Putting People First / April 7, 1994
====================================

Washington Report

FROM THE TRENCHES

by Kathleen Marquardt
Chairman, Putting People First

...A weekly opinion column about the struggle against "animal rights" and
   eco-extremists.

Copyright@1994 Putting People First
Permission to reproduce this column is freely granted on the condition that
credit is given to Putting People First.

Putting People First is a nonprofit organization of citizens who believe in
rights for humans and welfare for animals, and who oppose the goals and
tactics of "animal rights" and environmental extremism.

-----------------------------------------------
Putting People First
PO Box 1707
Helena, Montana 59624
(406) 442-5700
Fax (406) 449-0942

-----------------------------------------------

MONTANA GOVERNMENT USING BOGUS SCIENCE TO JUSTIFY KILLING ELK HERD,
DESTROYING GAME FARM INDUSTRY


     A storm is brewing here in Montana that has implications for quite
a few other states.  A government agency has decided that a certain
group of farmers must go -- game farmers, but only the game farmers who
raise elk.  Farmers who raise buffalo and deer are not under attack --
yet.

     Montana's Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP) has
provided a lot of information about game farms -- to reporters, hunters,
the general public.  But it is not necessarily correct information or
the "whole truth."  It sure reads well; the government PR experts have
a gift for convincing rhetoric.  The problem is that when both sides of
the issue are heard, MFWP's does not stand up to close scrutiny.

     MFWP spokesman Ron Aasheim says he does not understand Putting
People First's interest in the game farm issue.  As he so aptly points
out, on its face this not an animal rights issue.  But what MFWP is
trying to do to game farmers is exactly what animal rightists would be
doing if they had thought of it first.  They are trying to put game
farmers out of business.  And MFWP is using animal rights tactics --
they take a small kernel of truth, sugar coat it with a big lie, and get
the unsuspecting public to swallow it whole.

     MFWP maybe fighting along side us on most issues, but they are 
carrying the water for animal rights on this one.  The question is why? 
Why does MFWP want to rid Montana of game farms that raise elk?

     This is a complicated issue, made more complicated by a player
that, on the face of it, should be supporting that which it is trying to
destroy.  To understand the essence of MFWP's all-out assault on game
farms, you have to understand the players, the playing field, and the
stakes.  It took a lot of digging for us to understand the "wherefores;"
I am not entirely sure of the "whys" yet, myself.

     First, what is game farming?  Let me focus on elk farmers, since
that is what MFWP is sighting on.  Game farms raise wild animals for
meat, scent, antlers, and hunting.  Game farms bring money into Montana
and pay taxes.

     Early game farmers got their game from the wild.  Today's game
farmers get elk from other elk breeders around the country.  Up until
recently MFWP was even in the business of selling elk to game farmers.

     Also until recently, game farms were not very stringently
regulated.  When the government finally got around to writing
regulations, the game farmers worked hard to bring their operations
quickly into compliance. (I think it goes without saying that there is
usually one bad apple in every group, and game farming probably is no  
 exception, but every farmer I know is more than eager to be considered
ethical by complying with the laws.)  So all was well in the game farm
world until 1990.


     For whatever reason, that year MFWP began lobbying sportsmen,
hunters, and wildlife organizations in an attempt to discredit the game
farm industry.  Anti-game farming stories were "farmed out," so to
speak, everywhere possible.  Charges that the game farm animals were
going to spread disease and pollute the genes of our native elk were
dished out with regularity.  So let's compare MFWP's charges with some
expert opinion.

     Are game farm elk going to spread disease -- TB is the disease du
jour -- to the native wild elk?  According to Montana's State
Veterinarian, no.  Six herds of game farm animals have been tested
positive for TB. Two of those have been destroyed; two passed follow-up
tests, are clean, and have been taken off quarantine; and of the last
two, one is about to be released from quarantine while one is still
having problems.

     "Forget the game farmers' compliance," MFWP says, because the TB
test supposedly is faulty and it's not catching infected animals.  But
the State Vet says the test is triggered so easily that it's more likely
to show animals positive when they are not.  In another example of
adjusting science to suit their case, MFWP is testing for genetic
mutations using tissue samples from carcasses and gut piles instead of
drawn blood -- but the experts say the test is only valid when done on
live animals.

     MFWP worries that in New Zealand TB was spread by possums from a
farm to the wild and that could happen here, as well. Again, according
to the State Vet, that has never happened in North America and is highly
unlikely; even when there was a huge infestation of TB on cattle
ranches, it never spread off the ranch.  The Vet said there was
something about the possums' metabolism that allowed it to carry this
type of TB, and it is not present in this hemisphere.  In fact, the
Brush-Tailed Possum does not even exist in Montana.

