENT 1:  How will Montana Department of Livestock (DOL) pay for the additional cost of the expansion?

            RESPONSE:  This comment is beyond the scope of the proposed rule change. However, the DOL has and will continue to work diligently to secure funding for testing and surveillance within the Designated Surveillance Area (DSA).  Funding for DSA testing is in the governor's proposed budget (House Bill 2) as well as the use of per capita fees. Additional funding for the program has come from the United States Department of Agriculture-Animal Plant Health Inspection Service-Veterinary Services (USDA-APHIS-VS) through cooperative agreement dollars, veterinary support, and some technical support.

 

            COMMENT 2:  Several producers had questions about how this change would affect their operations because the new DSA boundary would divide their ranch.

            RESPONSE: All cattle and domestic bison that utilize ground within the DSA are subject to all Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) for the DSA. However, some variances for producers utilizing DSA property seasonally or having land divided by the boundary may be available through a risk assessment and the development of a herd plan.

 

            COMMENT 3:  Who pays for testing when a whole herd test is required?

            RESPONSE:  This comment does not apply to the proposed rule change. However, the majority of veterinary testing expenses have been covered through reimbursement to veterinarians. Some of the handling of expenses incurred by the livestock owner are reimbursed through a per head handling reimbursement. 

 

            COMMENT 4:  Have there been any brucellosis positive livestock herds south of Three Forks?

            RESPONSE:  Yes. A positive domestic bison herd was found in Gallatin County in 2010. In Madison County a positive domestic bison herd was found in 2012 and a positive cattle herd was found in 2013.

 

            COMMENT 5: Elk in this expanded area are moving and growing in a nontraditional way. I foresee that this is going to jump more fences and roads and further the expansion. I think we need to address that. We are seeing elk where we never used to see them.

            RESPONSE: DOL agrees with the observations in this comment and is working closely with Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) to monitor movement and risk period locations of seropositive elk. The live elk capture study has allowed both the DOL and FWP to gain a tremendous amount of information that can, hopefully one day soon, address this risk.

 

            COMMENT 6: Will producers affected by the boundary change have to complete a risk assessment like they did before?

            RESPONSE: Producers in the DSA are not required to have a risk assessment but may request one at any time. On-site assessments are often scheduled for larger operations with complex management.

 

            COMMENT 7: What other tools do producers in the DSA have available to them?

            RESPONSE: To prevent wildlife to livestock brucellosis transmission, DSA producers should utilize temporal and spatial separation from elk during the disease transmission risk period (January through June). They may also schedule a meeting for a risk assessment and herd plan. Additional helpful tools include compliance with current brucellosis vaccination rules on females and optional periodic "booster" adult vaccination.  Regular entire herd testing or annual testing of high risk groups allows for timely and early detection of infected livestock.

 

            COMMENT 8: Who has the final say whether this proposal is put into effect?

            RESPONSE: The Montana Board of Livestock (BOL) voted to publish the proposed administrative rule for public comment. Because BOL took no further action following the end of the comment period, the department will now submit the rule to the Secretary of State's office for final publication. The rule is effective upon publication of this notice. 

 

            COMMENT 9: Who will recoup the value in my cattle that is lost as a result of being put into the DSA?

            RESPONSE: This comment is beyond the scope of the proposed rule change. Following discussions with USDA-APHIS-VS officials, and animal health officials of other states, however, cattle and domestic bison statewide (including those in the current DSA) would have brucellosis regulations and restrictions even if Montana did not have a DSA.  For this reason it is difficult to establish reduced value for cattle within the DSA.  However, the DSA does protect against significant unnecessary brucellosis regulation and expense to the 95% of Montana's cattle and domestic bison producers who are outside the DSA.

 

            COMMENT 10: Are elk being tested in other parts of the state?

            RESPONSE: This comment is beyond the scope of the proposed rule change. However, when the opportunity to do so was available, FWP has tested elk and other wildlife species for many years throughout the state and has shared that data with the DOL. No other seropositive elk populations have been detected elsewhere in the state.

 

            COMMENT 11: If the legislature refuses to pay for the DSA, will FWP help pay for it? 

            RESPONSE:  This comment is beyond the scope of the proposed rule change. However, DOL has and will work diligently to secure funding for the testing and surveillance within the DSA.  Funding for DSA testing is in the Governor's proposed budget (House Bill 2) as well as the use of per capita fees. Additional funding for the program has come from USDA-APHIS-VS through cooperative agreement dollars, veterinary support, and some technical support. The majority of veterinary testing expenses have been covered through reimbursement to veterinarians. Some of the handling of expenses incurred by the livestock owner are being reimbursed through a per head "handling" reimbursement.

