WILD BISON ON THE MONTANA PRAIRIE? MAYBE. BUT WHAT IS WILD? by Ron Moody

[Ben Lamb]

If they are contained to a specific area, how can they be classified as wild, free roaming? Not being a smart @ss just don't quite get the difference.

Nemont

PS the tribal bison have tons of hay thrown to them in the winter.

The difference between classifications is based on "ownership." Domestic bison are considered livestock because they are, by definition, held in captivity and owned by a person.

Wild bison are not owned by anyone, but held in trust for the people (just like deer & elk). The wild designation comes with bison such as YNP, Wind Cave, etc. It gets confusing but the legal classification is really just based on origins of the bison.

Having a designated area for bison conservation would be little different than the current primary conservation area for grizzly bears. They step out of that area, get in trouble and they get plugged.

Current statute says that FWP must have a containment plan in place before releasing wild bison. It does not say fence. A containment area could be a piece of ground large enough to sustain what will be a small herd of wild bison.

 

[katqanna]

Why do we have to consider the economic benefits of the APR and Bison but not the Keystone XL pipeline? Nemont

There is more involved than just economics. When people discuss bison, it is primarily in the vein of ecology, restoring a wildlife species to the land. There are academic papers that show the benefit of wild bison on the land, forage wise.

But you bring up XL pipeline, which is also not just economics but can have very detrimental efforts on the land and water, like this recent news release. Wheat farmer discovers Bakken oil spill the size of 7 football fields

 

[Nemont]

Kat,

So it is right to look at all angles and all sides of the Pipeline argument and take into account how locals will be affected if the oil gets out of the pipeline but if locals ask what happens if the bison get out of their designated area, then the locals are just alarmists? Wild bison can be 100% guaranteed not to have any detrimental affect on locals and ranchers?

Why does the local impact matter in one instance and not the next? Why are economics more important in the bison scenario and not the pipeline scenario? In Glasgow the pipeline revenue would go along ways to building the new middle school we have on the drawing boards, way further than tax revenue from the APR.

The are academic papers that say about anything one wants to say. I am not sure academic papers impress most common folk, like me. Most academics don't know one end of a bison from another IMO.

Nemont

 

[Ben Lamb]

Kat,

So it is right to look at all angles and all sides of the Pipeline argument and take into account how locals will be affected if the oil gets out of the pipeline but if locals ask what happens if the bison get out of their designated area, then the locals are just alarmists? Wild bison can be 100% guaranteed not to have any detrimental affect on locals and ranchers?

Why does the local impact matter in one instance and not the next? Why are economics more important in the bison scenario and not the pipeline scenario? In Glasgow the pipeline revenue would go along ways to building the new middle school we have on the drawing boards, way further than tax revenue from the APR.

The are academic papers that say about anything one wants to say. I am not sure academic papers impress most common folk, like me. Most academics don't know one end of a bison from another IMO.

Nemont

For one, I think we need to have the discussion about all sides when it comes to bison. As for ensuring 100% that nothing will happen - that ignores the Rathbone & Sackman Supreme Court Decisions. Regardless, there is within current legislation the answer to those questions. Specifically

Section 1, Subsection 7:

(7) The department is liable for all costs incurred, including costs arising from protecting public safety, and any damage to private property that occurs as a result of the department's failure to meet the requirements of subsection (5).

http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2011/billpdf/SB0212.pdf

 

[Nemont]

Ben,

I know you believe in input from everyone and to make the decision in the light of day.

I think Kat's argument lazy. If I said there are academic papers that say the Keystone XL pipeline is safe and beneficial I highly doubt the other side would say,"Well I guess the academics have decided the issue, end of story".

Tried finding the Rathbone decision but I must suck at google.

