Kofa National Wildlife Refuge & Wilderness had included a ban on llamas as a part of a proposed Wilderness Plan. This proposed ban was a direct result of the Canyonlands National Park ban. The following letter is by the attorneys representing the Canyonlands Task Force and states the facts surrounding the current situation at the Canyonlands.

Due to information provided to Kofa in this letter, Kofa is now recommending that the proposed ban be removed from their overall wilderness plan.

Mr. Tom Baca
National Resource Planner
Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 1306
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

Dear Mr. Baca:

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher -- on behalf of the International Llama Association ("ILA"), the Rocky Mountain Llama and Alpaca Association ("RMLA") and the Canyonlands Task Force ("CTF") (collectively, the "Associations") -- greatly appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft "Kofa National Wildlife Refuge & Wilderness and New Water Mountains Wilderness -Interagency Management Plan and Environmental Assessment" (the "Draft Plan"), dated December 1995, which was developed by the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS"), in cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, (collectively, the "Agencies") and would apply to the entire territory of the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge & Wilderness and New Water Mountains Wilderness (the "Planning Area"). These comments are particularly directed, although without limitation, to that portion of the Draft Plan entitled "Management Actions," section 2 of which provides, in pertinent part:

2. Prohibit the use of llamas and goats as pack animals throughout the planning area. Provide public information about these restrictions at access point information displays, in the planning area brochure and AGFD hunting regulations by 1996.

Draft Plan, Ex. I at 35.

The ILA is a global association of individuals and twenty-six affiliated organizations with a total membership of over 5,000 persons. The purpose of the ILA is "to educate members and the public as to the caring for, breeding and raising of llamas and other camelids." The International Llama Registry ("ILR"), which registers llamas and alpacas in the North American herd, has almost I 00,000 animals and I 0,000 owners in its data base. Since a number of owners choose not to register their animals with the ILR, the number of these animals in the North American herd is undoubtedly larger. The North American herd has increased from 10,000 animals and 1,000 owners to its present size in the past ten years. Today, the herd in North America is valued at several hundred million dollars and is a growing part of the livestock industry.

The RMLA is an association of residents of the western regions of the United States with an interest in llamas. The RMLA's purpose is "to educate the members and the public as to the breeding, raising, care, and use of llamas." Of all the llama organizations in North America, the RMLA undoubtedly has the highest percentage of members interested in the use of llamas as pack animals in the vast public lands that are included within the RMLA's geographic reach. In addition, RMLA members actively use their llamas for showing, spinning fiber, guarding sheep, attending parades and 4-H projects, as well as breeding their llamas for resale.

The CTF is an association of individuals that was formed in response to the September 1994 ban on pack llamas -- the first and only one in the Nation -- instituted by Mr. Walter D. Dabney, Superintendent of the National Park Service's Southeastern Utah Group, for the Canyonlands National Park (the "Dabney decision") over alleged concerns about paratuberculosis transmission by llamas.(1) The CTF has since been committed to "providing responsible leadership and a strong, unified presence to benefit the llama community by appropriate government policy and informed public opinion."

The Associations fully support reasonable governmental regulations designed to preserve, enhance and protect the Nation's wildlife and wilderness heritage. The Associations are convinced, however, that any and all regulations governing access to and use of wilderness areas must be well founded in science and fact, and implemented only following careful deliberation and consideration of the relevant Science and facts. It is the position of the Associations that no administrative decision or regulation should be based on speculation, misinformation or rumor, since to do so would undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the entire regulatory effort.

The primary purpose of these comments is to provide U.S. government decision-makers responsible for protecting the wildlife present in the Planning Area with the available scientific evidence concerning the transmission and epidemiology of Johne's disease ("paratuberculosis"). On March 12, 1996 a Workshop on Johne's Disease was held at Colorado State University and sponsored, in part, by the BLM (the "CSU Workshop"). The CSU Workshop provided a forum for scientists with an expertise in Johne's disease and policy makers entrusted with managing public lands to discuss the scientific evidence concerning the transmission and epidemiology of Johne's disease. According to the scientific evidence presented at the CSU Workshop and documented in the scientific studies and literature, at least three conclusions emerge: (1) llamas are not, in any measurable or scientifically meaningful sense, transmitters of paratuberculosis; (2) other domestic animals, often given extensive and frequent access to wildlife areas, are more substantially likely paratuberculosis transmitters; and (3) in all events, paratuberculosis poses a lower-grade threat to wildlife in wilderness areas in relation to far more common and equally deadly diseases, and paratuberculosis presents a far greater threat to domestic production livestock, including sheep, goats and cattle, in relation to wildlife. So powerful and persuasive was the presentation of the available scientific evidence at the CSU Workshop that the Assistant Director of Resource Use and Protection of the BLM, W. Hord Tipton, has announced the Bureau will not even consider banning llamas from public lands based on current data.

A secondary purpose of these comments is to explain precisely the origin and source of the rumors, speculations, and innuendoes concerning llamas that have apparently led to the proposed ban set forth in the Management Actions section of the Draft Plan.

