“Historic” Deal with Church Bad Deal for Wild Bison

It seems the "Buffalo" Field Campaign is never happy.

As i have said before, to judge the advisability of any agreement, you need to consider the nature, history, and character of who you are proposing to partner with in making that agreement. In this case, it would be good, if not essential, for everyone to know just who this CUT group is, their sleazy history, and the unpalatable manner in which their assets were assembled in the first place.

Based on how this CUT filth came to be, I don't see how anyone with good sense could ever consider them to be trustworthy and, based on the productive outcome of the previous agreement ten years ago (it sure seems that there was nothing productive gained from a massive pay-off to CUT at that time), untrustworthy would be an understatement. We, the taxpayers, already paid them $13 million to work this agreement out ten years ago and CUT seems to have snookered us and neither we, the taxpayers, nor the bison got anything for it. Now, they are getting another multi-million dollar pay-off to let a pitiful few bison take advantage of what we seemed to have paid for way back then.

The truth is that I am now as unhappy about the situation as the BFC seems to be. In fact, looking at the history of CUT and how they milked this bison deal, I find CUT about as disgusting and disreputable as the FLDS and that mess down in Eldorado, TX, with the only discernible difference being that CUT does it financially to any sucker with money while the FLDS does it to little girls. I can't see that any agreement with that kind of scum is going to significantly help resolve this bison mess; it will only put a scummy MT state government, a scummy Bush Administration, and a scummy CUT together in a closed room with more money to play with.

People who wish to be educated about this issue should read the GAO report at this link.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08291.pdf

"Buffalo" Field Campaign is not the most educated on this complicated issue.

Marilyn, I believe that I can easily match you in education and it really doesn't seem that complicated. Let me again repeat my posting from another article...

Dear Lucia Stewart and fellow posters,

I know that most of you are not eager to hear the input of a rancher; but, I can't keep myself from offering a perspective in terms of the financial framework from which real ranchers operate. I believe that you will find this viewpoint relevant; but, it doesn't seem like anyone has offered any analysis of this corrupt mess from this standpoint, at least not that I have seen.

If you go back to 1998, the stated justification for this deal with CUT has always been to provide grazing for bison. The taxes to be spent on this adventure were justified as support for the bison; the donations to the "conservation" groups were justified as support for the bison; and, although there may be peripheral benefits and land rights obtained through the deal, the goal of the deal was overwhelmingly to be about grazing room for the bison, was justified to the taxpayers as grazing room for the bison, and was sold to the appropriators as grazing room for the bison. Since 1998, working with CUT to get this grazing room for the bison has, to the best of my rough reckoning, cost more than $15 million ($13 million in 1998 and now another $2+ million), not counting the time and cost of the bureaucrats, lawyers, politicians, and accountants. To the best of my understanding, this deal now covers 30 years of grazing access and allows a maximum of 100 head on the property for about half time, given that they now want the bison off the land by April 15th each spring. Stay with me here...

We, ranchers, commonly measure herds for grazing rights in terms of Animal Units (AUs). For the purposes of this analysis, we can count one head of bison as being one AU and the result from a money standpoint will actually be charitable to CUT. We, ranchers commonly pay for grazing rights in terms of Animal Unit Months (AUMs), which is the right to graze one AU for one month. Stay with me here...

So, let's calculate what CUT is getting paid for these grazing rights. You start with the $15 million that they have gotten total since 1998 (again being charitable to CUT by not counting any interest or escalation on the first $13 million); then you divide by 30, because the deal allows access for 30 years, and you get the rough annual cost of the deal; then you divide by 100, because the deal only allows a maximum of 100 AUs on the property at any time, and you get the cost per year per AU; and, finally, you need to divide by 6, because they are only going to allow access for roughly 6 months each year, and you get the cost per AUM. By my calculation, the cost is a bit more than $800 per AUM and that is being very charitable to CUT in my assumptions and not even counting inflation over the 30 years.

The normal cost to graze public lands is a bit less than $2 per AUM. In cases of excellent private land grazing rights, the cost can go as high as $20 to even $60 per AUM. Again, by my calculation above, your cost, my cost, the taxpayer's cost, for these grazing rights seems to be a bit more than $800 per AUM. The situation is all the more ridiculous because this tremendously corrupt amount of money per AUM is being spent to support only 100 bison at any one time, something less than 3% of the herd. My point is, of course, that this deal seems incredibly corrupt whether you like bison or don't like bison or don't dare one way or another. The "bottom line" is that CUT is more like SCREW in this case and in others as well given their history. The culpability doesn't stop there. The granola and sandals crowd can be forgiven for not knowing how much an AUM should cost; but MT DOL damn sure does; Tester and Schweitzer should know; Rehberg and Baucus should know; and even the GYC should know what they are collecting donations for. I am all for the bison; but, this CUT crap sure seems to stink.

It is most unfortunate that you choose to view this through such a narrow lense. In fact, the current agreement is a distinct matter and cannot be lumped with past transactions to arrive at AUMs, particularly in light of the past acquisition of lands, making them available for wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities and conservation for generations to come. The organizations (private and public) that worked so diligently to acquire lands, conservation easements and grazing rights should be applauded for their efforts. The benefits to flora and fauna of all kinds are great. And the value of preserving these beautiful, native lands cannot be quantified when you consider the generations to come who will enjoy them.

If you are well-informed on these matters, then shame on you for your narrow, biased comments. Bison are not the only benefactors of these important conservation efforts, they are just one.

