Armed Threats on Bison?

[katqanna]

I dont like to deal in rumors, I prefer facts, documented facts. But ever since the bison working group meeting, which was supposed to take place the 15th and 16th of April was cancelled, people have asked why. I had heard that it was cancelled because the ag/ranchers were threatening to protest. That is exactly what they said they would do at the Sept. meeting in their public comments, which I have on audio. So no rumor there, I can edit that audio and upload it for people to hear. But I also heard secondhand, from an FWP source, that the ag/ranchers were threatening to come armed.

Now years ago, a bison meeting was scheduled in Lewistown, at the same Yogo Inn, the Yogo received arson threats, so they cancelled the meeting being held there, as a result, the whole meeting was cancelled.

In light of the Bundy bull$hit with armed militia and ag/ranchers, this is not so farfetched, even with Montanans participating, touting land rights and grazing issues, issues being brought up at these bison meetings.

So today an article runs from the Billings AP, FWP boss announces scaled-back Montana bison plan. Why are we letting these ag/ranchers (5% of the population) run roughshod over the rest of Montanans concerning restoring wild bison to public lands in Montana (in a limited managed fashion as far as territory is concerned)? This is no different than what is taking place down in Nevada. A bully is a bully and when you put a weapon in their hand they generally define that as terrorism. "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

So here is my suggestion - hold the bison working group meeting in Helena, a city that is not a stronghold of these bullying ag/ranchers and make everyone pass through a detector. Bring the science to the table. Have a mature, logical discussion, instead of spinelessly caving to bullying threats.

As a conservation sportsman friend just asked, "Do I have to get a black plastic cowboy hat and a plastic pistol, wear them to meetings to get what I want?" I dont recall The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation saying anything about managing wildlife by ag/rancher political threats. I dont think the No Science Monkeys are just sitting on the governors desk, I think they have grown wings like the Wizard of Oz's flying monkeys and are circling the capitol like Texas vultures over a dying animal.

Expectations for a statewide bison-conservation plan were scaled back by Montana’s top wildlife official on Wednesday following backlash from ranchers opposed to restoring the animals to parts of their historical habitat.

Fish, Wildlife and Parks Director Jeff Hagener said in an interview with The Associated Press that it was no longer considered viable to establish a herd of free-roaming bison without any fencing or other limitations on where they can go.

A pilot project to restore a small herd of 50 to 100 bison is a potential first step in the conservation plan, Hagener said. That’s a far more modest goal than one earlier proposal to create a new herd of roughly 1,000 animals somewhere in Montana as a way to help preserve their genetics.

Hagener said he hopes to compile a range of new alternatives before the Legislature meets in January. Timing on a final decision is uncertain. State officials originally hoped to have a plan in place by the end of this year.

“Free-roaming is unrealistic,” Hagener said. “There’s going to have to be some level of containment.”

State officials last week cancelled a long-scheduled, two-day meeting on bison that was planned in Lewistown. The move came after ranchers pledged to protest the event.

Those involved in the meeting decided it would be counter-productive given the strong antipathy to the animals that’s emerged in many eastern Montana ranching communities, Hagener said.

The opposition centers on worries that bison will destroy fences and other property and compete with cattle for grazing space on an arid landscape that can support only so many animals.

“They want them to roam like elk and antelope,” said Vicki Olson, a rancher south of Malta. “I have those (elk and antelope) on my ranch and live with them, but I don’t think I can live with bison.”

Tens of millions of plains bison roamed much of North America before overhunting drove them nearly to extinction in the late 1800s. Conservationists, including hunters and wildlife advocates, have pushed for decades for the animals to be restored to parts of their range.

However, there’s been a tendency to disregard the fact that Olson and other ranchers now occupy the landscape, former state wildlife commissioner Ron Moody said.

“That’s been a fatal flaw of the advocacy for the reintroduction of bison,” Moody said. “Yes, we would like an opportunity to hunt bison some place out on the plains in eastern Montana, but we don’t want to do that as adversaries of ranchers.”

Restoration of the animals in Montana would rely on surplus bison from Yellowstone National Park., which has the largest surviving wild herd of genetically pure animals. The park has struggled to keep the population in check as required under a federal-state agreement intended to prevent the spread of a disease that can spread to livestock.

About 60 bison captured from the park were relocated beginning in 2012 to Montana’s Fort Peck and Fort Belknap Indian reservations. The animals had gone through a lengthy quarantine to ensure they were disease-free, yet the move was widely condemned by ranchers and some state lawmakers.

