Wildlife Risk Verified

Thursday, June 30th, 2011
Early in the morning we met Greg, a Wildlife Services employee that is involved with Wildlife Risk mitigating farms. He first showed us a similar process that Emily completes before stepping out onto anyone's property. He uses the Google Maps to assess land, approxiamate deer cover, natural wetland, fresh water sources, etc. He explained that Wildlife Services doesn't exist unless they get proper funding. So, if funding is not available, neither is work for anyone in the company. However, they do deal with natural habitat and preserve our native species. They implement plans to preserve endangered species' habitat as well as killing off their over-populated predators. In bovine TB, their role is the middle ground between what MDARD can do versus what DNR will do. So to alleviate the tuberculosis issue in the northern Michigan livestock, they assist with the Wildlife Risk Mitigation program and attempt to verify farms.

To show us what type of changes can be made, we drove to Alpena (~90 min) and checked out a property that had already been assessed to see what they do after they have already gone through the Risk*A*Syst (which is what we did with Emily). This property, inparticular, did not have many cattle, but he did have a natural creek run through his pasture land that emerged from the woods out back where there was significant deer cover. Fortunately, with such a small herd, he already had a hoop house for his hay and all other silage was stored inside the barns, so feed was not a serious issue. As we walked back toward the woods, we came up to a low area that was just outside of the trees. The water of crick came from that spot, but the water there was at a stand still. This is an unacceptable water source for both cattle and deer to share because of the respiratory secretions that can persist in an unmoving area. The area was also slightly shaded, which is a safe haven for the bacteria. UV light is the murderer of the microbe, so areas that are moving and in sunlight are safer. Regardless of being a "safe spot," however, it would be ideal if the wildlife and cows could not drink from the same areas because then they wouldn not come into physical contact either, where secretions may be directly swapped, although, much more unlikely. Therefore, problematic areas like the stand-still cattail marsh had to be fenced off by the owner, whom, in this case, was very compliant.

Greg was great in explaining everything he assesses. However, he does admit, sometimes there's not a clear cut reasoning to tell the owner why you are or aren't doing certain things. These are all preventative measures, so maybe that gate, in long term, does nothing, but in an area infested with TB within the wildlife, it's one of the only precautions we can take for our cattle to sustain our livestock industry. Producers  that have to make significant changes, however, beg to differ and argue that we will put them out of business by forcing them to spend money before their cattle with ever all die of TB.

The Wildlife Risk program is, in most instances, frowned upon by producers. Some do understand the rationale among the program, but others see it as a waste of time and that TB will be here forever, regardless. It is hard for me sometimes to explain to my callers the scientific background of disease prevention when they are concerned for their way of life and their sole source of income. It can be an emotionally draining topic when you hit people with strong feelings about it. However, without regulation, the disease would propagate uncontrollably and destroy Michigan's agricultural community.