 

            COMMENT 12: Has the proposal been taken to economic affairs?

            RESPONSE: No. The BOL has authority to promulgate administrative rules and the legislature has supported the funding of the DSA. The budget of DOL has been audited. 

 

COMMENT 13: How do we get the federal government to stop harboring brucellosis in bison?

            RESPONSE:  This comment is beyond the scope of the proposed rule change. However, the DOL has for years been aware of the prevalence of brucellosis in Yellowstone National Park bison and has worked through the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP) to mitigate the risk of transmission. 

 

            COMMENT 14: Idaho had a brucellosis outbreak. How did Idaho eradicate the problem and why can't Montana do the same?

            RESPONSE:  This comment is beyond the scope of the proposed rule change. However, Idaho has a DSA with regulations similar to those in Wyoming and Montana. All three Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) states have had brucellosis positive herds and have released the quarantine of many of those herds using similar regulations. Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana each have at least one brucellosis positive herd currently under quarantine and each has recently expanded their DSA boundary. 

 

            COMMENT 15: Of the positive elk that were found in this proposal area, were they near cattle and have those cattle herds been tested already?

            RESPONSE:  The positive elk found in this proposal area were not comingling with cattle at the time of capture. The positive elk were near cattle. Those cattle herds are undergoing brucellosis surveillance.

 

            COMMENT 16: How can people find out more about what the elk task force is working on?

            RESPONSE:  This comment is beyond the scope of the proposed rule change. However, FWP created the "Elk Management Guidelines for Areas with Brucellosis Working Group" in 2013 and first met in July of 2013. Additional information can be found on the FWP web site:  http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/elk/areasWithBrucellosisWG/default.html.

 

            COMMENT 17: Every cattle operation in Montana and every other state that has a resident elk herd, needs to bleed their cattle.

            RESPONSE: This comment is beyond the scope of the proposed rule change. However, testing of cattle in states or areas where little or no risk exists would not be a judicious use of funds. The DSA of Montana reduces regulation and burden on a large segment of our state's producers saving our producers money and unnecessary regulatory burden.

 

            COMMENT 18: Elk do not see a highway or a river as a boundary that isn't crossable.

            RESPONSE: The live elk capture study continues to yield information about elk movement. Thus far, the collared elk have remained within the DSA boundaries during the risk season. Importantly, the DSA boundary is not drawn to prevent the movement of elk; instead, the boundary is drawn to include the range of known positive wildlife and to be recognizable for producers and law enforcement. The range of movement of elk is part of the elk capture/collaring study. 

 

            COMMENT 19: Drawing a line on a map to segregate one "problem" area from another will not solve any problems.

            RESPONSE:  This comment is beyond the scope of the proposed rule change. The 2011 DSA Economic Impact Statement shows, that having a DSA has saved the majority of Montana's producers millions of dollars and unnecessary and variable regulations from other states. 

 

            COMMENT 20: When a brucellosis positive elk is identified, she is collared, returned to the herd and "observed" for a number of years. If this is true, why is it when a positive beef cow is identified, she is sent to slaughter and the herd is quarantined?

            RESPONSE:  This comment is beyond the scope of the proposed rule change. However, it is important to note that of the 400 elk tested and released during the live elk capture study, only 25 elk were positive. These seropositive elk already exist in the wild; testing and removal of this small number of elk from the total population in the GYA would not appreciably reduce the risk to Montana livestock producers. The continued study, testing, and removal of elk that remain seropositive for five years has and will continue to provide much needed knowledge that helps prevent transmissions of brucellosis to livestock.

 

            COMMENT 21: I told you at the start of this process that you would have to keep expanding the area, just like the waves on a pond of water from a stone dropped in the center. The problem still is the lack of research on the ways to eliminate the disease or control it. Your present method is just a stop-gap measure that wastes people's time and money. It does provide some job security for the MDOL.

            RESPONSE: In conjunction with all previous responses, continued surveillance of at-risk cattle herds to quickly detect brucellosis in livestock is important to prevent spread within Montana's cattle herd and maintain marketability of Montana's entire cattle herd. Continued efforts such as the live elk capture study as well as research in other states and research facilities is necessary to help answer questions regarding brucellosis.

 

DEPARTMENT OF LIVESTOCK

 

BY:      /s/ Christian Mackay                        BY:      /s/ Robert Stutz

            Christian Mackay                                         Robert Stutz

            Executive Officer                                         Rule Reviewer

            Board of Livestock

            Department of Livestock

 

            Certified to the Secretary of State September 8, 2014.