Yellowstone Bison

Madison Valley Landowners Get Tough with Montana DOL

Comment By Marion, 11-07-07

Here we go again. It would be so much more effective to spend the money, time, and energy to develop an effective vaccine and vaccinate the buffs, and the elk too for that matter.
Buffs do transmit the disease in lab settings, which of course is the only way to have absolute proof of any transmission.

Comment By Craig Moore, 11-07-07

Since the beginning of regulated society the wild animals have belonged to the sovereign. This has been the basis for states to govern and regulate the harvesting and management of the sovereign's animals. The clash here will be interesting to watch as the Gallanises private property rights do not extend to unreasonable interference with the sovereign's right to manage its animals. Simply put: the Gallanises own the dirt while the sovereign owns the animals.

The answer, of course, lays with negotiation rather than 'in your face' confrontation. There are 2 Idaho tribes who have expressed an interest in harvesting bison in Montana. The Gallanises have expressed the need to manage the herd size on their property and are open to hunting as the means. Isn't there a match here? In my opinion, the Gallanises should replace their sign with a conference table to address the competing interests.

Comment By BMontana, 11-07-07

Let me guess, the Gallanises are not Montana natives? What's their plan when they get up those proposed homesites? Bison roam the subdivision?

Comment By Jimurl, 11-07-07

Last I checked, private property rights didn't depend on "Montana Native" status, did they?

The State DOES have the right to manage wildlife; that is the sole job of an agency, the MT Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. If bison were managed by them (rather than by the Dept. of Livestock), I bet the Gallanises would be less opposed to allowing access.

Comment By TCWriter, 11-07-07

What a mess. There's so much wrong with every aspect of this story that there's little room for anything to be right.

Of course the state has the right to manage wildlife, yet -- as has been pointed out -- why is D of Livestock doing it? Hazing to protect cattle when no one can prove transmission?

(Lest we forget, Brucellosis was brought to the wild populations by domestics; shouldn't we be hazing the cattle to protect the Bison?)

At some point (hopefully), everyone will get tired of spitting into the wind and figure it out. It's happening in the Klamath River Basin, where sworn, blood-oath enemies have been sitting down for a couple years to unravel the mess.

Comment By Marion, 11-07-07

TC, the first mistake is to say we "know" that cattle brought brucellosis to the buffalo, the fact is both were infected when it was discovered and it could as easily have been the domestic buffs brought in to "improve" the herds that brought it...or it could have even been resident. Certainly it does not seem to affect buffs the same as elk and cattle, which could indicate it is endemic to them.
The only way to "prove" transmission is if buffalo and cows are seen anywhere in the same area to impound both until extensive testing taking place over months is complete. Then of course that becomes a "laboratory setting" again and won't prove anything to those who want free roaming buffs with nothing to lose themselves.

Comment By Glenn Hockett, 11-07-07

Since there are no livestock on Horse Butte, which is a peninsula, surrounded by Hebgen Reservoir, what is the rationale for government livestock agents entering private property without permission to harass and haze native wildlife when no one is complaining? Is anyone complaining? As well, native bison have never transmitted brucellosis to domestic animals in the wild. Look to the Wyoming feedgrounds for the real problem.

This situation points to the abusive power the Department of Livestock (DOL) has imposed over our native wildlife on both public and private property. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) should stand up in defense of our native wildlife and not let the DOL needlessly run roughshod over private property rights and public wildlife. There is much to be gained here as the Galanis property is surrounded by Forest Service public lands where wild bison can be enjoyed and hunted by the general public.

Leave the Galanis’ alone and thank you to the Galanis’ for standing up to the DOL. As well, thank you Rob and Janae for preserving a small but critical piece of native wildlife habitat. Habitat, on both public and private land is the foundation for a sustainable and respectful solution for wild bison in southwest Montana. FWP not the DOL should be in charge of wild bison management in southwest Montana.

Comment By Marion, 11-07-07

Again, as long as no one else's property rights are interfered with this is fine.

Comment By George, 11-07-07

The real hidden agenda here is to keep bison from roaming freely on public lands. If disease control were the main objective, there are much cheaper and more secure ways to reduce brucellosis transimssions--such as keeping cattle and bison apart--as would be the case at Horse Butte (since there are no cattle). Far more elk carry the disease than bison--but we focus on bison since the livestock industry doesn't want another wild animal to compete for public forage.


Second, keep in mind that the government got into the brucellosis control business because of public health reasons-- a desire to keep humans from contracting brucellosis (undulate fever). Most of transmission occurred due to drinking unpasteurized milk. With effective pasteurization by WW11, human disease transmission to society at large was no longer a real public concern.

But livestock interests continued to push the government to spend tax money on brucellosis control because it caused abortion in cattle. Why the public should be paying for disease control in private cattle is never asked, but like many subsidies that the welfare queens in AG get few have questioned this expenditure of billions of tax dollars, essentially to protect the profits of a private industry.

Now the public is having its public wildlife killed to protect the profits of a private industry. There are ways to avoid brucellosis transmission that are nearly 100% effective--but they require more money and husbandry by livestock operators. Who should pay? Protecting one's livestock from brucellosis is a cost of business. Time for the subsidies to the livestock industry to stop.

Comment By Glenn Hockett, 11-07-07

Just yesterday I attended a Board of Livestock meeting in Helena. The Board unanimously supported a motion by Meg Smith to tell the governor he should pursue a top down federal government proposal to eradicate brucellosis in all the wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone Area. The way that is down of course is haze, capture and slaughter native wildlife. Meg by the way, is a public land permittee that grazes her cattle on the Fleecer Mountain Wildlife Management Area and Forest Service public land near Divide Montana.

Can you imagine the economic, ecologic, political and social consequences of pursuing such a barbaric federal government strategy. Elk and bison are not the only brucellosis-exposed wildlife species in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Grizzly and black bears are known to be exposed as well. The extent moose, bighorns, mule deer, white-tailed deer, antelope, rodents, coyotes, wolves, birds and other wildlife are exposed remains uncertain. To get a sense of what it would take to attempt to capture, test and eradicate brucellosis from all the wildlife species within the 18 million acre Greater Yellowstone Area one must contemplate a huge federal government takeover of state’s rights over wildlife. The infrastructure, logistics and costs necessary to conduct such a massive wildlife hazing, containment, confinement, capture, vaccinate and/or slaughter program across the Greater Yellowstone Area is daunting even to imagine. This vast and remote landscape includes 2 National Parks, 6 National Forests, 3 National Wildlife Refuges, 6 Wildlife Management Areas in southwest Montana, at least 22 feedgrounds in Wyoming and Idaho, the Wind River Indian Reservation and a variety of other public and private lands. Some of the most important habitat occurs on private land. Will the federal government be willing to force its way onto private lands in an attempt to accomplish this goal? Apparently, the Department of Livestock in Montana is more than willing to do so, even when no cattle are present and no one is complaining.

Comment By Ann, 11-07-07

Thank You Glenn,
I have been trying to get through these thick heads that eradicating the disease in the wild is an impossible task. It would be much less expensive and time consuming if they worked on the CATTLE. The disease was brought up here from Texas in Cattle.
Why is it so hard to see that time and money could be better spent by managing the CATTLE.
It's a known fact that if you cook the meat, humans won't get the disease. I doubt anyone is going to milk a Bison so that shouldn't be a factor.
The Morgan herd would have been a perfect 'study' herd for eradicating the disease IN the CATTLE.
The Yellowstone Ranch Preserve is asking for their private property rights to be respected.
Why aren't these agencies focusing on the Elk feedlots that breed the disease? Why do they have to throw their weight around on private property and a place where the cattle no longer inhabit?

Comment By Ann, 11-07-07

Craig, No where did Rob and Janae' Galanis say ANYTHING about managing the bison on their property by hunting or any other means. They only want the Bison to be left alone to do as they please where they please on the Preserve, without the threat of harassment or death. It is their Property and what or how they do anything on it is their business. If they want to post it with signs they should be allowed to post it with signs. There is NOTHING they are doing that is illegal.
The DOL has already told Rob and Janae' how the DOL feels so why should they meet with DOL?

Comment By Craig Moore, 11-07-07

Ann, you wrote: "No where did Rob and Janae' Galanis say ANYTHING about managing the bison on their property by hunting or any other means. They only want the Bison to be left alone to do as they please where they please on the Preserve, without the threat of harassment or death."

From the article above, "Galanis agrees the herd should be controlled, but he says other strategies such as a hunt would be more effective and humane than the government’s current policy of controlling the spread of the disease brucellosis from bison to cattle by hazing and slaughter bison that wander outside the park."

Ann, it seems to me that 'hunt' and 'hunting' are fairly similar.

Comment By Ann, 11-07-07

Craig as to your previous comment, " The Gallanises have expressed the need to manage the herd size on their property and are open to hunting as the means."
Mis-quotes such as this are a part of the problem. What was stated in the above article was "Galanis agrees the herd should be controlled, but he says other strategies such as a hunt would be more effective and humane......." NOTE nothing was said about it being done on their PROPERTY.
They do NOT want hunting ON their PROPERTY. It is called YELLOWSTONE RANCH PRESERVE Keyword; PRESERVE
Does that clear it up Craig?

Comment By Craig Moore, 11-07-07

Ann, you are far tooooo combative here. I inferred, not quoted as you claim, that the Gallanises were OK with hunting wherever the herd was as per the article, "Galanis agrees the herd should be controlled, but he says other strategies such as a hunt would be more effective and humane......." Nowhere in the article is there any indication that they intended hunting was OK only on land not owned by them as a humane and necessary means of control.

By the way, I answered your question as to why the Gallanises should sit down with the DOL and others over the herd. You refuse to accept it. Here it is again:

"Since the beginning of regulated society the wild animals have belonged to the sovereign. This has been the basis for states to govern and regulate the harvesting and management of the sovereign's animals. The clash here will be interesting to watch as the Gallanises private property rights do not extend to unreasonable interference with the sovereign's right to manage its animals. Simply put: the Gallanises own the dirt while the sovereign owns the animals.

The answer, of course, lays with negotiation rather than 'in your face' confrontation. There are 2 Idaho tribes who have expressed an interest in harvesting bison in Montana. The Gallanises have expressed the need to manage the herd size on their property and are open to hunting as the means. Isn't there a match here? In my opinion, the Gallanises should replace their sign with a conference table to address the competing interests."

If these bison were nesting eagles instead, the Gallanises would have both federal and state sovereign agencies in their face and regulating their use of their land.

