katqanna
Well-known member
I will get the audio link and notes up for the two day FWP Bison Discussion Group meetings that took place in Billings on Mon. and Tues. a little bit later today, but here are two balanced articles by Brett French on the meeting.
The Billings location was a good choice and Ginny Tribe laid out what was being discussed and what was not, so that helped to control the scope of the comments. There was not the "feel it in the air" angst as in the Lewistown meeting. It was a much calmer atmosphere, more conducive to discussions. I do want to mention, hunters very much need to be involved in this. One of the hunters appointed to the Discussion Group did not show either day, so we only had Ron Moody as a hunter representative. There were some scary ass discussions going on, or as some might pc say, "slippery slope" that conservation hunters need to keep an eye on. These are just a few of my concerns, but there were a number of great comments and discussions that occurred.
Broken up into 4 groups, the discussion groups came up with ideas that will be used towards alternatives in an EIS. One group came up with a private land scenario, mentioned outfitters. This one concerns me because it is very much like the Wilks BLM land trade deal. He cuts off access to the Bullwhacker Road, then proposes a trade of land to gain access back to our public lands. Why would we look at housing our publicly owned wildlife bison on private land in that area? First, the majority of private land owners in that area have been objecting, obstructing any idea of restoring wild bison to PUBLIC lands there, using their private land as part of their defense. Second, we have abundant public land available that we can restore some wild bison to. Bison restoration to public lands should not be held hostage unless they get a cut. If it was so anathema before, money and outfitting should not change the situation, unless it was not truly so anathema in the first place?
Another group discussed simply taking all the bison and giving them to the Native American, who would then have ownership. The Native American rep stated that any hunter wishing to hunt could buy a license from them, as they can now. This group also mentioned that the Public Trust Doctrine and more specifically the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation were outdated and this wildlife was an example of that. That a new model needed to be created. This does not address the fact that Montana does not have wild bison restoration on Montana public lands. A Native American reservation is not Montana Public lands. They are a sovereign nation.
Which brings up the next issue, the discussion of wild bison as wildlife. A number there brought up that, "This species is different," and therefore should have a separate classification other than wildlife. At the last meeting in Sept. some wanted to change the classification to that of livestock - straight across the board.
Why is this species different? It is not different in biology. It is not different in wildness. It is different politically because it a larger forage competing ungulate. Dehumanizing, changing the classification of people was necessary in order to justify the slavery/ownership of some of them. In Africa, the Muslim slave traders dehumanized the people by saying if they werent Muslim, they were not people and therefore could be owned, bypassing the slavery issues in the Quran. Happened to Jews, Romaniy and other ethnicities in Europe. Happened here in the US with Native Americans. This is part of the slippery slope. Bison are wildlife. Domesticated bison are classified as livestock, just as they do to captured deer and elk on game farms. To remove the wildness/wildlife from bison is to privatize them, plain and simple.
Oh, and Comm. Stuker brought up not just landowners pulling out of Block Management, but also cutting off all access.
I will get the audio converted and up after lunch.
Advisory panel hears concerns about bison reintroduction from public
Group offers up ideas to formulate new state bison management plan
The Billings location was a good choice and Ginny Tribe laid out what was being discussed and what was not, so that helped to control the scope of the comments. There was not the "feel it in the air" angst as in the Lewistown meeting. It was a much calmer atmosphere, more conducive to discussions. I do want to mention, hunters very much need to be involved in this. One of the hunters appointed to the Discussion Group did not show either day, so we only had Ron Moody as a hunter representative. There were some scary ass discussions going on, or as some might pc say, "slippery slope" that conservation hunters need to keep an eye on. These are just a few of my concerns, but there were a number of great comments and discussions that occurred.
Broken up into 4 groups, the discussion groups came up with ideas that will be used towards alternatives in an EIS. One group came up with a private land scenario, mentioned outfitters. This one concerns me because it is very much like the Wilks BLM land trade deal. He cuts off access to the Bullwhacker Road, then proposes a trade of land to gain access back to our public lands. Why would we look at housing our publicly owned wildlife bison on private land in that area? First, the majority of private land owners in that area have been objecting, obstructing any idea of restoring wild bison to PUBLIC lands there, using their private land as part of their defense. Second, we have abundant public land available that we can restore some wild bison to. Bison restoration to public lands should not be held hostage unless they get a cut. If it was so anathema before, money and outfitting should not change the situation, unless it was not truly so anathema in the first place?
Another group discussed simply taking all the bison and giving them to the Native American, who would then have ownership. The Native American rep stated that any hunter wishing to hunt could buy a license from them, as they can now. This group also mentioned that the Public Trust Doctrine and more specifically the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation were outdated and this wildlife was an example of that. That a new model needed to be created. This does not address the fact that Montana does not have wild bison restoration on Montana public lands. A Native American reservation is not Montana Public lands. They are a sovereign nation.
Which brings up the next issue, the discussion of wild bison as wildlife. A number there brought up that, "This species is different," and therefore should have a separate classification other than wildlife. At the last meeting in Sept. some wanted to change the classification to that of livestock - straight across the board.
Why is this species different? It is not different in biology. It is not different in wildness. It is different politically because it a larger forage competing ungulate. Dehumanizing, changing the classification of people was necessary in order to justify the slavery/ownership of some of them. In Africa, the Muslim slave traders dehumanized the people by saying if they werent Muslim, they were not people and therefore could be owned, bypassing the slavery issues in the Quran. Happened to Jews, Romaniy and other ethnicities in Europe. Happened here in the US with Native Americans. This is part of the slippery slope. Bison are wildlife. Domesticated bison are classified as livestock, just as they do to captured deer and elk on game farms. To remove the wildness/wildlife from bison is to privatize them, plain and simple.
Oh, and Comm. Stuker brought up not just landowners pulling out of Block Management, but also cutting off all access.
I will get the audio converted and up after lunch.
Advisory panel hears concerns about bison reintroduction from public
Group offers up ideas to formulate new state bison management plan