     Montana Wildlife Federation has a story in their latest newsletter
echoing MFWP's TB scare:  "Rodents scurrying in and out of game farms
will also spread disease.  Tuberculosis has the potential to destroy
Montana's wildlife populations."  I say that it is these false and
inflammatory charges -- words on paper -- which are what will destroy
the  Montana game farmers.  Not truth, not facts, but resupported "what
ifs."

     Now let's look at a potentially more threatening charge, that game
farm elk will hybridize our wild elk with red deer genes.  According to
the experts we have contacted that is nigh on to impossible.  As of
1991, importing red deer was banned in Montana.  Montana game breeders
supported the ban on red deer and began to rid their herds of any
animals testing positive for red deer genes.  The few elk left that have
tested positive for red deer genes are being held on the Montana/North
Dakota border -- 400 miles from the closest wild elk -- and by this fall
they will all be gone.

     So the red deer are gone from Montana's game farms.  Surprisingly,
the ban was not that meaningful in the first place, according to the
geneticists.  They say that the native elk's genes are dominant.  In
order for the red deer gene to mutate the elk, the animals would have to
mate over and over and over again.  That has not happened, and will not
happen now, with no red deer left in Montana.

     Here's where PR posturing comes into play.  MFWP is threatening to
kill an entire herd of wild elk near Avon in west-central Montana
because of tests from meat and gut piles -- tests that are inaccurate at
best.  As Putting People First knows from talking to the experts, the
only thing killing those elk will do is cause the public to be outraged.

     I believe that MFWP hopes the outrage will be directed at the game
farmers.  Already MFWP has carefully fueled the fire under the game
farmers.  Killing a herd of 120 to 150 elk will fan the flames.

     I say, aim the outrage at those who deserve it -- those anonymous
bureaucrats and their minions who have played fast and loose with the
truth to press a faulty case.  There is really no difference between
what MFWP is doing to Montana's game farms and what the animal rights
extremists are doing, industry by industry, all over America and the
world, to shut down every human use of animals.

     Animal rights activists, and now an arm of Montana's state
government, are using the media to prejudice an uninformed but caring
majority of our population against a small portion of fellow humans. 
Again and again they use this tactic of divide and conquer, and why not,
it works and works well.  We are easy to sway.  But it is time for us to
demand a stop to this.  Which group of us is next in line?

     So far I've written about what is happening -- as I said at the
beginning of this column, I haven't figured out why yet.  Why does
Montana's Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks want to destroy a small
but thriving industry in our state?  Many explanations come to mind. 
Bureaucratic empire building and a struggle for power with Montana's
Department of Livestock, which regulates the game farm industry.  Greed
for even more hunting license revenues, which would become MFWP's
monopoly if the game farms' hunting revenues were legislated out of
existence.  Or -- I hate to think of it -- has MFWP become infiltrated
with animal rights believers, like so many other states' wildlife
bureaucrats?

     Whatever the reason, we must not allow a herd of healthy elk to be
gratuitously destroyed, just on the grounds of faulty tests "adjusted"
to fit MFWP's warped conception of reality.  Please write today to
Montana's Governor Marc Racicot and urge him to intervene with the
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to stop the destruction of the
elk herd near Avon.  Governor Racicot's address is State Capitol,
Helena, Montana 59620-0801, or telecopy 406/444-4151.

If you are a Montana resident, please say so in your letter.  If you are
from out of state but hunt or visit here, point that out.  Let Governor
Racicot know that an attack on game farms is an attack on every other
animal industry and occupation.  Regardless of the "whys," we must not
let animal rights extremists or their fellow travelers carve another
slice off the salami.

Attached to this  column is a Putting People First Special Report with
more details about MFWP's attack on our game farmers.  Please take the
time to read it, write Governor Racicot and fax me a copy of your letter
at 406/449-0942.

     If Putting People First succeeds with nothing else by exposing
this, I hope the elk herd near Avon will be spared.  Killing those
animals would be strictly for effect and would serve no purpose other
that to cause outrage.  So save the elk and keep one more group of
decent Americans in business.


+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                            SPECIAL REPORT                           |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

MONTANA'S ELK RANCHERS SQUEEZED BY STATE OFFICIALS

     Game farm elk breeders in Montana face increasing pressure and
regulations from state officials that may force the closure of all game
farms in the state.  Their objections to captive-bred elk are fourfold: 
disease, hybridization of wild elk, habitat competition, and the cost of
regulating the industry.