An additional group of about 135 to 150 quarantined bison are being held on a ranch near Bozeman owned by media mogul and bison advocate Ted Turner. They are scheduled to be moved by November. The prospects of the animals ending up on public lands appear increasingly slim given the delays in the statewide conservation plan.

Those animals could end up on tribal land or under the care of a private conservation group at least temporarily until the plan is finalized, Hagener said.

 

[elkantlers]

2nd amendment. they can carry, and so can you.

I don't agree with them and certainly believe there is room for more bison, but until you Montanans start pushing back the vocal minority is going to win.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The revolt is lead by UPOM & their legislators. Their position has always been NO to bison anywhere, even in limited numbers outside of the park.

elkantlers is right. Unless people stand up and demand this, it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Nemont]

Kat,

Any credibility I ever gave you has completely and forever been lost by you saying this is terrorism. The 5% of the population you don't really care about are the people who will be more affected by wild bison then the 95% of the people who don't ranch.

If merely the threat of a couple of armed ranchers can derail a meeting like this shows that there isn't much interest on the FWP part nor the Governor to push the issue or to pursue another meeting site.

Ranchers have every right to protest and have passionate opinions, even if they came armed that isn't terrorism and it doesn't rise to the level.


The lesson here is that the FWP doesn't want to have to deal with wild bison and they are starting rumors to cover their behinds and now the pro bison supporters feel free to spread rumors.

Seems like your friend in the Governors office is running scared about losing Eastern Montana now that he understands that he gave everybody east of Great Falls the finger during the last legislative session. Now to appease some ranchers he is dialing back the bison rhetoric but puts it out rumors that there may have been an armed rancher or two at a meeting. Why not blame the Governors office and the FWP instead of labeling your opposition as terrorist or do you channel Harry Reid?

This is the very reason for the total mistrust of the process. It is shameful and cowardly way to act IMO.

Please provide something showing there was a threat of violence other then a secondhand rumor.

Nemont

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Nemont: "Ranchers have every right to protest and have passionate opinions, even if they came armed that isn't terrorism and it doesn't rise to the level."


So should they call out the militia and have another "Bundy like' incident? WTH do you call someone that resorts to arming themselves to attend a simple friggin meeting of any sort like this if what is stated is true? I'm not saying it was because it is a second hand rumor type of comment posted by Kat. However, if what was stated is true or would come to fruition at a later date I'd damn sure call arming oneself to come to a meeting of that sort a terrorist type of action!

 

[Nemont]

It is "second hand" rumor. If the militia was called out to this meeting and was threatening violence then yes that is terrorism.

Are you stating as fact the people were going to attend this meeting armed or are you labeling second information regarding a chance that somebody may come armed as terrorism? If so you are not better then Kat.

The old say of "If and buts were candy and nuts, then every day would be Christmas" comes to mind. If this were true then there is a fairly simple solution to it, there are armed Sheriffs deputies in every county of this state who will provide security for attendees.

This is simply a smear campaign to avoid the obvious, the Governor knows he stepped in it when he vetoed the bill to fund the impact aid bill for Eastern Montana Cities and Towns to deal with the Bakken boom. He doesn't want to further erode any more support so he is not going to follow what his predecessor started with the wild bison plan and in order to avoid stating that, the FWP is having opponents spread rumors about the real reason the meeting was canceled.

The bison are simply a political pawn and the those who want wild bison are getting screwed by the guy they all voted into office because he $hit twice on the communities out here and treats the Eastern Side of the state as an ATM that doesn't require anything in return. That is far more factual then a second hand rumor that the FWP was scared off by a threat of ranchers arming themselves.

Nemont

 

[Ben Lamb]

Nemont,

As I understand it, the threat is certain legislators holding FWP funding hostage during the 2015 Legislature if they move forward with any translocation. FWP has a choice to make: Certain death to their funding needs by the hands of a pissed off legislature or back away and only have a 70% chance of death of their funding package.

This is much bigger than just the bison issue. It's the Legislature flexing their muscles and precluding a discussion on the issue, despite the willingness of bison advocates to be extremely flexible in how establishing a small herd of wild bison could be managed in a confined landscape.

Lots of lies and misinformation out there from UPOM, et al. I absolutely agree that anyone has a right to protest gov't action, but they should be in possession of the facts, and not the lies being used to whip them up.

 

[katqanna]

Kat,

Any credibility I ever gave you has completely and forever been lost by you saying this is terrorism. The 5% of the population you don't really care about are the people who will be more affected by wild bison then the 95% of the people who don't ranch.