Comment By Ann, 11-07-07

Craig,
Call it inferred if you want you still made it sound like they would allow hunting on their property as a managing tool.
There is no one complaining about these Bison being here.
They are NOT an endangered species, like the Bald Eagle, so that is like comparing apples and oranges.
And to your suggestion of replacing the sign with a conference table; How can you have a discussion when the 'Sovereign' dictate?
And as to your, "Nowhere in the article is there any indication that they intended hunting was OK only on land not owned by them...." Doesn't just the Name of the place tell you that hunting is NOT allowed?
Combative? You better believe it. I've never liked bullies, and I'm not about to start now.

Comment By Craig Moore, 11-07-07

Ann, do a google search on 'hunting game preserves' and see all the listings where hunting is allowed. "Preserve" is not universally meant to exclude hunting. That is the real world. Even the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge allows certain hunting.

Comment By mike, 11-07-07

It continues to amaze me how the very same people who trumpet private property rights and libertarian principles when those beliefs support what they want, but then so easily tap dance over to the other side of the map when the wind blows the other way. Either you stand for private property rights and against governmental intrusion or you do not; without consistency you have no credible voice in the debate nor do you contribute anything more than noise. You can't play both sides of each issue on the basis of where your goat is tied at the moment. Well, then again, I guess you can; you do it all the time.

Comment By Bob Jackson, 11-07-07

After the govt. stamps out brucellosis in the greater Yellowstone, do they then draw a bead on the infected Idaho elk herds no where near the Greater Yellowstone? After this I suppose folks can set their sights on the infected wild pigs across the SE US. But of course, wild pigs are expanding further than the former confederate states. Here in Southern Iowa the big to-do last fall with the DNR and area farmers was to figure out how to eradicate every wild pig that has oozed up from Missouri, Arkansas and the Mississippi corridor to make sure Iowa isn't saddled with "Bangs".

Come on my fellow govt. folks, there is no way the supposed cesspool of vermin can be located, isolated, stamped out or even identified as THE Greater Yellowstone creature. This creature will have to change identity with the demise of every species labeled as the next reservoir of witchdom (I see another Monty Python movie in the makings where the duck finally doesn't have to turn into a witch to be bad).

Just as Yellowstone has no boundary fence for wildlife neither does the "Greater Yellowstone".
The only way I know to "control" a disease such as Bangs in wildlife is for herd animals to be allowed to form up into the strong extended family groups they possessed before White Man came upon the scene. They then can finally keep their distances from other families especially during calving times. Any family not as strong as another will be eliminated over the centuries. Thus, if Bangs does truly weaken animals and their ability to reproduce (compromising infrastructure in families) then those families with more disease than others can not compete.
The way state G&F;organizes hunts, the focus on killing individuals, continually busts up families whether it is elk, deer or antelope. The end result is the same as one sees in the chaos exhibited in Yellowstone's clinging Lamar bison herd. Yellowstone's winter corralling and reductions has created feeding grounds for bison the same as Jackson Hole maintains for elk. The only difference is Yellowstone has one for summer graze and JH has one for winter.
Personally, I am very aware of brucellosis. My dad had to get rid of our milking herd in the '50's because of it. Of course, so did a lot of our neighbors...and a lot of their neighbors, neighbors. Brucellosis soon was eradicated on the Iowa farmsteads and it was the govt’s shining hour. Pats on the back should have stayed at the local farmer and veterinarian occupied bars, however. The glory days of mans intervention on the farm 50 years ago can not be repeated in nature. Maybe a bit of humility by our disease "experts" is needed before they can tackle the "brucellosis problem" in wildlife.

By the way, none of the kids and parents in any of our farm neighborhoods ever got undulant fever... and all of us drank milk still warm from the cow. It doesn't mean there wasn't some risk. But at what cost do we submit ourselves to make sure every virus, bacteria and parasite is eradicated from this planet. To "eliminate" in today’s world of phobia means there can be no life left on Earth.

Ya, as an intelligent superior being I guess we will have finally succeeded in getting rid of all vermin. Of course, the human race in its demise because there is nothing left to eat could proudly say, "Yes, we did it"... all the while not knowing they were the only vermin out there.

Comment By Craig Moore, 11-07-07

Mike this is what I wrote:

"Since the beginning of regulated society the wild animals have belonged to the sovereign. This has been the basis for states to govern and regulate the harvesting and management of the sovereign's animals. The clash here will be interesting to watch as the Gallanises private property rights do not extend to unreasonable interference with the sovereign's right to manage its animals. Simply put: the Gallanises own the dirt while the sovereign owns the animals.

The answer, of course, lays with negotiation rather than 'in your face' confrontation. There are 2 Idaho tribes who have expressed an interest in harvesting bison in Montana. The Gallanises have expressed the need to manage the herd size on their property and are open to hunting as the means. Isn't there a match here? In my opinion, the Gallanises should replace their sign with a conference table to address the competing interests."

Whenever you weigh in on a discussion you first option is to sidetrack the commentary with a personal attack. At least you never disappoint.

Comment By Ann, 11-07-07

Craig,
Look at the sign at the top of the page next to the article. It Says; No Trespassing NO HUNTING No snowmobiles. It doesn't say sometimes No.
I don't care what Google or anyone else says about game preserves. I know these people and I know the land they have purchased and I know how the DOL treats people and the Bison in this area. I can't understand how people can sit back and allow their money to be wasted on operations that have no reason. Put the Horse Butte PENINSULA hazing money into a fund for the Ranchers that need to test or vaccinate. Or fencing to keep Bison OUT of the cattle pastures that will have cattle. Not allow these Agents to waste their time where cattle are not going to be.
Bottom line they are wasting our money on the Horse Butte operations.

Comment By Craig Moore, 11-07-07

Ann, I can't make out what the sign says below the private property line and that is difficult to read. It's all a blur on my computer. Perhaps my video card is old.

I'll take what you say about the sign as true. Given what the Galanises said about hunting being a humane way to control the herd I suppose they may be open to revising their sign to be consistent with their view that the herd must be humanely and effectively controlled, which includes hunting as per this article.

Comment By Darrell, 11-07-07

Marion wrote By Marion, 11-07-07
"TC, the first mistake is to say we "know" that cattle brought brucellosis to the buffalo, the fact is both were infected when it was discovered and it could as easily have been the domestic buffs brought in to "improve" the herds that brought it...or it could have even been resident. Certainly it does not seem to affect buffs the same as elk and cattle, which could indicate it is endemic to them."

Mary Meagher, Yellowstone National Park bison ecologist, and Margaret Meyer from the School of Veterinary Medicine University of California Davis wrote in Conservation Biology (September 1994), On the Origin of Brucellosis in Bison of Yellowstone National Park: A Review:

"All lines of inquiry indicated that the organism was introduced to North America with cattle, and that the introduction into the Yellowstone bison probably was directly from cattle shortly before 1917. Fistulous withers of horses was a less likely possibility. Elk on winter feedgrounds south
of Yellowstone National Park apparently acquired the disease directly from cattle. Bison presently using Grand Teton National Park probably acquired brucellosis from feedground elk."

Norman Cheville and Dale R. McCullough came to the same conclusion that domestic livestock were the likely source of brucellosis in wild bison and elk in their article from the National Research Council on Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area in 1998.

My respect for the rancher took a deep dive when the Munns family refused conservationists bid to purchase their ranch on Horse Butte. They could have left a legacy behind without any more development. Instead, they sold it to be developed. Why? Greed. And that's the bottom line: greed.

I read the Department of Livestock's letter to the Galanis. This agency is a bully and petty tyrant. Where's the defense from the ranching community for Galanis property rights now?

And where were the ranchers when Montana's state vet was helping solicit, edit and write letters from other state vets threatening Montana's brucellosis status? Tell me, how does it feel to have your livelihood threatened in the service of politics by your own livestock lobby?

Comment By Ann, 11-07-07

Craig;
Since I took the picture let me tell you what it says;
PRIVATE PROPERTY * BISON SAFE ZONE
NO TRESPASSING NO HUNTING NO SNOWMOBILES
HARASSMENT OF WILDLIFE
BY ANY PERSON OR AGENCY WILL NOT BE TOLERATED
VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT
YELLOWSTONE RANCH PRESERVE
You suppose wrong about them revising the sign. They are bordered by Forest Service and that is where hunting takes place, NOT on their property. As the sign states it is a Bison SAFE zone.
Why should they or would they open it up to hunting it's only 711 acres. And it's PRIVATE. And last but not least it is THEIRS.

Comment By Craig Moore, 11-07-07

It's rather simple Ann provided this article is correct about the Galanises views that the herd needs to be humanely controlled which includes hunting. Again from the article, "Galanis agrees the herd should be controlled, but he says other strategies such as a hunt would be more effective and humane than the government’s current policy..." To exempt thier land from the control process may impede the necessary measures, such as hunting as Mr. Galanis mentions, to effectively and humanely manange the herd. I guess the government could transcend the confrontation by using helicopters to move the animals if the Galanises refuse to cooperate and discuss reasonable measures necessary for proper control. By the way, why would the Galanises be against native tribes exercising their treaty rights as I suggested as a solution?

Comment By Ann, 11-07-07

Darrell;
Why wouldn't the Munns family want to get as much money out of that property as they could? Why would they want to leave a legacy in an area that crapped on them everytime they turned around? They lost their grazing rights, for what? The Butte is covered in grass and weeds are slowly taking over since the cattle were 'run' off the Butte. There has NEVER been enough elk or Bison, until now, to keep the weeds and grass in check, and the DOL won't let the Bison eat it. I grew up with the Munns family and they were an extended part of OUR family. The boys' father was my 'Uncle' Art. I personally wouldn't have blamed them if they sold it to the first big developer that brought in trailer houses and put a couple hundred homes on it. They too were threatened but it was Fish and Game that did that to them back in the 80's. This whole area treated them like dirt. Their cabins were broken into and fires set on the floors, the fences were cut, cows were shot and taken from the property, people trespassed, tossed litter all around. Would YOU care what happened to the place had YOU been treated that way????

Comment By Ann, 11-07-07

Craig;
It is their land NOT yours or anyone elses. If they don't want Hunting on it because they want a place the Bison can 'feel' safe who the heck are you to tell them what they should do with it?
And where have you been? The Government ALREADY uses helicopters to haze these animals and they do it at tree top level above our homes. You act like that is the only piece of ground that the Bison hang out on. WRONG Have you even been out of your environment, and seen any of this so-called 'hunt' happen?
This is an issue of hazing Bison OFF private property AGAINST the property owners wishes IN the SPRING. Agents destroy private property & put people in danger with these hazes.
How do Native American Treaty rights have anything to do with someone's Private Property? The Native Americans are going to get to hunt the Bison anyway so what is your point? You trying to say that anyone should be allowed to hunt on anybody's private Property whether the owner likes it or not?