Nemont

 

[katqanna]

Nemont, I may sleep deprived these last few days and not having eaten much due to my fathers death (posting briefly, not lazily), but even on my worst day I can read my post and see that I never stated, nor implied that there was a 100% guarantee of bison not causing any damage to the landscape or property. In fact, without even scrolling back through posts in this thread, I can guarantee that I have posted about organizations such as NRDC, that are providing fencing to those that want to protect their property or part of their property from bison, to proactively deal with the situation. I am aware of what a bison can do, as I am aware of neighbors cattle and the damage they have done to my fencing and property, and as a recent neighbors horses did - repeatedly. Livestock and wildlife can do damage, that is a given and I would never make such an absurd statement to the contrary.

I stated that bison are generally promoted from an ecological point of view, not focusing on economics. And to reply to your economic comparison of the XL pipeline being a greater economic benefit, as if that somehow negates the bison, showed a recent news article that not everything with an economical XL pipeline would necessarily be beneficial and could be extremely detrimental - pluses always need to be weighed with minuses when weighing a situation. Like the Arkansas spill or hey, lets look at how f*cked up the Gulf is and BP not cleaning up that mess, nor compensating those lost businesses and how many years ago was that?

XL, not that this thread was about the XL, is not the fool proof salvation of the economy, just as bison are not the apocalypse of Montana.

Now, as to C. R. Rathbone (Supreme Court of Montana. State v. Rathbone, No. 8011. March 5, 1940), Nemont, no you dont suck at Google. No one had it. Everyone quotes a few sentences, but being the thorough person that I am ( like researching thousands of academic papers over the years, from a lot of perspectives), I called the Westlaw library about a year ago and got a copy of it, because I like to read everything and verify context. It is part of what I carry around in my bag, what Glenn Hockett likes to call my "War Chest", just in case anyone brings it up and would like the full context. For you, I will scan this bad boy tomorrow morning, convert to pdf and post it online for all to see. My gift to you. I especially like the statement, "Justification cannot be based upon a mere trespass by wild animals. Montana is one of the few areas in the nation where wild game abounds. It is regarded as one of the greatest of the state's natural resources, as well as the chief attraction for visitors."

 

[1_pointer]

Katqanna- I am sorry to hear of your father's passing. You and yours will be in my thoughts.

 

[katqanna]

Katqanna- I am sorry to hear of your father's passing. You and yours will be in my thoughts.

Thank you 1_pointer. He was an amazing father and friend. I know it wasnt easy for him raising a daughter by himself, especially during a time when men did not receive custody of children, much less a daughter in a divorce. But I loved being his son so to speak, learning how to use tools, work on vehicles, sports, fish and camping/hiking. Racetrack sets are so much more fun than barbies and chemistry sets blow away easy bake ovens.

 

[Big Fin]

Katqanna- I am sorry to hear of your father's passing. You and yours will be in my thoughts.

X2 - Sorry to hear that, Kat. Hopefully thoughts and prayers of family and friends provide some comfort.

 

[katqanna]

Thank you Randy. It does. I am trying to focus on the elk research and such to help. That short hike into the GNF (Rob wanted to grouse hunt since we were there) while we were checking on the Schlueter debacle, was a tremendous help. I love it in the wild.

 

[1_pointer]

Thank you 1_pointer. He was an amazing father and friend. I know it wasnt easy for him raising a daughter by himself, especially during a time when men did not receive custody of children, much less a daughter in a divorce. But I loved being his son so to speak, learning how to use tools, work on vehicles, sports, fish and camping/hiking. Racetrack sets are so much more fun than barbies and chemistry sets blow away easy bake ovens.

Keep those memories in the open as much as possible. Neither of my two sons got to really know my father (he died in '08 and my oldest was born in '07). However, they both know some of his stories and can pick him out of a picture. Time will make it easier, but the void will never be gone...

 

[katqanna]

Montana State v. Rathbone 1940

Montana State v. Rathbone 1940 complete document.
Sorry it is not clearer. I unpacked the scanner and hooked it up. It decided not to work, so this was taken with the digital camera. I will scan and upload a new one when I can. This should suffice for now. Enjoy

 

[Nemont]

Katqanna,

Sorry to hear of the loss of you father. You don't have to spend any time on a hunting forum discussing this with a nucklehead like me when you have that going on. Take care of yourself and family first.