BLM Policy

On April 3, 1996, Mr. Tipton, of the BLM, informed United States Representative Michael D. Crapo by letter that, based in large part on the CSU Workshop, the BLM would soon be formally announcing its policy that llamas should not be banned from public lands based on its current understanding of paratuberculosis.

The consensus of the [CSU Workshop] was that Johne's disease is a disease of filth and animals must have prolonged exposure and receive massive numbers of the bacteria to become infected. The chances are remote that infection could occur in a free-ranging animal population, such as llamas. Only cursory monitoring of freeranging wildlife is required at this time. Therefore, the BLM will not consider banning llamas or any other domestic species from the public lands based on its current understanding of this disease. The BLM will formally announce this policy soon.

Ex. 2 at 1 (emphasis added). A ban of llamas from the Planning Area, based on the threat of the spread of Johne's disease, would run directly counter to the BLM policy established after the CSU Workshop.

The Prohibition Of Pack Llamas From Canyonlands National Park

To date, the Associations are aware of only one, independent instance of a prohibition of pack llama access to or use of public lands anywhere in the United States based on a perceived threat of paratuberculosis transmission. Interestingly, the aforementioned prohibition, first instituted over a year-and-a-half ago by a ]one National Park Service Superintendent, Walter D. Dabney, and made applicable to the Canyonlands National Park and Orange Cliffs Unit of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area ("Canyonlands"), has not been followed by Mr. Dabney's National Park Service colleagues or by other U.S. and state governmental park and wildlife administrators. Indeed, the Associations are aware of, and the record will demonstrate that, several other representatives of the National Park Service, U.S. government agencies, and various state agencies have considered -- and categorically rejected as scientifically unfounded -- the decision taken by Mr. Dabney and have publicly refused to follow his lead.

Tellingly, the stated rationale given for Mr. Dabney's action in 1994 -- namely, "the possibility of disease transmission to native animals" -- is precisely the same rationale given for the proposed prohibition on llama use set forth in the Draft Plan. From preliminary telephone discussions with representatives of the Agencies, it is the understanding of the Associations that the proposed llama prohibition contained in the Draft Plan was indeed prompted, at least in significant part, by rumor of the Dabney decision respecting Canyonlands. Consequently, the Associations believe it to be critical to the Agencies' deliberation of the Draft Plan that responsible decision-makers be informed of the chronology of events leading up to the Dabney decision and its aftermath.

The Associations first learned of the Canyonlands llama ban in September 1994, when Mr. Dabney issued a press release unilaterally announcing the ban, without the opportunity for public comment or submission of scientific data. The press release was reported by several local Utah newspapers. Ex. 3. The alleged justification for the llama ban, as reported by the media, was Mr. Dabney's belief that llamas may transmit paratuberculosis to Bighorn sheep present in the Canyonlands park. In his Briefing Statement supporting the September 1994 llama prohibition, Ex. 4, Mr. Dabney admitted that his concerns over the purported paratuberculosis threat from llamas emanated from impromptu comments by Dr. Terry Spraker, a Colorado State University ("CSU") veterinary pathologist, while Spraker was present at the 1994 Annual Desert Bighorn Sheep Council meeting. The Associations understand that Mr. Dabney did not attend that meeting, but apparently learned of Dr. Spraker's comments second-hand.

Based on a BLM-prepared transcript of the 1994 Desert Bighorn Sheep Council meeting the Associations recently received, it is true that Dr. Spraker raised the potential problem of paratuberculosis transmission to native animals in wilderness areas. Ex. 5 at 23. He also noted that paratuberculosis had been diagnosed in two co-located llamas in the over 100,000 strong.

North American llama herd of the early 1990s.2 However, Dr, Spraker's brief comments on the issue did not specifically address the risk of transmission of the disease from llamas to wildlife in wilderness areas. According to his subsequently issued, October 1994 Briefing Statement in support of the llama ban, Mr. Dabney stated that his decision to prohibit llama entry into Canyonlands was "based largely upon" discussions with and the "strong recommendation" of Dr. Terry Spraker. Ex. 4.

Taken out of context and without rigorous analysis of the available scientific evidence, Dr. Spraker's 1994 comments apparently caused Mr. Dabney to conclude that llamas may present a substantial danger to wildlife in wilderness areas. Undoubtedly, Mr. Dabney was alarmed by second-hand reports he received of the initial, off-the-cuff comments made by Dr. Spraker at the Desert Bighorn Sheep Council meeting. However, as discussed below, a later statement, issued by Dr. Spraker and other prominent CSU veterinary professors, which was given directly to Mr. Dabney, makes clear that the Canyonlands prohibition on llama access, predicated on the purported danger of llamas transmitting paratuberculosis to wildlife, was and is "scientifically unsound." Ex. 7 at 2.

The initial Canyonlands llama prohibition, hurriedly announced by Mr. Dabney in September of 1994, remained in effect through the late autumn and early winter of 1994. In January 1995, Mr. Dabney incorporated (and thereby made permanent) the pack llama ban from Canyonlands into his Canyonlands National Park and Orange Cliffs Unit of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area "Backcountry Management Plan." Ex. 8.