Comment By Marion, 11-07-07

This is just too funny. On one hand we have the enviro side going on about the "private property rights of the Gallineses, then the same people going on about the "greed" of the Munns family that bought and built a ranch, improved it, paid the taxes on it, then are trying to recoup a lifetime of investment out of it.
Did you really think they were going to just give it to you people and go live in a cave so they wouldn't bother you????? It would seem the term "greed" is misplaced onto the wrong party.
There is NO definite way to know where the brucellosis came from. Remember it was in a number of different places where buffalo were protected, including SD, but was eradicated from all of those places long ago. Since part of the domestic buffalo came from Texas, that may be where it came from, but any scenario is pure speculation.

Comment By Ann, 11-07-07

Yes Marion, Just like you speculate the Bison are going to
transmit it to the cattle and you advocate killing everyone that sets foot, (or doesn't)outside the park. I think you should worry about cleaning your own house with the Elk feedlots and leave the Bison out of it.

Comment By Craig Moore, 11-07-07

Ann, are you a spokesperson for the Galanises? Since you took the picture, did you invited Dave Nolt to write this article?

By the way, as I pointed out in my first comment and repeated a few times, the private property owners have no ownership over the wild animals, they belong to the sovereign.

What I gather from the article that the Galanises are for the necessary and humane control of bison herds and those means include hunting. Now, taking what you say as they don't want those measures practiced on their land, that sort of makes them NIMBY's. They favor it just not on their land. Sounds like the Kennedy's and their Martha's Vineyard compound. They favor alternative energy, just not within eyesight of their digs.

If the Galanises refuse to sit down with government agencies and negotiate a solution, then they will have to live with answers they have no contol over...and the black helicopters will continue. IF it were me I certainly would want to negotiate a settlement to end practices I found repugnant. But each to his own. I have nothing further to add on this subject.

Comment By Buffaloed, 11-07-07

I think that the Galanises have done the right thing here. I am always astonished to witness the arrogance of the DOL in their dealings with the residents of Horse Butte. I would be furious if I had snowmobiles and helicopters racing through my neighborhood at 8 o'clock in the morning chasing 2000 pound bull buffalo. It's a dangerous situation and there is no warning to the residents before any of this occurs. I've seen it over and over again.

“They hang the man and flog the woman
That steal the goose from off the common,
But let the greater villain loose
That steals the common from the goose.”
— English folk poem, ca. 1764

Comment By Ann, 11-07-07

Craig, Now you resort to name calling because someone doesn't happen to agree with your ideas and suggestions. How do you know they haven't already had some meetings with the authorities? I never said I was a spokesperson for anyone but myself. And alternative energy is a far cry from killing animals on your land.
Just because , as you say, they don't own the animals doesn't mean they should, (without complaint) cave in to the dictatorship of the sovereign.

Comment By Buffaloed, 11-07-07

One question. Is the Munns property and the Galanises the same piece of land?

Comment By Ann, 11-07-07

Buffaloed;
Yes it is, and You are right about Rob and Janae' doing the right thing. More people need to stand up for what is right.

Comment By Craig Moore, 11-07-07

Come on, name calling? NIMBY is short-hand for 'Not In My Back Yard.' It is not a name at all but an acronym for the phrase.

Comment By Ann, 11-07-07

Craig;
Comparing anyone to that Kennedy is name calling:o)

Comment By max, 11-07-07

I am so tired of you Western people thinking that public land in the West is "only your land".

With the policies enforced on wildlife in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah it is no wonder we Eastern citizens feel you are very narrow minded and uneducated in your thinking on wilderness and ecosystems!!

Thanks God most Westeners are trending to vote Democratic as we New Englanders have for over 25 years.

Alot of you people have no appreciation of what the West has in it's rich lands versus what the eastern side of the U.S. has. Lets protect this land and it's wildlife.

You take "our public lands, and wildlife for granted".

I think it is great this family is taking a stand on it's private property to not exploit it and to let it be used in it's natural state for wildlife migration!! kudos to this family!!

DOL, you are a bunch of redneck Republicans, only interested in exploiting the public and private lands, without thinking of the long turn consequences of the choices of management of lands in the West!!!!!

Shut up and educate your Cowboy state of minds (WYO, IDAHO, MONTANA, & UTAH).

Comment By karrie, 11-07-07

I am very fortunate to live on Horse Butte. I have lots to say regarding this contentious and controversial subject, the bison. However, I'm going to ask you what I asked myself one morning as I watched 3 cows and a calf walk past my house from the warm, snug comfort of bed.
Why is the DOL so uncompromising about the bison? What are they hiding?
Here's a little of what I've learned:
-Cattle cause Mad Cow disease. It’s gives rise to a new variant of the always fatal brain wasting Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans.
-Nearly all meat is contaminated with dioxins, a chemical related to Agent Orange and DDT. Ninety-five percent of human intake of DDT comes from dairy and meat products.
-Multiple studies link consumption of animal products to heart disease.
-It takes the equivalent of a gallon of gas to produce a pound of grain-fed beef. To sustain the yearly beef requirements of an average family of four requires the consumption of over 260 gallons of fossil fuel. When that fuel is burned it releases 2.5 tons of additional carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere-as much as the average car emits in six months.
-An estimated 85 percent of U.S. agricultural land is used in the production of animal foods, which in turn is linked with deforestation, extinction of species, loss of soil productivity through mineral depletion and erosion, water pollution and depletion, overgrazing and desertification. THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING!!
Cattle are more trouble than they're worth.
The corporate livestock industry pushes the fear of disease on us then our logic looks away. Fear is what works. It's what they depend upon. It's what consumers have fallen for.
As of February 2007, I no longer purchase/eat beef.
May the bison continue to roam and may the two-leggeds continue to become more educated.
Karrie

Comment By Rose, 11-07-07

I to agree with Max.

You "Interior Western People" (not all) but especially in the 4 state area of UTAH, WYOMING, IDAHO, & UTAH ) still have the old European mentality, "exploit the land, it's our God given right!, and to hell with the rest of you people who think differently"!!. While in the meantime, you are not thinking of the long term consequenses of what this is doing to the land and our wildlife.

Comment By jasmine, 11-07-07

Rose and Max you are so right as a native Californian the mind set of the west coast verse the interior west is as different as night and day.

You have to remember though it is a uphill battle in the west to change policy when the will of the majority of the people is against the interests of ranchers, loggers, minners, and the Ultra Right Wing Policy of the Secretary of the Interior of the U.S. led by good ole Goerge DUBBYA and his Corporate lobbyists.

Comment By jake, 11-07-07

Max, Rose, and Jasmine you are nuts. This is our land and God wants us to do with it what we want. If we don't want Wolves, Buffalo or any other animal than we can eradicate it.
As far as protecting the land, jobs come fist before land preservation. People gotta eat. You damn Democrats and your save the land and animals are really getting to me.

Jake,

Cody, Wyoming

Comment By Taylor, 11-07-07

Western land policy needs to change and represent the majority of the peoples wishes and demands for our public lands. Having said that, regarding the private land issue with The DOL and this family, I have to say , this is going to be an interesting battle that will eventually end up in court. Good luck to this family!!
Jake, you only prove what the other people above you were pointing out. It is too bad you can't see how dumb and stereo typical you are of so many Westerners in regards to land use and wildlife management.

Comment By Bearc1aw, 11-08-07

First of all let me say GOOD JOB to the Galanises! We need more people like you!

-Marion-
I have to say I'm a little bothered by your "you people" mentality. I think its best here to remember that it’s “we people” as in all of us.

You have stated that, "There is NO definite way to know where the brucellosis came from." Yet, no one (FWP, DOL, YNP,) don’t argue the idea that brucellosis came from cattle, but you do. Now one person (see Darrell's post) has posed evidence to support their claim, now do you have evidence to state that we don’t know where brucellosis came from? If you do could you post a link so I may see it for myself?

-Craig-
I think you’re missing the point with your NIMBY comment. The people of Horse Butte are saying IMBY meaning they want Buffalo "IN MY BACK YARD" and they should have a right to have it. At no point should anyone sit down with the DOL to discuses wildlife. Let’s quit kidding ourselves here we are talking about the Department Of Livestock running wildlife. Now come on, you can't tell me that it doesn’t seem wrong to you.

-Jake-
Ok, if you are going to take the, “what God wants” view then you must also agree with a few other points. First that according to the Bible God created the world and everything in it. Then if you use your argument that God gave all of this to us, you have to also look at the fact that is both disrespectful and rude to purposely destroy a gift simply because you can. Allowing Buffalo on horse butte is not going to take jobs away and no one is going to go hungry because of it.

Also if you are worried about jobs and people going hungry, what do you say to the people who rely on tourism, largely driven by the ability to see Buffalo? They could lose job and go hungry, don’t they matter just as much as anyone else?
Now, I should point out that I’m not one of the, “You damn Democrats” I’m one of the damn independents.

-Marion / Jake-
WY lost their status brucellosis free status because of this, so did ID and the latest brucellosis case in MT was because of this so I would really like to hear your plan for the ELK. It’s funny because I never seem to hear any arguments about the Elk. Also I would like it if someone could explain to me the logic of running a group of Buffalo past a herd of Elk so you can test and slaughter the Buffalo when it’s Elk that have caused the problems? Unless of course this whole thing isn’t about brucellosis.

Comment By Bearc1aw, 11-08-07

Edit-

In my last post I stated to Marion, "Yet, no one (FWP, DOL, YNP,) don’t argue the idea that brucellosis came from cattle, but you do."

What I ment to say was, Yet, no one (FWP, DOL, YNP,) argue the idea that brucellosis came from cattle, but you do.

Thank you.

Comment By David Nolt, 11-08-07

Holy moly. After just a cursory read of this, I'll just say a couple things and hand it back to y'all.

First, I did not know who took the picture when I posted this story, and Ann did not invite me to write this. If she had, the story would have not been any different.

Second, if a decent debate is what we're after, I think we will all have to check our state/regional/political allegiances at the door. I've spent most of my life in Montana, and though this certainly does not make me an expert on this or any issue, I do live here and I understand the frustration of an "outsider" making decisions about a place they don't live in. But, as Americans, I'm afraid we're all apparently in this together, and entities like wild bison and wilderness belong to all of us. On the other side, implying that Montanans and Westerners don't appreciate where they live is so completely off-base it does not even warrant a rebuttal, other than to say such statements only confirm Montanans' own stereotypes about arrogant, out-of-touch city folks from the East Coast. The only true natives I've met in this state belong to a tribe, and they seemed to be able to manage bison quite fine, historically. Of course there were a few less people back then, until... You can see how this kind of thing can get off track.