If merely the threat of a couple of armed ranchers can derail a meeting like this shows that there isn't much interest on the FWP part nor the Governor to push the issue or to pursue another meeting site.

Ranchers have every right to protest and have passionate opinions, even if they came armed that isn't terrorism and it doesn't rise to the level.


The lesson here is that the FWP doesn't want to have to deal with wild bison and they are starting rumors to cover their behinds and now the pro bison supporters feel free to spread rumors.

Seems like your friend in the Governors office is running scared about losing Eastern Montana now that he understands that he gave everybody east of Great Falls the finger during the last legislative session. Now to appease some ranchers he is dialing back the bison rhetoric but puts it out rumors that there may have been an armed rancher or two at a meeting. Why not blame the Governors office and the FWP instead of labeling your opposition as terrorist or do you channel Harry Reid?

This is the very reason for the total mistrust of the process. It is shameful and cowardly way to act IMO.

Please provide something showing there was a threat of violence other then a secondhand rumor.

Nemont

Nemont, You are more than welcome to your opinion of me. I did not create the definition, that is from the online dictionary, nor have I been the one to begin the application to domestic situations like Bundy or eco/environmental groups on the other end of the spectrum. Earth Liberation Front is listed as domestic terrorists, Army of God in the south, KKK, Weathermen, Aryan Nations, Black Liberation Army, certain militia groups etc. What do they all have in common? Armed forcing of their special interests on a broader population by fear - not mature, civil dialogue.

I do care about the 5% ag/livestock industry here in Montana. I have advocated for better cattle vaccines for brucellosis, so they have more peace of mind, for fencing, again, for peace of mind and security. And as soon as I can get back to the land, I will be back into my small scale farming and smaller ranching.

Derailing due to the threat from a "couple" armed ranchers does not indicate lack of interest. What it does indicate is a bullied wildlife agency, especially in light of the fact that Montana's governor, along with WY and ID's, have capitulated to the bullying strong arm tactics of APHIS into signing a Brucellosis Management Plan and Cooperative Agreement which throws our wildlife agency under the bus for the livestock industry. This does not have to be an either/or situation if the stakeholders are given equitable seating at the table and facts/science are at the table rather than politics.

I am a firm believer of the publics right to governmental process, especially to attend and voice their opinions, which is why I record meetings for those that cannot attend and make them available. I have NEVER stated any stakeholder did not have this right or any other right in these processes. What I dont respect are political special interest back room deals, extortion and possible threats of violence. I am not the least bit intimidated by a room full of angry farmers and ranchers voicing their opinions. I was there at the Sept. Lewistown bison working group meeting. I even stood up and read MT DOL State Vet Dr. Marty Zaluski's statements and academic quotes regarding bison and brucellosis. I read off the quotes from MSA and the MCA from the Texas commission on how small a threat brucellosis was. The tension in the room was so thick you could feel it, but I read them out anyway. I also politely let pissed off ranchers try to corner me in the hall during breaks or afterward, voice their disagreement to those statements, at which point I pulled the documents out for them to see for themselves.

I will fight for your public right, just as much as the next persons. I have even spoken at meetings, aiding the ranchers by clarifying information or to sportsmen by clearing up their misconceptions about vaccinations or other matters. But if you or anyone else, regardless of the stakeholder position, brings weapons and/or threats into the discussion or to prevent one from ever occurring, I will call it like I see it.

While I had other things I planned to do today, I am going to capture the Sept. public comments audio by the ag/ranchers from the Lewistown bison meeting and get them online for y'all to hear. There may even be threats in that one, like they made in the halls. After a bit of the repeated angst, I kind of went numb to it all.

Might does not make right and it certainly is no way to civilly deal with a controversial situation. That is true cowardice.

 

[RobG]

Arming yourself is one thing, but I do believe threatening to use them without cause is assault with a deadly weapon. I'm not saying the bison objectors were planning to do that, but announcing that you'll be arriving armed sure implies it (acknowledging it's just a rumor). The 2nd was to protect us from an oppressive government, but it doesn't mean there won't be consequences if you break the law. If you bring out arms in the face of law enforcement they are justified in shooting you.

Here is the US code definition of terrorism.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

- Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
- Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
- Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

I would say if you threaten to do what falls under the definition of terrorism if you don't get your way you are a terrorist. Bundy's crowd yes IMO. Hopefully the anti-bison folks haven't become that wacked out.