Nemont

 

[Ben Lamb]

Kat,

went through the same thing in August. MY sincere sympathies.

Nemont: The jist of Rathbone is this: Wildlife existed before anyone person set foot in Montana and are considered part and parcel of living here. To that end, landowners must expect reasonable amounts of use of their land by wildlife ,which is owned by no-one and held in trust for all by the state. It's the basis of most wildlife law in MT.

The Sackman decision further refined this: Sackman was a rancher on the upper Blackfoot who shot a bunch of elk eating his haystacks. He then sued FWP for not taking care of their animals. The MT Supreme Court eventually got involved and ruled that Sackman was in violation for shooting the elk, and that he did not work with the state to alleviate his concerns. This decision essentailly sets the stage for private landowners to work with the agency in an attempt to alleviate problems before seeking recompense for damages done by wildlife.

Edit: Here's the Sackman decision as a pdf:

 

[katqanna]

Katqanna,
Sorry to hear of the loss of you father. You don't have to spend any time on a hunting forum discussing this with a nucklehead like me when you have that going on. Take care of yourself and family first.
Nemont

Nemont, I didnt want to mention my father as a means to deflect the conversation, only to address why I had posted briefly, which seemed to have been misunderstood. Thank you for your words. Actually, distraction is a big help right now. So please dont hold anything back or pull any punches discussion wise, I can take it. I value different perspectives and you are not a nucklehead for having your opinions. I hope the Rathbone pdf was clear enough for you to read.

 

[katqanna]

Kat,
went through the same thing in August. MY sincere sympathies.

The Sackman decision further refined this: Sackman was a rancher on the upper Blackfoot who shot a bunch of elk eating his haystacks. He then sued FWP for not taking care of their animals. The MT Supreme Court eventually got involved and ruled that Sackman was in violation for shooting the elk, and that he did not work with the state to alleviate his concerns. This decision essentailly sets the stage for private landowners to work with the agency in an attempt to alleviate problems before seeking recompense for damages done by wildlife.

Edit: Here's the Sackman decision as a pdf:

Ben, thank you and sorry for you loss as well. I am trying to compartmentalize - throwing myself into research. Thank you also for your posting the Sackman pdf. That will be applicable to me in another matter that involves our elk.

Kathryn

 

[katqanna]

Yesterday I received a call from a friend telling me there was an article in the Belgrade paper from a person (they couldnt remember the author) bringing up the FWP Lewistown bison work group meeting. Besides saying it was a disaster and and a clear message was sent that the majority of Montanan's dont want bison, it was only out of staters advocating for bison, the thing that caught my attention was this person stated no Montana sportsmen wanted bison in Montana, as it was relayed. I couldnt find it in the online paper, but while doing another unrelated search, came across this article - FWP Should Stop Free-Roaming Bison Plan. By the sound of it, this must be the article reprinted in the Belgrade paper.

First Toby Dahl states, "At FWP’s meeting there was virtually no support for the plan from Montanans—but there was plenty of support from out-of-state environmental groups. The American Prairie Foundation, Wildlife Conservation Society, and National Wildlife Federation flew in their national officials to explain why Montana should accept their plan."

While Tom France was speaking for the National Wildlife Federation (a conservation organization that got started as a result of the urging of the President Franklin Roosevelt - North American Wildlife Conference ,as it was then called, was held in Washington, DC, in February 1936, who convened a gathering of over 2000 hunters and anglers from across the country - seven of which came from Montana, which became the Montana Wildlife Federation when they got back to Montana in March), France got his degree from University of Montana and lives in Missoula. Also from NWF (but not at the table) was Kit Fisher, who grew up here in Montana.

The second conservation group at the table was the Greater Yellowstone Coalition (Bozeman), whose founding president (1983) was Rick Reese, a hunting and fishing Montanan, who is still fighting to conserve this state. Representing the GYC was Jeanne-Marie Souvigney, a Montana resident who also went to the University of Montana.