So, assuming we have that clean slate, the issue here is whether or not the current policy of hazing and slaughtering (along with other current studies and projects) is the best way to deal with brucellosis, AND, whether or not the government has the right to enter someone's (anyone's) private property in order to manage wildlife, in this case bison.

This story was not written to pit one party against the other. Wild bison are environmentally important and a source of national pride. But when it comes down to it, they are only a part of this story. I'm going to defer to Bob Jackson here. He's spent more time around bison than most of us. What we likely need to begin to address this issue is a damn good dose of humility.

Case in point: If Jake's comment is for real (we've been experiencing some fake comments) it gets to the heart of the matter. He wrote, "This is our land and God wants us to do with it what we want. If we don't want Wolves, Buffalo or any other animal than we can eradicate it." I'm not sure where or when or how God told you it was OK to eradicate wolves and buffalo, but I'll bet he/she had his/her tongue in his/her cheek when he/she spoke. God's funny that way.

Comment By Nick, 11-08-07

Jasmine you said it best. "You have to remember though it is a uphill battle in the west to change policy when the will of the majority of the people is against the interests of ranchers, loggers, minners, and the Ultra Right Wing Policy of the Secretary of the Interior of the U.S. led by good ole Goerge DUBBYA and his Corporate lobbyists."

I don't think us West coast people or North East people are ignorant as you state - David Nolt.

I think the people in the Mountain States don't realize what they have and that is why it is such a passionate topic for easterners. Being from the West Coast I know first hand how growth is putting so much pressure on wildlife and public lands.

Jake- You are an Idiot!!!!! REDNECK AND OBVIOUSLY A REGISTERED REPUBLICAN!!!

Comment By Cathy Bestland, 11-08-07

Karrie, I'm with you. The answer to all of these issues is simply a beef boycott. Take the power away from the cattle industry by taking their money away from them. Force them into selling out. More and more environment conscious people will purchase their lands. Wildlife friendly businesses, including eco-tourism will flourish and begin to have more influence over politics and more control over public lands. WE have the power to make this happen. BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT the cattle industry. You'll be healthier for it as well.

Also, does the fact that the Galenises have expressed their desire to have their land declared a wildlife preserve offer them any protection under the law as to whether they are subject to threatened control measures?

Comment By Marion, 11-08-07

This is the most amazing thread yet. On one hand folks are insisting that the private property rights of one family are inviolate, but on the other hand other families have no property rights if it interferes with what you want.
If out of staters want to effect a change, all they have to do is insist their congressmen change the laws so that states are not penalized.
By all means load up truck loads of buffalo without testing and take them to your state. If your state will not let you take them in without testing and turn them loose on "public land" perhaps there is more to this brucellosis thing than you want to admit. I personally would like to see public lands, including highways in Chicago covered with an ambling herd of buffs at quiting time. I'll bet all of that love would go out the window.
There is a responsibility that goes along with the "rights" to have free roaming buffalo, and that responsibility is to keep them from invading other folks private property that might not want them. Of course the law may feel they have a responsibility to protect motorists too and keep the animals off of the highways.
The reason elk are not the concern that buffs are is because elk have a 1-3 percent infection rate, and buffs 50-90%. A herd of buffalo definately have infected animals, elk maybe.
I do agree that the feedgrounds are going to have to go, but we have to figure out how to keep those animals off of private property.
When you advocate taking private property rights away from those who disagree with you or as a means of forcing someone to do what you want them to do, you are treading on dangerous ground....it can be turned on you, and that is true whether you live on the east coast or a remote ranch in Wyoming.
This statement is the most UnAmerican, dangerous statement:

"Force them into selling out."

I see this very dangerous attitude from the left over and over, the idea that any American advocates destroying another simply becasue they don't like them is beyond my understanding. Your neighbors must have a tough time.

Comment By barb in west yellowstone, 11-08-07

Craig,

Accusing the Galanis' of NIMBY indicates to me that you have never seen this land ... it abuts the residential community of Yellowstone Village ... hunting on the land would endanger the other residents ... besides there is plenty of public land surrounding Yellowstone Ranch Preserve, Yellowstone Village and Yellowstone National Park all of which is off limits to buffalo grazing, birthing and establishing a resident herd. Only during hunting season are buffalo tolerated on the landscape which resulted last year in every buffalo on the west side of the park walking over the magical border line wound up being shot.

The IBMP plan calls for temporal and spatial separation of cattle and buffalo yet DOL has consistently hazed, captured and sent to slaughter buffalo during winter months when there are no cattle around. Just watch what they do when the buffalo hunt ends mid-February 2008. They will come out as the gang-busters crew they are to haze all buffalo back into YNP. And, of course, DOL will do this hazing in "a respectful and careful manner" using ATVs, helicopters, horses, pickups, etc.

You cannot have an agency that is fundamentally opposed to buffalo tolerance in charge of their management. That is why lots of us who live here and watch them call it mis-management. And the complicity of the other agencies (FWP & forest service) is an act of political acquiesenence ...

Until buffalo are re-classified as a native Montana wildlife species and management is returned to FWP, as it is for all other wildlife species, DOL and APHIS will continue to wield their power against the buffalo and this insane combination of management actions will go on and on and on and on. And DOL's actions will continue to violate private property rights because the IBMP allows them to do so since the critters are classified as a species in need of disease control. THE PLAN needs to be scrapped as it is a total failure as far as doing anything positive for buffalo.

Comment By Ann, 11-08-07

Point being the majority of people that live out here on the Butte, and of the year round residents, 100% of them WANT the bison out here. This is a place that NEEDS to be grazed off or we will have fires like CA did. This is a place that NEEDS to get the weeds in check, and grazing is one of the cheapest most effective ways to do that.
Yes there are some ranches that still have cattle from Mid June til
Sept. BUT they are NOT on the Peninsula. And by that time the Bison have moved on, with the exception of maybe a Bull or two. As was stated before the Horse Butte is a Peninsula and there were no and will be no cattle on this peninsula since the summer of 2006.
Don't you think that once the Bison have learned that this Peninsula is a safe area that they will utilize it's grasses and calmness to come out and calve on, thus staying OFF the ranches that they are hazed from? I tell you these animals are NOT stupid.
Marion you continue to bring up the fact that Bison could be all over the interstates and highways, Get real. There is about as much chance of that as there is of me winning the Lottery when I don't play.
If they want to have a Bison hunt they NEED habitat outside the Park. A very small percentage of the Horse Butte Peninsula is private land the rest is Forest Service Property, which is open to hunting. Those of us that own property on the Butte don't allow hunting on our property to begin with and would like that to continue, But that doesn't mean we are NOT hunters. I am of Native American blood and I'm all for the Tribes having their permits handed to them. BUT I don't care who you are your NOT going to shoot a Bison , elk , deer or anything else in my front yard or back yard. Rob and Janae' are like that too. Just because they were able to aquire a Big chunk of property shouldn't be any different than if they purchased 1/2 an acre. It is THEIRS and for them to do as they please with it. They are NOT doing anything illegal on it and EVERYONE should respect their wishes.
The DOL is just pushing their weight around by insisting they 'CAN', and wasting alot of money that could be spent on the cattle for eradicating the disease. Rabies is an example of how it is better to vaccinate the domestic to keep from aquiring the disease. Yes,(rabies) is a disease that if seen in the wild it's best to eliminate that animal, but come on Brucellosis is a far cry from Rabies.
This is the 21st Century and alot more is known about Brucellosis as to how to prevent a human from contracting it. So why does APHIS continue to use their SCARE tatics to keep the Cattlemen in the 'brainwashing' state they have them?
Why don't more of the Cattlemen Stand up to APHIS? There seems to be more serious diseases that cattle can pass on to humans through consumption than Brucellosis.
The sooner the cattlemen start stnding up to these 'SCARE' tactics the sooner the money that is now being wasted can be put to better use FOR the Rancher and the Wildlife.

Comment By Buffaloed, 11-08-07

Marion:

Let's talk about those private property rights. Do you think that I should have to build a fence to keep a rancher's private property off of mine? Essentially that is exactly what many people have to do in states with open range laws. If I hit and kill a rancher's cow on a highway on open range I am responsible for paying for that cow and the damage it does to me and my car.

You talk about having buffalo on the highways of Chicago... well, what about the cows on the highways? Do you support that too? I happen to think that open range laws are wrong because of the fact that the owner of the livestock is never held responsible for injuries, deaths, or damages caused by collisions with livestock on highways.

So many people fear having buffalo roaming free but feel that having cattle running free, s**ting in the creeks, eating people's gardens, and generally stinking up the outdoors is just fine.

http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=250210018.K

Idaho Statutes

TITLE 25
ANIMALS
CHAPTER 21
ANIMALS RUNNING AT LARGE
25-2118. ANIMALS ON OPEN RANGE -- NO DUTY TO KEEP FROM HIGHWAY. No person owning, or controlling the possession of, any domestic animal running on open range, shall have the duty to keep such animal off any highway on such range, and shall not be liable for damage to any vehicle or for injury to any person riding therein, caused by a collision between the vehicle and the animal. "Open range" means all uninclosed lands outside of cities, villages and herd districts, upon which cattle by custom, license, lease, or permit, are grazed or permitted to roam.



Montana does not allow livestock to be grazed on highways but anyone injured cannot hold the livestock owner responsible.
From http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/fence/mt_fnc.htm :
"......there is no presumption or inference that the collision was due to negligence on the part of the owner or the person in possession of the livestock or the driver or owner of the vehicle."


Here's an article about open range laws in western states.
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=14595

I also have to agree with Bob Jackson about the ludicrous idea of eradicating brucellosis from the ecosystem. It won't happen. The livestock owners need to be responsible for protecting their livestock from disease without killing wildlife.

Comment By Marion, 11-08-07

Once more, property rights extend both ways. One can prevent hunting on their private property, or allow only certain individuals to hunt, or allow anyone to hunt. That is or should be the case no matter whether this group or another like it. Anyone who does not want the buffs on their property should have the right to not allow it.
Quite frankly I think buffalo people are trying to use them to do just what cat said, force ranchers off their land. You can do that siine enviros have so much money and so much clout, but so far you cannot prevent them from selling to a developer. Then you will have other rich people to deal with. Is that really what you want?
Ranchers vaccinate and test their cattle already, it is time for those who want free ranging buffs to step up to the plate and put their money where their mouths are and work to eradicate it from wildlife too. It has been done everywhere but in this area.
I think you must realize no matter what Bob Jackson says, HE does NOT have infected animals where he is. Just try to give him one to take home with him.