 

[Nemont]

Nemont,

As I understand it, the threat is certain legislators holding FWP funding hostage during the 2015 Legislature if they move forward with any translocation. FWP has a choice to make: Certain death to their funding needs by the hands of a pissed off legislature or back away and only have a 70% chance of death of their funding package.

This is much bigger than just the bison issue. It's the Legislature flexing their muscles and precluding a discussion on the issue, despite the willingness of bison advocates to be extremely flexible in how establishing a small herd of wild bison could be managed in a confined landscape.

Lots of lies and misinformation out there from UPOM, et al. I absolutely agree that anyone has a right to protest gov't action, but they should be in possession of the facts, and not the lies being used to whip them up.

Ben,

I don't doubt that there are bigger issues then the Bison. One would be the governor wanting to get support from Eastern Montana legislators for some his projects. Bison are simply a pawn being traded back and forth.

For the record I am don't have a dog in the fight for wild Bison. I do take extreme umbrage at the insinuation that the only reason the Lewistown meeting was canceled was a threat of people showing armed. No proof, no quotes, nothing except a "second hand" rumor control.

Imagine the outcry if the supporters of wild bison were accused of such a thing.

I agree there is a lot of hysteria on the ranchers side and the OP is fanning the flames and doing it on purpose because the facts don't matter when the politics are behind it.

Nemont

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben,

I don't doubt that there are bigger issues then the Bison. One would be the governor wanting to get support from Eastern Montana legislators for some his projects. Bison are simply a pawn being traded back and forth.

For the record I am don't have a dog in the fight for wild Bison. I do take extreme umbrage at the insinuation that the only reason the Lewistown meeting was canceled was a threat of people showing armed. No proof, no quotes, nothing except a "second hand" rumor control.

Imagine the outcry if the supporters of wild bison were accused of such a thing.

I agree there is a lot of hysteria on the ranchers side and the OP is fanning the flames and doing it on purpose because the facts don't matter when the politics are behind it.

Nemont

So let's set that aside, since it can't be proved & focus on the issues at hand:

1.) Legislators holding FWP hostage on bison by implying they'll kill funding bills, causing massive cuts to access programs & the scientific management of wildlife.

2.) FWP's lack of leadership on the issue. I tend to agree that FWP hasn't been as bold as they should be. As for the Gov, I'm pretty happy he's staying out of this. It should be decided at the agency level, with some guidance from the Gov's staff as it relates to politics & the bigger picture.

What it all boils down it is that one side doesn't want any bison anywhere while the other side has compromised, given and been more than willing to work with landowners on the issue. One side in this debate is acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.

 

[Nemont]

Arming yourself is one thing, but I do believe threatening to use them without cause is assault with a deadly weapon. I'm not saying the bison objectors were planning to do that, but announcing that you'll be arriving armed sure implies it (acknowledging it's just a rumor). The 2nd was to protect us from an oppressive government, but it doesn't mean there won't be consequences if you break the law. If you bring out arms in the face of law enforcement they are justified in shooting you.

Here is the US code definition of terrorism.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition



I would say if you threaten to do what falls under the definition of terrorism if you don't get your way you are a terrorist. Bundy's crowd yes IMO. Hopefully the anti-bison folks haven't become that wacked out.

See you are winning Kat, now RobG is using your "second hand" rumor as fact and finding the definition of what terrorism is. No proof that there was going to be a single armed person there and not a shred of evidence that there would not be security there to deal with a threat.

So now what happens is RobG goes on to tell everyone who will listen to him that those dirty ranchers were armed and acting like terrorist so no meeting could be held and the the low hanging fruit of the supporters of wild bison eat it up and spread the rumor as fact.

Kat,
Isn't it self evident to you that the Gov. sold you out to APHIS and why he signed the Brucellosis Management Plan and Cooperative Agreement? He is not going to be able to follow Schweitzer's play book because he wants to get reelected and he can't do that by pissing off everyone east of Great Falls. In addition with the 2015 legislative session coming up he is going to need some votes from people opposed to wild bison, so he is dialing back the plans.

So keep spreading rumors and insinuating things that are not accurate or you could figure out that Bullock isn't going to be Schweitzer and just rubber stamp everything supporters of wild bison want.

Nemont

 

[Nemont]

One side in this debate is acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.

But there is still time for the Bison supporters to see the light and act right.


I view it kind of like when my wife wanted a cat and I didn't want one, so we compromised and got a cat. It didn't go so well for the cat.