The third conservation group at the table was the Wildlife Conservation Society, founded in 1895, "Our story began in the early 1900’s when we successfully helped the American bison recover on the Western Plains." Representing WCS was Keith Aune, of Bozeman who has degrees from both University of Montana and Montana State University, as well as working for Montana FWP for 31 years.

So I would say that even though these conservation organizations are not just strictly Montana and the GYC is in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, they were well represented by Montanans who, if not born here, certainly have made Montana their home and have a vested interest in this state. In addition, there were a number of us from Montana that spoke up for bison restoration, during the public comment period.

If I remember correctly, I think I have heard Toby's name come up here at the forum. Not knowing him I did a search. Here is the interesting part. In Toby's article he states bison will, "lead to the destruction of property, forage, and crops..." "Landowners are opposed because wild bison would destroy fences and crops, expose livestock to disease, and be an enormous financial burden. A landowner invaded by free-roaming bison would largely be on her own to absorb the cost of any damage done to property, just like she would for any other wildlife. The difference is the potential amount of forage lost and damage done is orders of magnitude greater for bison than it is for deer or elk. With the damage that could be done to agriculture from free-roaming bison, there is a very real potential of significant, negative shocks to local economies. If ag producers are forced to absorb the cost of bison foisted on them, the effects will be felt throughout the community. We’ve already seen what havoc a wild free-roaming herd can do. "

So right away in my search I see an article, Runamuk, which will play host to benefit trail ride next weekend, serves up real ranching getaway.

Apparently Toby not only "game ranches" as some have called it, but he is the director of United Property Owners of Montana. Toby also cattle ranches and was quoted in the above Billings Gazette articles as saying, " 'Fences are just an idea for these cattle,' Toby said. Some days, he and Rutherford rounded up three or four cattle that were in the wrong pasture or on the wrong ranch only to have them break through another fence. One neighbor who maintains a nine-hole golf course on his acreage called to say a couple of heifers were on his fairway and would Toby please come get them out before they marked his course with dung. But, by the time Toby and Rutherford rode over, the cattle were long gone."

Toby then went on to say in his anti bison article, "The damage to property and habitat and the spread of disease to livestock near Yellowstone National Park is well documented. Yet even as the bison advocates admitted Yellowstone bison management is a debacle, they saw no reason not to move forward with a new herd. It’s obvious they don’t care what happens to communities in Eastern Montana."

I would like to ask Toby for his documentation on bison to cattle brucellosis transmission. He will have to look very long time and will not find anything, because there has not been a single documented case of bison to cattle brucellosis transmission in nature. In fact the Department of Livestock website and their documentation submitted to the Texas Animal Health Commission stated it was the elk genotype for the cattle infections. "So really the DSA in the state of Montana is in southwest Montana. And it is designed to identify the cattle at risk from brucellosis positive elk. So we know that brucellosis positive elk are in southwest Montana, they can potentially expose cattle and so the key to identifying the cattle at risk is to identify where the brucellosis positive elk are." FWP would not be putting brucellosis infected bison out on he landscape, setting themselves up to fail.

As to Yellowstone National Park, the people in attendance at Lewistown, speaking out against the YNP, demanding that Montana fix YNP first before doing anything anywhere else, clearly do not understand that the YNP is a national park under federal jurisdiction, which Montana has no jurisdiction over.

Toby goes on to state, "A middle-road compromise position was offered to allow a small herd as long as stringent confinement measures were in place. But the BLM made it clear they have no interest in building a fence along their boundaries and FWP Director Jeff Hagner was clear that FWP had no interest in the management of a fenced-in herd. With their refusal to compromise, it’s clear these bison advocates won’t stop until they can force bison onto private property."

Wild bison are wildlife and no other wildlife in Montana are fenced in in this manner, that is not wildlife management, but livestock management. Interestingly enough Montana is a free range state, yet Toby Dahl clearly prefers hypocrisy on many levels to equality in management. No one has advocated wild bison onto any private property owners land, only on public lands, which belong to all Montanan's, as well as the citizens of the United States for the federal lands. And again, what about the private property owners that want bison to freely roam on their land?

Of course, these are once again, just my opinions.