Comment By David Nolt, 11-08-07

Nick, make sure you really read before posting please. I don't think East Coasters are ignorant at all. I said comments like Max's were reaffirming many Montanans' stereotypes of East Coasters as arrogant and out-of-touch. Calling someone a redneck in capital letters also reaffirms that stereotype. Some civility will go a long way here.

Comment By Ann, 11-08-07

Marion;
How do you propose to eradicate Brucellosis from the ecosystem?
Have you not seen or do you just choose to ignore the fact that Brucellosis is NOT just in the Elk and Bison. The Mountain sheep have it as well as every living thing out there. The places you say have eradicated it don't have ELK feed lot breeding grounds, you can NOT be so sure that there still isn't Brucellosis in the other animals.
In the State of Montana the law is 'You must fence to keep OUT' Not the other way around, that in itself works both ways For the rancher and For the wildlife. If you don't want Bison on your property FENCE them OUT. It's a lot easier to fence Bison OUT than to fence them IN. When I have my horses out in the yard and pasture I close the gates, hence the Bison stay out. When the horses are in the barn I open the gates and the Bison can and do come in the yard. We have, in the past kept the Bison out of the yard with nothing more than baling twine across the gate.
Again you Ranchers need to stand up to APHIS and quit allowing cattle to be taken and slaughtered and put into the food chain. That makes as much sense as the DEA doing a bust, taking the drugs, then turning around and selling them on the street. Why don't YOU lobby for the next infected cattle herd to be held and 'studied' for eradicating the disease in the cattle? Why sit back and let APHIS destroy YOUR way of life?

Comment By Bearc1aw, 11-08-07

-Marion-

You said, "There is a responsibility that goes along with the "rights" to have free roaming buffalo, and that responsibility is to keep them from invading other folks private property that might not want them."

The point is everyone on Horse Butte wants Buffalo.

You said, "Of course the law may feel they have a responsibility to protect motorists too and keep the animals off of the highways.
"

No offence, but you need to take a look the next time your driving into West Yellowstone and you see Buffalo crossing signs. The law could care less if you hit a Buffalo. Who is it you'll see warning traffic? The Buffalo Field Campaign, they are the ones who care about teh safty of the Buffalo and DRIVERS.


You said, "The reason elk are not the concern that buffs are is because elk have a 1-3 percent infection rate, and buffs 50-90%. A herd of buffalo definately have infected animals, elk maybe."

First we should also state that the test themselves are inaccurate, plus Buffalo who are immune also test positive. Now I have herd the claim of 50% but I would have to see where you get your information to even look at a 90% infection rate.

Now IF (note the big if) the infection rate is the driving reason to kill Buffalo then can you tell me this? In the winter of 2005-06 over 1000 Buffalo were captred and killed. At that time it was nearly 1/4th of the total herd. Now thouse 1000 Buffalo were not tested untill the were at the slaughtor house and killed even if they tested negitive. So if only 50% of the buffalo that were killed tested positive that means somewhere around 500 should of been sent back into the wild.

Now if you look at the number of Buffalo left after the slaughtor I belive (my numbers could be wrong but there are others who have better totals) at around 2,800 buffalo, that means according to the 50% rule that 1,900 were not infected then add the 500 not infected Buffalo who should of been returned you get a total herd size around 3,300 with 2,400 of them not infected. (This is going by the 50% infection rate wich is flawed but I am using it for arguemnt purposes.) SO what do you get? After one year you brought the infection rate down from 50% to around 27%

27% or even somewhere in that area would be lower then the 33% claimed in Elk. Also we would of had this after only ONE Year. Now the goverment chose not to do this! So IF brucellosis is such a threat then why did the goverment act to only kill Buffalo? I say they could care less about brucellosis and 2005-06 proves it.

You said, "A herd of buffalo definately have infected animals, elk maybe."

Nope, Elk have DEFFENTLY infected other animals, look at the reports for ID, WY and the rancher over by Gardiner this last summer. Elk have infected cattle while Buffalo in the wild never have.

Again how is this about brucellosis if the Elk (who have transmitted brucellosis to cattle) are left alone while Buffalo (who have never transmitted brucellosis to cattle) are killed? If you want to argue percents, ok I argue that the test are falwed, but even if they were not flawed then how do you explain the goverment action of 2005-06? I do agree that the feed lots need to go though.

One other thing to concider.

Durring that same 2005-06 winter the Park Service kept around 250-300 Buffalo locked up in their holding cell over by Gardiner untill after they started calving. Now if you WANT to help spread brucellosis what you would want to do is to take a large number of Buffalo, lock them into a small area, then wate for calving to happon. I'm not saying the park wanted to spread brucellosis, but I am saying that in 2005-06 the goverment dropped the ball.

So again if brucellosis is such a big issue then why did the goverment drop the ball twice? Maybe they dont think brucellosis is that big of a deal.

Comment By Cathy Bestland, 11-08-07

Marion, yet again you misconstrue the point in order to hijack another thread and get people of the subject of the story. Your attempt to cast suspicion on me as if my suggestion to buy out the cattlemen is "dangerous," is loathsome. It is a free country. And we DO have the power to make desired changes simply by the choices we make. Powerful changes have been wrought by the determination and resolve. The Civil Rights movement started because of a buss boycott which brought the city of Montgomery Allabama to it's knees. Was Rosa Parks dangerous as well?

Those that make policy concerning the free ranging buffalo in Montana are puppets of the Cattle Industry. My suggestion to boycott their product is a valid and effective tool in getting that policy changed. Take away their money, and you take away their power. When they can no longer afford to stay in business, they will sell. THAT is the American way. Undoubtably a more eco-friendly class of people will purchase their lands and policy affecting wildlife can then be changed. Developers will also buy. But it may be that wildlife can fare better with them rather than the bloodthirsty "Old Guard" who wish to destroy anything that "may" pose a threat to their livestock.

To that end people,"BOYCOTT BEEF"

Comment By Bearc1aw, 11-08-07

-Marion-

You said, "Ranchers vaccinate and test their cattle already, it is time for those who want free ranging buffs to step up to the plate and put their money where their mouths are and work to eradicate it from wildlife too."

You can get every, Wolf, Raven, Coyote, Elk, Deer, Buffalo and other animal.

Why not just have a better fence for ranchers? Thenn ranchers can have their land and the rest of the people can have Buffalo.


Also in my extreamly long post I didnt get a chance to look at one thing.

If you don't want Buffalo on your land then why would someone move to an area that is rane for Buffalo. This is like moving to the coast then saying you dont want the water.

Comment By Buffaloed, 11-08-07

I think that the 50-90% infection rate in bison claim is a farce.

50% of Bison tested positive using the antibody tests.
20% of those tested positive using culture tests.
Approximately 50% of those would be females.
Not all of the females would be pregnant.
That puts the effective population of animals that could be infective at about 2-3% but very few of those leave the park and none of them are in the vicinity of livestock during the time that they could infect livestock.

Throw in the equation another fact: Yersinia can cause positive tests results using the antibody test which falsely raises the positive results.

Read this:
http://fwp.mt.gov/news/article_4465.aspx

Ann:

I have never seen a buffalo ruin a fence when it is not being hazed. In your experience have buffalo ruined any fences on Horse Butte while not being hazed? I have seen 2000 lb bulls walk up to a 4 foot log rail fence and bound over them like a deer without doing any damage. I have also seen buffalo running at full speed, with helicopters and atv's in hot pursuit, crash into a barbed wire fence and bounce off of them like a tennis ball off of a racket. I suppose that a buffalo would push through a fence during the winter if it were surrounding bales of hay and it couldn't jump over it.

Comment By Marion, 11-08-07

In the first place ranchers in the area were there long before the BFC. To reverse your question, if you want infected buffalo on your land why would you move to where they are not allowed? Once the disease if eradicated from buffalo and elk, the rest would follow, it has been complicated I'm sure by the plethora of predators introduced. Test and kill, + vaccination are the answer, just like Wyoming G&F;are doing on the feedgrounds. By the way I do agree that the feedgrounds have to go, but half a solution is not going to solve the problem.
It is useless to argue, you are determined that what you want is of first order, no matter who or what gets hurt in the process.
I would like to point out that cattle are not the only things affected by brucellosis, you might want to think about moose, whose numbers in the are have been dropping. Maybe due to increased brucellosis?

http://www.jwildlifedis.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/1/94

Cat, it is the statement "force them out" that concerns me. Boycott beef all you want, that will not affect the market much at all, but insisting on the right to infect their livestock is a whole other matter.

Comment By Ann, 11-08-07

Buffaloed;
In answer to your question NO I have not seen any destruction of fences by Bison that are NOT being chased or 'hazed'. I have seen the destruction caused by Bison that DOL agents are in hot pursuit of, and then the DOL agents refuse to come back and repair that damage. I have seen DOL agents close a gate, though, AFTER they ran the Bison through the closed gate.
I have seen Bison walk through a section of fence that Snowmobilers have cut , in order for them to access the 'Private' Property, that is now the Yellowstone Ranch Preserve.
That is not saying that it hasn't happened, I'm just saying that I have not seen it or had to repair it because of Bison just walking through on their own. I too have seen them clear a 4-5 foot fence even in the snow.

Comment By Ann, 11-08-07

Marion
The Moose, funny you should bring that up. Right here right now we have more Moose than we've seen in 40+ years, so I beg to differ on the subject of possible Brucellosis dwindling their population. Although one was killed the other night on the Highway by a Truck driver. And the Madison Valley ranchers would argue the dwindling number of Elk too. Maybe you should take a drive through there some spring and see the Thousands of head of Elk.
Maybe the Moose prefer this part of the country and are migrating like the rest of the wildlife.

Comment By Monty, 11-08-07

Jake, stop call on God when you want to support a particular point of view. If God is the creator of "all", how does God feel about the human destruction of the "creation"?

Comment By Cathy Bestland, 11-08-07

Marion, were the ranchers here before the buffalo???? It is absurd to suggest anyone wants "specifically" to have infected buffalo on their land. How you do twist the intent of a comment, or perhaps you just don't understand it. The point is that buffalo should be allowed to roam on private property id the owner desires it and the buffalo have access to that property.