In a critical May 4, 1995 letter sent to Mr. Dabney, Dr. Franklyn Garry, Dr. David Getzy, Dr. Terry Spraker, and Dr. LaRue Johnson addressed the issue of paratuberculosis among sheep, goats, cattle, horses, and llamas specifically in the context of the Dabney decision to prohibit llama use in and access to Canyonlands. Ex. 7. The letter stated that while paratuberculosis is well documented among sheep, goats and cattle, and has been reported sporadically to affect some equine species, its incidence among llamas is virtually infinitesimal. The disease has been documented in only two llamas (with two suspected cases) in North America among the probable hundreds of thousands of llamas that have cumulatively inhabited the North American continent during the twentieth century. Ex. 7 at 2. Further, the extant veterinary scholarship indicates that llamas are extremely poor and inefficient paratuberculosis hosts, inasmuch as the disease appears to be fatal to llamas relatively quickly. Ex. 7 at 2. The CSU scientists unequivocally stated that there is no demonstrable scientific evidence to indicate that llamas pose any realistic, meaningful or measurable threat of transmitting paratuberculosis to any other animals, domestic or wildlife, anywhere. Ex. 7 at 2. Drs. Spraker, Garry, Getzy and Johnson wrote:

To date, only four cases (3) of Johne's disease have been documented in llamas, although a thorough search of the literature indicates one additional case where typical lesions of the disease were noted but the organism was not specifically identified. Not only has the disease been infrequently found in llamas in North America, but the reported cases have tended to be unusual in being quite young or quite old, as compared to the typically affected cow or sheep. The course of the disease in llamas has been short, with death occurring shortly after clinical suggestion of disease. It is most likely that the low reported incidence of this problem in llamas is a true representation of the disease in the species because it is unlikely that the disease has been inadvertently overlooked. By comparison with our domestic ruminant livestock, llamas have tended to maintain a high individual monetary value and, therefore, death and disease in this species has typically been closely scrutinized using standard but extensive diagnostic methods. Llamas are frequently placed in close contact with the domestic ruminant livestock and thus should have ample opportunity to contract the disease and show signs if they were highly susceptible to this problem.

While the low reported incidence of Johne's disease in llamas is significant in itself in suggesting that llamas are an extremely infrequent carrier of the M paratuberculosis organism, these findings also illustrate another important issue. In the interaction between infectious organisms and mammalian hosts, there are typically strong associations between a given host and a given pathogen species. When an organism invades a host to which it is not optimally adapted, it will usually not develop an endemic infection and rather will tend to occur in a sporadic and somewhat unusual pattern as compared with the disease in the more typical host. This appears to be a common phenomenon in llamas in North America. To date, there are no identified pathogens that are specifically adapted to llamas as a host species. That is to say, that if you scour the veterinary literature, you will find reports of llamas that have contracted viral and bacterial problems from horses, cattle, sheep and goats. But there are no reported incidences of diseases contracted by these other species specifically from contact with llamas. This may not be surprising given that llamas are not standard ruminants. While they possess a forestomach for fermentation of vegetative foodstuffs, they have evolved separate from the common hoof stock ruminants, which include our domestic and wild ruminant species in North America.

... [O]ur current knowledge demonstrates that Johne's disease is uncommon in llamas and is likely contracted by llamas from contact with other species and is not an endemic llama problem. On that basis, it is inappropriate to view llamas as posing a substantial threat as a vector specifically for Johne's disease transmission to wildlife species.

As we stated in our letter to Mr. Dabney on February 16, we understand that there may be significant reasons to justify banning nonindigenous species from Canyon Lands Park and possibly other park systems based upon diseases, biological, behavioral and ecological arguments. It is scientifically unsound, however, to formulate a Policy about llama use based specifically on a concern about Johne's disease spread by these animals. We hope the information we have tried to clarify here is some use in your discussions with the park service about policy.

Ex. 7 at 2-3 (emphasis added).

The fact that Dr. Spraker joined in the May 5, 1995 letter is of course fatal to the scientific validity of the original September 1994 Dabney decision. Dr. Spraker's clarification of his prior statements, a clarification echoed by his co-signing and eminently well-respected CSU veterinary colleagues, demonstrates that the Dabney decision -- again, which Mr. Dabney himself concedes was "based largely upon" his interpretation of Dr. Spraker's 1994 statements -- is not founded on any credible scientific linkage between llamas and the transmission of paratuberculosis. For reasons apparently having nothing to do with science, however, Mr. Dabney has steadfastly refused to reverse his 1994 decision, despite the now effectively retracted, pseudo-scientific basis for that decision.

Scientific truth, of course, is not specific to any geographic area. No less than in Canyonlands, a policy prohibiting the entry of pack llamas in the Planning Area, predicated on an unfounded fear of paratuberculosis transmission by llamas to the wildlife present in the Planning Area, would be equally "scientifically unsound." Without scientific basis, such a ban would constitute arbitrary and capricious administrative decision-making, plainly subject to judicial nullification under applicable federal law.