Nemont

 

[Ben Lamb]

But there is still time for the Bison supporters to see the light and act right.

That's it. Internet fight!

 

[RobG]

See you are winning Kat, now RobG is using your "second hand" rumor as fact and finding the definition of what terrorism is. No proof that there was going to be a single armed person there and not a shred of evidence that there would not be security there to deal with a threat.

So now what happens is RobG goes on to tell everyone who will listen to him that those dirty ranchers were armed and acting like terrorist so no meeting could be held and the the low hanging fruit of the supporters of wild bison eat it up and spread the rumor as fact.

As fact? I specifically said it was a rumor. Instead of promoting rumors about me how about taking a class in reading comprehension there buddy?

 

[Nemont]

As fact? I specifically said it was a rumor. Instead of promoting rumors about me how about taking a class in reading comprehension there buddy?

Then why respond there pal, if it is just rumor?

 

[RobG]

Then why respond there pal, if it is just rumor?

Because you didn't seem to be aware of the definition of terrorism and the other person seemed to think the 2nd gives people the right to do things like what happened in Nevada.

 

[Nemont]

Because you didn't seem to be aware of the definition of terrorism and the other person seemed to think the 2nd gives people the right to do things like what happened in Nevada.

so you are a self appointed webster's dictionary. Tell me where in the OP's original rant anything would rise to the level of terrorism? Is a mere threat of arming ones self terrorism? What if the other side is armed as well? You are "hoping" that the Montana ranchers are not becoming like the Bundy circus because why? Have you seen evidence to suggest otherwise or are you just reading into Kat's rumor?

Is a rumor of a chance that somebody may be armed and going to a meeting terrorism? You may want to share that definition with Kat because nothing in the one you felt you needed to provide to me says that a rumor of a weapon being present is terrorism.

Spreading a rumor with the knowledge that nobody then has to have the facts is a shameful act. Do you want me to get you that definition or do you have it handy in your dictionary?

Nemont

 

[katqanna]

See you are winning Kat, now RobG is using your "second hand" rumor as fact and finding the definition of what terrorism is. No proof that there was going to be a single armed person there and not a shred of evidence that there would not be security there to deal with a threat.

Nemont, I am not going to be able to respond for a bit, while I get the audio edited, I will tell you a FACT, not a rumor. I personally heard ag/ranchers sitting around me commenting , as well as speaking in the halls, during the Sept bison working group meeting, involving armed protests if FWP didnt stop pursuing bison on public lands in Montana. That is a firsthand fact. I dont believe that it was an idle threat just stated in the heat of the moment.

But since I dont ever expect anyone to believe me with a he said/she said statement, I prefer to deal with documented sources I can cite that others can see the context for themselves. Since I will not burn a source, and believe the second hand quote which confirmed my personal experience in Sept., I am more than willing to take any accusation you or anyone else throws at me concerning a "rumor" in this matter, but hopefully, the overwhelming angst on audio will have one of them saying the same thing in their public comments they spoke in their chairs and in the halls.

Off to edit.

 

[Nemont]

Nemont, I am not going to be able to respond for a bit, while I get the audio edited, I will tell you a FACT, not a rumor. I personally heard ag/ranchers sitting around me commenting , as well as speaking in the halls, during the Sept bison working group meeting, involving armed protests FWP didnt stop pursuing bison on public lands in Montana. That is a firsthand fact. I dont believe that it was an idle threat just stated in the heat of the moment.

But since I dont ever expect anyone to believe me with a he said/she said statement, I prefer to deal with documented sources I can cite that others can see the context for themselves. Since I will not burn a source, and believe the second hand quote which confirmed my personal experience in Sept., I am more than willing to take any accusation you or anyone else throws at me concerning a "rumor" in this matter, but hopefully, the overwhelming angst on audio will have one of them saying the same thing in their public comments they spoke in their chairs and in the halls.

Off to edit.

Don't waste your time on me because I can edit an audio to say anything I need it to say.

If you felt these threats were real how come you didn't report them to law enforcement? Please show me a police report or where you called in these threats to a sheriff's office.

I believe a State Official has a duty to inform law enforcement about stated or implied threats of violence so if yoru source didn't do that what does that say about the threats?

I will answer, these rumored threats are simply a pretext used to avoid the obvious: there is no working agreement in regards to wild bison being put upon the landscape that this governor can support. Way easier to say there were threats made and no meeting can take place, damned ranchers.

If you believed these were real threats and failed to notify law enforcement then you are willing to put other people's lives at risk over a wildlife issue.

Nemont