Let me get this straight: You think wolve should be erradicated, as expressed in prior posts, and you don't want buffalo allowed outside the park? And you think ranchers have the ultimate authority to decide which animals are a threat to their business and therefore have no right to exist. Is that correct?

Then why isn't it fair for environmentalists, who feel that ranchers are a threat to endangered species, the ecoystems and in the end the health of the planet itself, to do what they can legally to shift the balance of power in their favor? This would include obtaining as much private land as possible through purchase, thereby securing a a say in policy governing that land. To that end boycotting beef is a VERY effective tool. The more money they loose the sooner they will be forced to sell out.

Comment By Ann, 11-08-07

Marion I followed your link, and I don't profess to be a scientist by any means but from what I read, they tested 4 moose and only ONE of those died 'from' the disease the other three were killed.
Plus this test was done in 1996.
So PLEASE explain to me, how can you make such a drastic decision on 4 moose and three of which THEY killed?

Comment By Cathy Bestland, 11-08-07

Monty, good point, here's how he feels: .....The God of Creation....wild bring to destruction those who are destroying the earth. Revelation 11:18

Comment By Ann, 11-08-07

I won't boycott beef cause I like hamburgers, But I try NOT to eat beef that has been pumped full of hormones, or drink Milk that is full of the Growth hormones. Something is just NOT right when little girls the age of 8 are growing boobs and having periods.
Try to blame that on the Bison, Elk and others.

Comment By Frank N, 11-08-07

I think that it is interesting that some of the same voices who were screaming a couple of years ago about disintegrating personal property rights, when U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee Mike Jimenez was accused of trespassing by a Meeteetse rancher while "managing" wolves on the rancher's property, are now saying that these folks on Horse Butte do not have the same rights to their property. And U.S. Fish and Wildlife has a legitimate right to manage wildlife, while the Montana Dept. of Livestock does not!
BTW, the last time I checked, this was still a democracy....despite what GWB would lead us to believe, we do not have a sovereign. Courts have repeatedly held that wildlife is held IN TRUST by the state FOR THE PEOPLE. I believe that THE PEOPLE includes both ranchers and NON RANCHERS, hunters and WILDLIFE WATCHERS, etc.
Trying to vaccinate all of the wildlife in the GYE makes even less sense than if my kid gets the flu so I go to his school and try to vaccinate all the other students, faculty, administrators etc., as well as every vendor, parent etc. who might visit the school. Then I probably need to go to the mall, local theater etc. and vaccinate everyone there, as well as all their vendors etc. Why don't I just vaccinate my kid?
I like the idea of a human chain. They couldn't arrest everybody. And photos of them trying to drive bison through it would look great on the national news.

Comment By Buffaloed, 11-08-07

Native Americans were there long before the ranchers and were exterminated just like the buffalo were. It doesn't make it right.

Comment By bob jackson, 11-08-07

To answer a question from Marion concerning brucellosis and bringing animals in to my herd in Iowa from out West, I would love to have a family group from Yellowstone's original bison herd. They could teach my bison family so many new things (by example at first since they would have to learn to talk the same dialect) and my herd could share with them the peace they are unable to obtain now in Yellowstone. The brucellosis issue could be taken care of fairly simply in a farm situation and still maintain functional family infrastructure if I had a few years to address it. Then I could let them together.
As for fencing, we double fence (3' separation) any boundary with cattle. This is to keep us from having to test our bison herd when the cattle herds next to us come up positive. It still happens with the cattle herds, and with our next door neighbor, here in Iowa. We also have to electric fence for another neighbor because he buys stocker heifers and these animals try to get in with our buffalo (disorder seeks out order).
I have read uring early trail drives some cowboys would leave their bosses to go into business on their own. In what is now Oklahoma independent cowboys could SORT OUT up to 2000 cattle a month from the bison herds. I say "sort out" because the cattle did not want to leave the bison herds. The cattle were dysfunctional and the bison were not. So what I see happening in cow country and any place bison are allowed to form up as functional groups is cattlemen having to fence to keep their "herds" in (I can see the ribbing at the coffee shops, "Joe, those fresh heifers of yours must like those buffs a lot better than you"). Of course ranchers could also take a queue from natures herds and let their cattle form up into functional groups also. Then they would have no desire to get in with bison, they would eat a lot more sustainable, the riparian areas wouldn't get hammered, their meat would be healthier because of less stress and they could protect themselves a lot more effectively against wolves.

Comment By Cathy Bestland, 11-08-07

I like the chain. If it's called for, I'm there.

Comment By Craig Moore, 11-08-07

Frank N., you wrote: "BTW, the last time I checked, this was still a democracy....despite what GWB would lead us to believe, we do not have a sovereign."

FYI, today the tribal, federal and state governments are the sovereigns. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Immunity

Comment By Cathy Bestland, 11-08-07

Ann, "Boca burgers" especially the black bean variety and "Garden burgers" by Morningstar Farms are actually quite good, an excellent alternative to "dead burgers" and are available at more and more restaurants. They are soooo much better for you and the environment.

Comment By Marion, 11-08-07

Bob, I have a hard time believing that the state of Iowa would allow you to take an untested group of Yellowstone Bison into the state. Are you sure they would allow this? what was your reference to the cattle next to you testing positive for brucellosis? I had heard nothing about it, and googled it and can't find any reference to that.
I don't know when the first ranchers came to the West Yellowstone area, but the only buffs in the park in 1871 when it was explored were probably from the Pelican Valley herd, all that group saw were tracks around Yellowstone Lake.
It appears the buffs going west now are from the Texas and Montana domestic herds. I believe even now the Pelican Valley herd tends to stick close to home.
If you read the moose article closely you will note that all of the moose showed highly infected tissues and endotoxemia. Did you miss this last sentence?
quote: "Thus infection with B. abortus will kill moose, and progression of the disease is likely rapid under field conditions. Moose appear to be a dead-end host for brucellosis." end quote. Certainly I do not begin to understand why there is not extnesive testing done of the moose.
I do not suggest exterminating wolves, but I do support controlling them.
Jimenez was not "managing" the wolves on private property, he moved them to private property for his convenience!

Comment By Frank N, 11-08-07

"Jimenez was not "managing" the wolves on private property, he moved them to private property for his convenience!"

Is that similar to REMOVING animals (bison) from private property for the DOL's convenience?

Comment By bob jackson, 11-08-07

Our neighbors cattle herd tested positive for bangs in 1982 or 1983. He had brought them in from Missouri, a bordering state that has had brucellosis a lot more recently than Iowa. Beings we are 15 miles from Missouri and the border sale barns take local cattle for sale without testing (Its not all as black and white as APHIS wants one to believe. In fact since my neighbors graze pastures that lap over into Missouri and they can put as many cows on this land and claim ownership in either state how does the govt. make the distinction? It can't) shipment of cattle without testing through these loopholes happens all the time.
As for functioning West Yellowstone migrating bison herds they have been developing infrastructure for 75-100 years, whereas mine have 30 years under their belt. If dysfunctional cattle gravitate to my structured animals they will even more so to any herds of bison in the West side of the park.
The Pelican herd does indeed stick "close to home". That is why they need to be recognized as Mountain Bison, a bison supposedly extinct. If only the Park would acknowledge this, measures could be taken to allow this herd to expand. Since they are a lot more wary than plains bison there is little chance they will ever occupy any populated areas outside Yellowstone.

Comment By Ann, 11-08-07

Sorry Cathy. I'm doomed for death anyway and I'm going to eat REAL meat burgers. What life I do have left I will enjoy and eating meat is an enjoyment to me.
Marion All things are going to die. That article also stated that only one of them 'died' the other three were killed. 'Likely' is a pretty loose word. Still we have more Moose here than we have in over 40 years, so I don't see Brucellosis affecting them like you would like us to believe.
AND this was done about 10 years ago, Not exactly up to date is it?

Comment By Cathy Bestland, 11-08-07

Marion, you say the "most dangerous" thing you have heard in this thread is the suggestion to "force them out" referring to environmentalists buying out ranchers should a boycott or some other economic pressures put them out of business, even though the ranchers would be paid fair market value for their land. What about when the RANCHERS forced the Native Americans out???? What did the Native Americans get for their land? Why is it not all right to "force" ranchers out of business by legal means when they are compensated for their lands but it is allright to force Native Americans off their lands and give them NOTHING?

Comment By Marion, 11-08-07

I am not at all concerned about your boycott, it is pretty irrelevant to anything. I am concerned about forcing ranchers to deal with an excess of predators and pushing diseased animals onto more and more land in proximity to cattle to infect more and more herds. That is where the real force is coming from and that is the force I consider dangerous.
Even so it will not work much of the time because ranchers will have no incentive to deal with those who have caused them so much pain and heartache, especially when either huge mega corps or developers are sitting there waiting to snap up the land.
Then you will have eliminated any sharing and any chance of sharing that land and can high five each other.
I'll be Freud would have a field day with all of this land envy.

Comment By Ann, 11-08-07

Marion I'm just a little curious, How many Bison do you have coming out on or near your property? And is your property anywhere near the Elk Feedlots?

Comment By Marion, 11-08-07

Ann, probably about the same number as the cows that come on your property.

Comment By Ann, 11-08-07

Ok then I guess that means ZERO. I only know what the Bison movement is on this side of the Park and was just curious what it is on your side. Thanks

Comment By Eric Stewart, 11-08-07

A) Infected bison and cattle roamed the same pastures for forty years in Grand Teton National Park as there was ranching that was allowed to occur there because of a sort of grandfather clause. NOT ONE incident of transmission occurred.

B) The only laboratory proof that I know of of the likelihood of brucellosis to transmit to cattle is the Texas A&M;study in which infected birthing material was brought into direct contact with cattle's faces, precisely the kind of thing that does NOT happen in the wild.

C) The current policy eradicates bison without doing a single thing to eradicate the disease brucellosis and none of the rhetoric coming out of the cattle lobby indicates any change in this idiocy.

D) State sovereignty or not, the bison ought to be treated as a sovereign. Why are we debating how an animal can be effectively managed to accommodate an animal and an industry that is destroying the west when the animal we restrain is a keystone species with regards to healthy grasslands in the Americas?

E) Message for Mike: It continues to amaze me how the very same people that get elected on the basis of property rights don't give a hoot about them when it is a matter of protecting a handful of ranchers who get a free ride on the backs of the taxpayer.

F) The amount of money needed to vaccinate and test cattle in the absence of brucellosis-free status is considerably less than what is spent on bison "management." Fiscal conservatives ought to be up in arms over this fact.

