< Back

In the Yellowstone area, the livestock industry is composed mainly of cow-calf operations with the exception of a few sheep producers. Cow-calf pairs are grazed on national forest allotments that can include adjacent private land, and on private holdings not associated with grazing allotments. In addition to risks of disease transmission, bison can harm livestock, as well as damage structures.

To the north of Yellowstone National Park, grazing allotments located in the broadest area included in the environmental impact statement have about 434 cow-calf pairs on national forest land and about 191 pairs on adjacent private land included as part of the allotments. When only the Reese Creek area is considered, cow-calf pairs on national forest land number about 86, with about 130 pairs on allotted private land. In the West Yellowstone area, about 364 cow-calf pairs are grazed on national forest land in the Horse Butte and Wapiti areas. An additional 128 pairs (and 2 pairs on allotted private land) are found on allotments to the west and south of Hebgen Lake.

Privately owned lands that are not part of allotments include both livestock holdings and nonranch residences. North of Yellowstone National Park, the largest of the livestock operations is in the Reese Creek area on the Royal Teton Ranch. It has about 100 cow-calf pairs on unallotted private land, in addition to 150 on allotted private and public land.

In the West Yellowstone area, there are four private holdings located in the Horse Butte region between Duck Creek and the Madison River, totaling about 1,250 acres. Only the largest, with an area of about 650 acres, has a summer cattle operation with about 215 cow-calf pairs. Including producers to the west and south of Hebgen Lake, there are an estimated 800 cow-calf pairs on private land in the West Yellowstone area that could be directly affected by the most extensive of the SMAs (alternative 2).

Altogether, publicly and privately grazed cattle to the north and west of Yellowstone that could be directly affected are estimated to total about 2,019 cow-calf pairs. They comprise less than 4% of the cattle population of Gallatin and Park Counties.

The impacts of brucellosis on livestock operations involve not only the area adjacent to Yellowstone National Park, but also producers throughout Montana. The threat of disease transmission and the economic effects of disease-exposed bison entering the state have potential impacts that could indirectly affect all producers in the state.

Under alternative 1, cattle producers near Yellowstone National Park currently take precautions against the threat of brucellosis by vaccinating all female calves. In addition, herds from Idaho that graze in the West Yellowstone area are tested both when entering and leaving Montana. The cost of vaccinating and testing is relatively minor, estimated at about 2% of average yearly cow-calf production costs in the western United States. Producers’ perceptions of the potentially negative consequences of grazing near Yellowstone National Park underlie recent decisions by two purebred stock owners to no longer graze their cattle in the area.

Alternative 2, characterized by minimal bison management, would involve modification of grazing allotments on the national forest, acquisition or easement of private lands, and conversion of cow-calf operations to steer or spayed heifer production. In the short term, until these changes are accomplished, the interim plan would continue. Public funds would be required for compensating producers who agreed to convert their operations and for acquiring the title or use of the private properties. These transactions would be voluntary with fair remuneration. Nevertheless, they would represent major impacts for the producers involved. Modification of public grazing allotments could affect as many as 926 cow-calf pairs. Incidents of damage by bison would be similar to occurrences under alternative 1 until susceptible cattle were removed from the areas designated as SMAs. Afterward, incidents would be fewer, since the only cattle would be those on converted holdings. Producers near SMA boundaries would likely continue to vaccinate female calves.

Under alternative 3, testing and vaccinating would continue as under the interim plan (alternative 1) in the short term. In the long term, modifications in grazing allotments on the national forest as described under alternative 2 would reduce the need for vaccinating and testing, but within less extensive SMAs. Producers near SMA boundaries would likely continue to vaccinate female calves. Whereas about 2,019 cow-calf pairs are found within the areas designated to be SMAs under alternative 2, the smaller areas of alternative 3 contain about 895 cow-calf pairs. Moderate to major impacts in the long term for these herds would result from possible conversion to steer or spayed heifer enterprises, closure or modification of grazing allotments, and private land acquisitions. Hunting could provide a minor source of income for remaining converted holdings.

Alternative 4 differs from alternative 1 in that bison hunting would be allowed. Hunting in the West Yellowstone area could provide a minor source of income for some private holdings.

Under alternative 5, livestock operators in the vicinity of Yellowstone National Park would likely perceive a reduced disease threat because no bison would be allowed outside the park. Restriction of bison to the park would lessen concerns over brucellosis transmission, although vaccination of cattle could continue, especially in the short term. Relaxation of testing practices in the West Yellowstone area would depend on changes in Idaho’s agreement with Montana. Private grazing resources might increase in value due to reduced risks of disease spread and damage by bison. Thus, the overall impact on affected livestock producers could be moderately beneficial.

Consequences of alternative 6 with respect to testing and vaccinating would be the same as in alternative 1 during the first years of vaccination of Yellowstone bison. Once capture, test, and slaughter of bison were undertaken, consequences for livestock producers would be like those of alternative 5, although seronegative bison would be allowed on public land in the West Yellowstone SMA. Cattle vaccination would probably continue, depending on producers’ risk perceptions. Continued testing of herds in the West Yellowstone area would depend on Idaho’s agreement with Montana. In the long term, moderate benefits overall would be realized under this alternative, as under alternative 5.

SMAs under phase 1 of alternative 7 would be the same as they are now under the interim plan (alternative 1). Testing and vaccinating would continue, as would possible incidents of damage by bison within the boundaries of the SMAs. No modifications of livestock operations would occur under phase 1. In phase 2 (following acquisition of winter range north of the Reese Creek boundary), impacts could affect at least one private holding and could modify three public grazing allotments along the western side of the Yellowstone River in the Gardiner Valley.

Under the modified preferred alternative, testing costs would be borne by APHIS, a negligible or minor benefit to producers. Monitoring and management of bison outside the park would occur seven days a week. This and a commitment to hazing would keep property damage to a minimum. The modified preferred alternative includes many measures directed at mitigating the perception of risk, as well as efforts to educate state animal professionals on the results of new research and the effectiveness of management measures. None of these measures would result in increased costs to livestock producers. Overall, the modified preferred alternative would have a slight beneficial impact on livestock operations relative to alternative 1.

In addition to direct impacts on local producers outlined above, ranchers throughout the state could suffer from increased testing or vaccinating requirements or interstate sanctions should brucellosis be transmitted to Montana cattle. The possibility of such transmission and associated indirect impacts would be considered remote in all alternatives, although it would be slightly less in alternative 5, slightly greater in alternative 2, and roughly equal in the remaining alternatives.