     A statute dating from 1889 allows Montana citizens to own wild
animals.  In the 1930s the state setup the first license requirements
for game farms.  A game farm is much like a cattle ranch, but with
different animals.  Major markets for elk include breeding stock, dried
antler product, meat, scent, and hunting.

Montana's Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) made their first
objections to game farms in 1983.  They claimed game farmers were in
competition with MFWP because they removed land supporting a wildlife
species from production.

To deal with increasing concerns about game farms, a Governor's
Committee was appointed to propose legislation for a 1983 session. 
Drawing members from all affected groups, the Committee agreed on new
legislation to regulate game farms, saw it enacted, and the game farm
situation then ran smoothly until 1990.

     Showing an antagonistic interest in game farms since 1990,however, 
MFWP has lobbied sportsmen, hunting, and wildlife organizations in
attempts to discredit the game farm industry.  Putting People First's
Chairman, Kathleen Marquardt, happened to be in the audience one day
when this occurred to a group of bow hunters.  Public opinion has proven
pivotal in bringing pressure on game farmers.  Attacks  in the media
have become common.

     The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department is the force behind
the current assault on game farms in the state.  After game farm
legislation was enacted in 1983, MFWP had little contact with the game
farm industry until K. L. Kool was appointed Director of MFWP by then
Governor Stan Stephens.  [Montana's current governor, Marc Racicot has
since appointed Pat Graham as the agency's director.]   Kool hired Gary
Burke to head the Special Investigations Unit MFWP.   According to
Burke, game farm scrutiny erupted when a shipment of diseased elk
arrived in Alberta, Canada in 1990.  Bovine tuberculosis was discovered
in these elk.  The diseased animals originated in Nebraska, but had
passed through Montana.  The Canadian government slaughtered half the
captive elk in Alberta in an effort to curb the disease.

     After this devastating TB incident in Canada, Montana game breeders
were required by law to begin routine testing for TB.  Currently, every 
time an elk is moved within, into, or out of Montana, it is tested for
TB.

     According to Heidi Youmans, Special Project Coordinator of MFWP,
the TB test used was developed for cattle and appears to respond
differently in deer and elk.  Dr. Owen James, acting State Veterinarian
for Montana disagrees.  Dr. James notes that "the single strength
cervical test is awful sensitive."  The test is so sensitive, he says,
it occasionally results in some "false positives."

     According to Dr. James, when the state veterinarians get a positive
TB test, they test a second time with a "comparative cervical" test.   
This step should eliminate false positive readings.  Dr.James believes
the TB testing system in use is accurate.  If anything, "it will take a
few negative animals," not leave TB carriers free.

     MFWP also distributes a story about a situation in New Zealand in
which TB was passed from a farmed deer population through a brush-tailed
possum to wild deer.  Dr. James says tuberculosis never has been moved
by a rodent in the United States.  He suspects there is something about
the metabolism of the New Zealand opossum that allows it to get this
type of TB.  Dr. James emphatically states that although there have been
serious outbreaks of tuberculosis in cattle in the US, it has never been
transferred to rodents.

     "The second charge against game breeders is potentially the most
threatening: hybridization of wild elk.  This bit of clever propaganda
may well turn the tide of public opinion against all game farms.

     One regional newspaper columnist has called elk "the symbol of
wildness in the West." An article in Bugle magazine by Jim Posewitz,
former special assistant to the director of MFWP, suggested it is
ethically wrong to keep elk behind a fence.   Even the perception of a
threat to the purity of the Rocky Mountain elk could be a death blow for
game farms.

     Dr. Peter A. Dratch is a senior forensic scientist for protein
analysis with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Oregon.  He has done
extensive research in elk, red deer, and tests for detecting hybrids of
the two.

     According to a paper written by Dr. Dratch and presented at the
Wildlife Professionals Symposium in Reno, Nevada in 1993, elk are easily
distinguished from red deer when compared side by side.  Elk are one-
third heavier and their coats are different shades of brown, ranging
from beige to chocolate.  Red deer are reddish brown, and their coat
coloring is more uniform.  Bull elks have a distinctive whistling bugle,
while red deer stags roar.

     A first generation hybrid between the two animals is easy to detect
with biochemical tests and visual inspection of physical
characteristics.  However, a second generation hybrid, especially if one
parent is pure elk, is much harder, maybe even impossible to detect.

     There are specific genetic "markers" in biochemical tests to
differentiate between subspecies of wild deer.  Dr. Dratch wrote MFWP in
a letter that blood from a live animal is required to make use of the
primary marker tests.