G) Marion wrote: "On one hand we have the enviro side going on about the 'private property rights' of the Gallineses, then the same people going on about the 'greed' of the Munns family that bought and built a ranch, improved it, paid the taxes on it, then are trying to recoup a lifetime of investment out of it." Firstly, you people really like to use the phrase "you people" or some variance of it. Just because two different people disagree with you, and indeed on different grounds, doesn't make them the "same people." That is an illusion fabricated by your mind as you attempt to lump all opposition into the same box: those on your side and those against you. Incidentally, to say someone has private property rights does not mean they don't have the right to be greedy but it is still greed so let us not rail against the accurate descriptions of things.

H) Craig wrote: "By the way, as I pointed out in my first comment and repeated a few times, the private property owners have no ownership over the wild animals, they belong to the sovereign." The sovereign, as I continually hear you contextualize it, is some entity other than the people that make it up. The sovereign has absolutely no credibility unless it heeds the will of its own public and stops standing in the way of accurately informing the people. Until that happens, it is not a sovereign but a racket.

I) This non-fatal, manageable disease has so much hype attached to it that one must wonder why the Bush administration recently announced, fiercely, that there will be no increased testing for Mad Cow Disease among American cattle. Maybe it is the bison, and people for that matter, that need to be protected from U.S. beef.

J) Jake, you are nuts. Let me ask you one question: what do humans do with the life forms they are left in charge with? Has that question ever occurred to you? Dominion is not synonymous with destruction.

K) Nick, much of the effort to fight for the bison comes from within Montana. Montana has a heavy contingent of cowboy, rape the land mentalities but if it weren't for the fact that there is also a growing and strengthening populace here that is willing to fight for what's left, I am afraid there might not be ANY wild bison left.

L) Why are we still trying to convert the wilderness? Are we the only species that has lost its willingness to adapt to our planet? It takes over a hundred as much times the land to raise one cow that it does out east when you insist on ranching in this area. Are cattle so important that we would decimate an entire region's ability to even make a comeback? If you eradicate the wild, life itself will wither. This is not a spiritual belief but one based on the latest in ecology, biology, and even physics. We Ought Not Grow Cows In Dry West

M) It has been estimated that if all of the ranching that exists from the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains to the west coast of the United States was eliminated that only two percent of the national beef production would be affected. This is because of the nature of the landscape in the west of America where it takes about a hundred times the amount of land to raise one cow as it does in the biomass-rich east. Given how much more delicate the countryside is in the region, it makes little sense to put cows all over and make the entire west. In case you are wondering: no, bison do not have nearly the effect that cattle do. Hoof shape and the migratory instinct lessen such impact.

N) It really seems that the prejudice of bygone centuries lingers. The hatred and mistrust of native species (perhaps the association with first nations peoples has something to do with the Yellowstone bison reservation) gets passed down and, as always, when one wants to engage in a particular activity, in this case bison eradication and abuse, the rationalizations are soon to follow. It is not very long ago at all that wanton, large scale wildlife destruction was deemed the province of great American heroes. Columbus Delano, Secretary of the Interior under the Grant administration, said this in 1873: "I would not seriously regret the total disappearance of the buffalo from our western plains, in its effect upon the Indians. I would regard it rather as a means of hastening their sense of dependence upon the products of the soil and their own labors."

O) Marion wrote: "In the first place ranchers in the area were there long before the BFC. " The bison's plight is not the concern of the Buffalo Field Campaign. The Buffalo Field Campaign, consisting on anywhere from ten to fifty volunteers depending on the season, is the focal point for the mass of about eleven thousand societal representatives of the will of the people. The BFC's support is what makes it so do not ever confuse the BFC for what it represents. The BFC is here as a public service, for free, warning motorists when the state refuses to and spreading the word on an issue that once informed, people are more than willing to help with. This is a movement, not a special interest group like the cattle lobby. Incidentally, it is the buffalo that were here before ranchers. You are fighting a force of nature, not a group of activists.

P) Frank N. wrote: "I think that it is interesting that some of the same voices who were screaming a couple of years ago about disintegrating personal property rights, when U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee Mike Jimenez was accused of trespassing by a Meeteetse rancher while 'managing' wolves on the rancher's property, are now saying that these folks on Horse Butte do not have the same rights to their property." I am beginning to think there is a vastly prevalent mental illness that causes a person to think that when someone disagrees with them that they must be the same person that disagreed with them before on some related issue. Thinking like this will get us nowhere.

Q) Marion, quit digging rabbit holes. You're so blatantly obvious as either deliberately attempting to mislead readers as to even the state of the debate itself and very statements of others, going so far as to put words into their mouths, or you need help. You know very well that Mr. Jackson did not say he wanted untested animals to be moved to his state. You seem devoted to fanning the flames of hysteria to the point of making things up that aren't true. Are you one of those people that simply thrives on the fight? Perhaps the best thing for everyone, including you, is if we just summarily ignored you. But of course, you know that, which is why you continuously post falsehoods that demand correcting and voila! You have your next fight.

Sheesh already.

*

Comment By Ann, 11-08-07

By Golly Eric I think you covered it all. Good Job.
As my Mother just said By Gee Whizzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Comment By Cathy Bestland, 11-08-07

Eric.

The mental illness that is confined to a certain segment of the population and is refered to in Paragraph P) of your outline, is probably caused by eating too much BEEF. I've heard it causes DEMENTIA. The cattle lobby and it's supporters is proof enough for me.

Comment By Bearc1aw, 11-08-07

-Eric-
What wrong, did you run out of steam past Q? hehe

-Marion-
If you are going to talk about who was here first then you have to look to teh Native Americans and Buffalo, not the transplant ranchers.

To answer your revised question, I must first ask where are Buffalo allowed in MT? The park will not let me build a house in their area. Then shouldnt I be able to live in an area where Buffalo should be allowed.

You said, "I am concerned about forcing ranchers to deal with an excess of predators and pushing diseased animals onto more and more land in proximity to cattle to infect more and more herds."

What cattle on Horse Butte are you talking about?


Lastly you said, "It is useless to argue, you are determined that what you want is of first order, no matter who or what gets hurt in the process."

Ok I have to call you out here. PROVE IT! I have talked about ranchers having Buffalo proof fencing (solves the problim for everyone), I have talked about people who rely on tourism, I have talked about the rights of land owners, I have even talked about and given credit to the proper people concering driving down the highway. So where do you get the idea that I dont care who or what gets hurt in the process? Also what have you talked about except ranchers???

Comment By Glenn Hockett, 11-08-07

I believe we need to work together to change the law. MCA 81-2-120 http://data.opi.state.mt.us/BILLS/1995/mca/81/2/81-2-120.htm is the law that specifies the abusive powers the Department of Livestock may impose on our native wildlife and private and public landowners in Montana. Here is what that law says in part:

"Whenever a publicly owned wild buffalo or bison from a herd that is infected with a dangerous disease enters the state of Montana on public or private land and the disease may spread to persons or livestock or whenever the presence of wild buffalo or bison may jeopardize Montana's compliance with federally administered livestock disease control programs, the department may, under a plan approved by the governor, use any feasible method in taking one or more of the following actions:
(a) The live wild buffalo or bison may be physically removed by the safest and most expeditious means from within the state boundaries, including but not limited to hazing and aversion tactics or capture, transportation, or delivery to a department-approved slaughterhouse.
(b) The live wild buffalo or bison may be destroyed by the use of firearms. If a firearm cannot be used for reasons of public safety or regard for public or private property, the animal may be relocated to a place that is free from public or private hazards and destroyed by firearms or by a humane means of euthanasia."

This law needs to be repealed and the management of wild bison needs to be clarified as a responsibility of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks. The Gallatin Wildlife Association intends on working with local legislators, landowners, business owners, livestock owners, hunters, and other conservationists to initiate such a bill in the next Montana legislative session. I think we will call it the Montana Wild Buffalo Recovery and Conservation Act of 2009. We need bi-partisan/independent support to achieve this goal. This will be done in the context of protecting and respecting private property rights on both sides of the issue, protecting livestock and recognizing wild buffalo as valued native wildlife in the State of Montana. Thank you again to the Galanis family for standing tall for wild buffalo, habitat and your private property rights.

Comment By Ann, 11-09-07

OK I'm back to the part that Craig brought up about having a conference with the DOL on managing Bison on Private Property. I had quite an interesting chat with someone that is on neither side of this issue but is writing a paper on it, and she was at that Board of Livestock meeting the first of the week. It was stated by the State Vet that IF the Galanis' would meet with them they would be more tolerent about Rob and Janae's request. WHAT? If that isn't a threat to the Galanis' and the Bison what the heck is it? It is on tape. So tell me what, then, is the REAL issue here?
Disease? of which there is nothing to transmit it to. Just plain threats and waste of monies? (we have the authority so we can do it and we will if you don't meet with us) Now tell me that isn't throwing your weight around.
As per Websters Dictionary they are a BULLY Organization. 'A hired ruffian. Browbeater.'

Comment By Craig Moore, 11-09-07

FYI on the official explanation of bison and the DOL. See: http://mt.gov/liv/animalhealth/diseases/brucellosis/bison/faq.asp

>>>>>>>>>>>
Frequently Asked Questions About - Bison, Brucellosis
and the Montana Department of Livestock


Why is the Department of Livestock in charge of the bison at Yellowstone National Park?

The Department of Livestock (DOL) is not in charge of the bison in Yellowstone National Park. As long as the bison remain in the park they are under the management of the National Park Service. If the bison leave the park, the DOL is mandated by the State of Montana to take action to ensure the health safety of Montana's livestock and citizens. The Department of Livestock was given the authority from the legislature to manage the bison/brucellosis disease issue in 1995. The Montana Legislature named the YNP bison as a "species in need of disease management" in 1995. The DOL serves as the lead agency and operates under the Interagency Bison Management Plan. This is the plan that has been signed by the DOL and the MT Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks in cooperation with the National Park Service, the United States Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Veterinary Services and the United States Forest Service.

What happens when the bison leave Yellowstone National Park?

Under the Interagency Bison Management Plan, representatives of DOL try and haze the bison back into the park. If this is successful, nothing else is required. If the hazing is not successful, due to a number of factors - heavy snow or coverage, the bison traveling too far from the park, interference from protestors or activists - the bison are captured and tested for brucellosis. The bison that test pregnant or seropositive are sent to slaughter. The bison that test negative or seronegative and are not pregnant are released back onto public land.

What does seropositive mean?

Animals are tested for brucellosis using serologic tests, which are blood tests to detect if brucella antibodies are present as a result of an infection. Because of testing insufficiencies, seropositive bison should be assumed for management purposes to be carrying live B. abortus, according to the National Academy of Sciences study: Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area.

What is done with the bison that have been slaughtered?

Under the State of Montana Code 81-2-120 the slaughtered bison are donated to an Indian tribal organization or charity. The donation is made after a written request is received.

How many bison have been sent to the slaughter facility?

From October 1998 through June 1999 the DOL hazed 615 bison back into the park and captured and tested 145 bison. Of those tested, 52 bison tested negative and were released back onto public land; 90 bison tested positive and were sent to slaughter. In 1999-2000, 415 bison were hazed back into the Park, and none were captured, tested or sent to a slaughter facility. In 2000-2001, approximately 1,450 bison were hazed back into the Park, and 14 were captured and tested for the disease of brucellosis. Of those, nine tested negative and were released on public land. Five tested positive and were sent to a slaughter facility, with the meat, head and hides donated to the tribal organization. One bison that could not be moved back into the Park or captured was taken by lethal means in June 2001.

Why are you are eliminating the Yellowstone National Park bison herd?

The DOL is working to prevent transmission of brucellosis from the bison that migrate into Montana, not to eliminate the herd. According to a ruling in federal court based on expert testimony, 580 bison are required to maintain genetic integrity in the YNP bison herd. Today there are approximately 3,000 bison in Yellowstone National Park. Approximately fifty percent of the YNP bison herd test positive for brucellosis.

The Yellowstone National Park bison herd is the only herd descended from continuously wild buffalo in the country. True or False?

This statement is false. When Congress appropriated funds to save the Yellowstone National Park bison from extinction in 1902, fewer than 50 bison remained in the park. The park herd was augmented with 21 untested bison from captive herds in Montana and Texas.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

If confrontation is not what is desired, negotiation and just plain discussion is a far better way to go.

Comment By Craig Moore, 11-09-07

Ann, you stand reality on its head. An invite to discuss to achieve a negotiated solution is far from bullying. A Montana governement agency is chartered to manage the bison that migrate from YNP. They have their obligations to fulfill. If the Galanises won't sit down and chat about "how," then the DOL will simply do its best to meet its mandate as directed by the legislature. There is an array of possibilities and opportunities, none of which are possible by shuting the door on constructive discussion.

Comment By Eric Stewart, 11-09-07

Glen, as usual, you are on the money. You cited that, in a case where people and livestock are in danger from buffalo that :

"(a) The live wild buffalo or bison may be physically removed by the safest and most expeditious means from within the state boundaries, including but not limited to hazing and aversion tactics or capture, transportation, or delivery to a department-approved slaughterhouse."

Why doesn't this law state that the "live wild ANIMAL may be physically removed"? Because bison, and not the disease, are the target.

It would be prudent to note, here, that the phrase "removed by the safest AND most expeditious" means is its own problem. The safest means is NOT the most expeditious and this is proven, time and time again, as DOL agents run newborn calves and pregnant females upwards of ten miles at a time causing cow bison to abort on occasion and the very, very young to collapse, hyperventilating, and occasionally dying. In fact, it is not safe NOR expeditious to make sure these herds cross major highways not twice (out and back into the park from Horse Butte, where they go to calve) but dozens of times, often without proper notification to motorists and absolutely none to campers who are often seen scampering for their tents and cabins as hundreds wild bison come storming through, being chases by agents.

*

Comment By Eric Stewart, 11-09-07

Yesterday, I wrote:

"It has been estimated that if all of the ranching that exists from the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains to the west coast of the United States was eliminated that only two percent of the national beef production would be affected. This is because of the nature of the landscape in the west of America where it takes about a hundred times the amount of land to raise one cow as it does in the biomass-rich east. Given how much more delicate the countryside is in the region, it makes little sense to put cows all over and make the entire west."

I should have ended that with 'given how much more delicate the countryside is in the region, it makes little sense to put cows all over and make the entire west into a wasteland."

Comment By Ann, 11-09-07

Craig,
How do you know the Galanis' have not already been to the table with the DOL? Have YOU ever had any dealings or seen how the DOL operates? Are YOU a member of the DOL?
Bottom line is They are threatening the Yellowstone Ranch Preserve with an either or. Either you meet with us AGAIN, or We do as we please.
If the Bison were left to roam the Horse Butte Peninsula, of which there is NO cattle at all, any time, they would learn to stay OFF the surrounding (other side of the Lake) pastures that do and WILL have cattle on them.
Why don't you grab your little camera and take a drive and see the property and area in question? Then maybe you could see how YOUR tax money is being wasted by the THOUSANDS. Or maybe you don't care how your tax money is spent. You just take things at face value. What the Galanis' do is up to the Galanis', no body has the right to tell them they should or shouldn't.

And to add to what Eric said, little kids playing in their yards have had to DIVE under vehicles to escape the bison being run by the DOL. I have yet to see Cattle Ranchers RUN the actual life out of their cattle when herding them from one place to another. On the one trip I made as a little kid with the Munns family trailing their cattle up from Idaho, there was never any RUNNING of the herd, that's why it took about a week to get them here.

Comment By Craig Moore, 11-09-07

Ann, stop this ridiculous dance and put your cards on the table. If you know facts not presented in this article that are important to this discussion, then by all means please enlighten us. How did your picture of the sign get in this article? NO, I am not connected with any state agency.

In my opinion, the Galanises are not innocent viticms here. They chose this fight when they bought the property given its nature and knowing the DOL's mandatory obligations. Get real. The Interagency Mangement Agreement has been around for many years.

Comment By Marion, 11-09-07

Ann, I am most interested in your statement that the buffs would learn to stay off teh areas where cattle are or will be. Just how do you propse to teach them this? In a hundred and 5 years they haven't learned that inside of park boundries is safe....and they were penned up for a number of years after being brought in.
The fact is buffalo are by nature roaming animals, they will travel for miles if left unfettered. That is why the covered the plains for miles and miles.
Actually if we are going to get rid of a business in the west, lets make it the "enviromental" business. I doubt that small communities would feel anywhere the negative impact.

Comment By JEFF E, 11-09-07

I believe if we all cut to the chase here and those of us that believe that the management of bison as currently practised by the state of Montana is wrong, then start telling the Gov. of Montana. By e-mail, letter, or phone. Tell him that you, your family and friends will no longer spend tourist dollars in Mont. Nothing like money to get a politicians attention.

Comment By Ann, 11-09-07

Craig,
For one thing It's none of your damn business how or why my pictures get anywhere.
It is not my place to give out any more information than I have.
Nobody said the Galanis' are anything other than Private Property owners asking for their Private Property rights to be respected.
And when 'city slickers' try to make friends of mine out to be the 'bad' guy, well I'm NOT going to sit here and let it go. You have NO clue about the Galanis' or the situation up here. They didn't choose any fight, they wanted to preserve that Ranch as close to it's present state as was feasibly possible, and by removing the cattle, there would be NO need to have the DOL even on the Butte. The Bison could win as well as the Ranches across the lake.
Instead of getting out from behind your desk and seeing for yourself the tactics of the DOL (like you were asked to do a year ago) you sit there acting like you know what goes on. So quit bloviating to me about the DOL and their operations. I see it first hand. I've repaired some of the damage they have done. I've seen the accidents caused by their operations.

Comment By Ann, 11-09-07

Marion,
Have you seen the enormous amount of property the Horse Butte consists of? For one thing only a handful of Bison ever get on any of the surrounding ranches, it has always been the Horse Butte. If the Bison were left alone out here to eat the grasses and calve where there are no and will be no cattle for MILES, Then the hazing operations that use so much money, could be cut down to JUST the surrounding ranches. In time these animals would learn that the Peninsula is ok to use. The reason they Migrate in the first place is for calving and grazing. That's why after the Calving they have ALWAYS returned to the Park. And thus allowing the grasses IN the park to get a good start. It might take a few years and YES they may need to haze off the Ranches at times but the amount of money saved from NOT hazing on the Butte would be tremendous. And like I've said before could be better spent in defraying costs to the RANCHER.

Comment By Hal Herring, 11-09-07

Am I missing something?

We are just talking about property rights here. Nothing else. The owners of the property have said no trespassing. DOL is breaking the law. If I were a DOL employee, I would not go past that "no trespass" sign, and if I were fired for that, I'd see the bosses in court. If I owned the land and DOL drove a motorized vehicle onto it after I told them not to, I'd have them arrested.

This just does not seem complicated to me.

Hal

Comment By Frank N, 11-09-07

"I am beginning to think there is a vastly prevalent mental illness....."
Excuse me Eric? Are you saying that I'm mentally ill? Many of the individuals posting here (including myself) have been doing so for years. Their opinions on prior issues are no secret. One thing I will say is that I respect each and every one of them. I may disagree with them. I may question them. I may argue with them. But I would fight for their right to express those opinions just as I would fight for my own. I would never call them nuts, mentally ill, stupid etc. That, sir, is what "will get us nowhere". Much of what you say makes sense; let's stay on target.

"The Yellowstone National Park bison herd is the only herd descended from continuously wild buffalo in the country. True or False?" The answer, of course, is true. Just because the herd was augmented with 21 domestic bison does not mean that the original 50 were not wild bison and that the park bison today are not descended from them. If my father was descended from kings, but my mother was not, does that mean that I am not descended from kings?
Marion: It doesn't matter where "safe" is if there is no food there. The bison leave the park looking for food. They covered the plains because there were millions of them.
I think the bottom line here is that there are no cattle on Horse Butte and the residents want the bison there; so what harm does it do to the DOL, the State of Montana or any rancher's livestock, property or livelihood to allow them there? If they travel beyond Horse Butte and approach areas with livestock, haze them if you must; but there is no reason to haze them off of Horse Butte, other than to simply play "bully" and prove who's "boss". A confrontation here has the great potential of giving Montana a tremendous black eye in the national press just as their "guided bison 'hunt'" did several years ago. I sincerely hope that clear heads will prevail in Helena and realize that.

Frank Noyes

Comment By Cathy Bestland, 11-09-07

Marion, What is this "Environmental Business" that you suggest getting rid of? Is it some shop or chain of shops that we can stop in a pick up a little environment? Maybe some ecosystem on the side? FYI most of what is accomplished by environmentalist is done so with contributions by socially conscious people from all over the world. An act of sharing in order to accomplish something for the greater good. To protect something that thanks to one industry is being destroyed at an allarming rate, our natural resources and our endangered species.

What are you going to do? Boycott Nature??? Start with air your breathing.

This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/city/article/madison_valley_landowners_get_tough_with_montana_department_of_livestock/C396/L396/