     The primary markers are hemoglobin and a protein in the blood
called post transferrin.  The secondary markers are superoxide dismutase
and transferrin.  The secondary markers do not have absolute genetic
differences as do the primary markers.  Instead secondary markers show
what scientists call "frequency differences."  For example, the results
of a secondary marker test would be evaluated in this manner -- this
sample shows material more common in elk than in red deer.

     The reliability of hybrid testing is crucial to the game farm issue
because game farmers stand accused of genetically damaging the wild elk
of North America.  Tests results from a poaching case caused MFWP to
blame game farmers for allowing red deer or red deer/elk hybrids to
escape into the wild.  This has been the substance of many of the most
damaging MFWP stories in the press, but these tests are ambiguous, and
were improperly conducted using dead animals.

     In contrast to MFWP's explicit charges, however, the testing lab
report on the poaching case shows results, using the secondary markers,
that are "more typical of samples from elk-red deer hybrids than from
native North American elk."  Another report concluded, again using only
the secondary markers, that certain samples "could come from elk, red
deer, or an elk-red deer hybrid."  Another test batch with samples taken
from meat packages concluded the animal in question was "either a cow
elk, red deer hind, or female elk-red deer hybrid."  The last test
samples were taken from a gut pile and tissue from a hyde.  The results
were "cow elk, red deer hind, or elk/red deer hybrid."

     Until this issue is resolved, MFWP has targeted an elk herd near
Avon, Montana for further testing and possible annihilation based on
hybrid tests the inventor says are not definitive.  According to Heidi
Youmans, currently MFWP plans continued study in the area, relying on
hunter supplied meat samples.  Obviously, those samples will be dead,
thus extending the improper use of the genetic test.

     Les Graham is Executive Director of Montana Game Breeders
Association, and former Director of the Montana Department of Livestock. 
He told PPF that, as with the TB testing, captive elk breeders have
dealt with the escapee problem.  "In the last two or three years, there
haven't been any escapes of red deer," Graham says flatly.

     In 1991 MFWP proposed an emergency rule to make importation of red
deer or red deer hybrids into Montana illegal.  This became a permanent
rule in March 1992.  Montana game breeders supported this decision, and
have since included blood testing for hybrids in their routine
management.  If a red deer or red deer hybrid is discovered, the animal
is destroyed or sold out of state.  Bob Spoklie, former executive
director of the Montana Game Breeders Association reports, there have
only been 50 elk out of 2100 in the captive herds that tested positive
for the red deer gene.  He says that by fall in 1994, these all will be
gone.

     The North American Elk Breeders Association supports a registration
program which allows a game farmer to register his elk as pure-bred. 
Since pure-bred elk command a higher price than either red deer or
hybrids, it is not in the game farmer's best interest to maintain a red
deer population.

     The third argument against game farms is habitat competition. 
Historically, there have been many accidental, intentional or ill-
advised introductions of new species into eco-systems.  The English
sparrow, nutria, knapweed, and Russian thistle are examples.  Any
introduction of a non-native species runs the risk that the new arrival
will out-compete native inhabitants for limited natural resources.  In
this particular case, however, captive-bred elk are still elk.  They
shouldn't pose a competitive threat to the native elk population.

     Some observers comment that a collateral issue in habitat
competition is that MFWP is very protective of its domain.  The agency 
oversees a $100 million budget and with license fees a money making
operation promoting big game hunting in Montana.  It wants to control
all land which produces elk as a product, even if this tramples on the
game farmers right to do as they wish with their private property.

     "A final issue threatening the game farmer is the cost of state
regulation.  MFWP is keeping track of the cost to regulate games farms,
and at the same time is calling for even more regulation.  Based on MFWP
statistics, game breeders fear, the agency soon may propose high fees
for all services to the game farms, some of the fees to be levied per
elk.  Game farmers suspect this is a tactic to bankrupt them out of
business.

     An antler drying plant in Antelope, Montana, one of the few in the
U.S., produced $750,000 worth of product last year.  Even this one
example of a small segment of the elk breeder's business shows the game
farms comprise a large,tax paying industry in the state.

     Glen Marx, a spokesman for Governor are Racicot, told PPF that all
industries in Montana are important.  In contrast, Montana state Senator
Terry Klampe [a Democrat, whose district includes parts of Ravalli and 
Missoula counties] is on record with his intention to propose
legislation for the 1995 session which would ban game farms.


     In the end, the elk remain at the center of the battle between game
breeders and Montana state regulatory departments.  Elegant symbol of
the West or source of income to ensure the family farm continues to the
to the next generation?  Diseased, genetically impure despoiler or 
money making proposition?  Free ranging, unspoiled Great Wapiti of
legend, or economic new livestock?  Either way, Montana's elk have
migrated to the forefront in the struggle between government regulators
and private property rights.