You're obfuscating.

By the way, an AUM is based on a 1,000 lb. cow. The equivalent bison AUMs are as follows:

Bison cow - 1.5
Bison bull - 1.8
Bison yearling - .75

You might want to recalculate. You should educate yourself on elk, big horn sheep, mule deer, pronghorn and other wildlife AUM values as well if you insist on using AUMs in your argument. The amount made available to these animals by the removal of cattle is the appropriate number to use.

Marilyn,

On second thought, let's just do the calculation using only the latest payment of $2.5 million to that degenerate filth over at CUT. Let's take $2.5 million and divide by 30 to get the cost per year over the current 30 year access agreement, then divide by 100 to get the minimum annual cost per bison, then divide by 6 to get a cost per AUM. Now, just flat ignoring the original payment of $13 million and doing everything that I possibly can to actually support your argument, I still get a cost in excess of $138 pr AUM, far more than double the highest grazing rights fee that I have ever heard about and more than triple the highest grazing rights fee that can find anywhere in the area. Marilyn, come out of denial; CUT has screwed us, twice, and you have apparently been supporting them in doing it.

As I said, you must include the benefits to other wildlife for your argument to have any validity at all. Otherwise, it is simply biased to attempt to argue your point - not well reasoned at all.

So, Mike, if you had your choice, this agreement would never have been made? It's unclear what you want - just to rant and rave?

Okay, Marilyn, if those are the exact bison conversions that you use, then let's do the rough average: (1.5+1.8+0.75)/3=1.35. Let's now multiply $138 per AUM by 1/1.35 to get a corrected figure that is still over $100 per AUM and still ridiculously corrupt.

First, the agreements with CUT have been incompetently negotiated and handled. One of the things that I want is to keep any of the people involved in the development of these agreements from ever again being allowed to participate in any further work of this kind, sort of like never wanting anyone in the Bush Administration to make public policy again.

Second, if the objective was to support bison, then this money could have been better spent in other ways. Strutting out this agreement and pretending that it helps the bison situation lulls the public into a false perception of where we are on the bison issue and that false perception hampers serious efforts toward real progress on the issue. I want this set of agreements recognized as wasteful, as being a massive expenditure to get seasonal grazing for less than 3% of the herd, and as not significantly helping the bison problem.

Third, I want your current argument to be recognized for what it truly is. We, the public, were all sold the story that this CUT deal was about the bison and we let our money be spent for that reason; but, we now have you, at least, fessing up to the fact that bison weren't that important to you in the first place and that it was a deal to get habitat for other purposes. Those other reasons might be good ones; but, we still got snookered; this CUT deal was built on a lie; the credibility of these kinds of conservation efforts is damaged as a result of this kind of double-dealing; and I want, well, just repeat "First..." above.

Your hatred of others seems to cloud your vision of the benefit to bison, hence my original comment, "It seems the "Buffalo" Field Campaign is never happy."

Your choice of words reveals much.

Marilyn

In the interest of full disclosure, I think you have an obligation to reveal the nature of your relationship to the parties to this agreement. It appears that your objectivity isn't quite as objective as you would have us believe.

RH

I am an informed Montana resident. I am not a member of any of the parties and not employed by them. I am an informed citizen who first became interested in these issues when "Buffalo" field campaign drew attention to it and, through following the stories and researching the issues (in particular the GAO report) informed myself about the truth of the issue that significantly overrides the hype of "Buffalo" field campaign. I have studied resource management and received a degree - I made bison issues a subject of study whenever I had an opportunity to choose my own topic.

Informed citizen - that's my role.

Your turn. In the interest of full disclosure, what is the cost of your proposal? I mean, of course, the cost incurred by local residents who lose their entire cattle herd if one animal tests positive for brucellosis. Of course, the cost of that cattle herd would necessarily include decades of breeding to reach that point in cattle production where the herd is capable of producing the greatest benefit to consumers for the amount of feed available, as well as other factors.

Then, let's discuss the cost to taxpayers for the significant amounts of money spent to police and prosecute your members. All of those dollars were spent without one single benefit to bison.

Then, let's discuss how much money your members put into your pocket each year. I think your members and volunteers would be interested in knowing how much you make.

Finally, let's talk about the reality that your proposal will not happen. The bison solution is complicated and includes many interests. Managing for one species leads to the demise of others. So, given the fact that your proposal is not only costly and not based on science, and the fact that your livelihood will end once a solution is reached, how motivated are you to solve this problem?

Sorry I didn't see this discussion earlier, but I feel compelled to comment. Thanks to Mike for providing some much needed insight into the ludicrous costs associated with this deal, but wait there is more.

First, the actual cost of this deal is $3.3 million dollars and we are essentially paying for something we already own. The primary thing being negotiated here is a “migration corridor” through CUT and USFS land. The USFS land we already own and the section of the migration corridor going through portions of section 6 and 31 just north of Beattie Gulch on CUT land was already purchased via conservation easement as part of the first $13 million dollar deal to nowhere. The only thing the bison and the pubic really needed here is the ability for bison to cross the 640 acre Trestle Ranch property also owned by the CUT in portions of sections 24 & 13.

When the “corridor” reaches this point however, the corridor largely narrows down to the existing county road, which is a little used dirt road. This is a public right-of-way along the county road that the public already owns. The CUT does allow bison to access a small portion of the Trestle Ranch property on the north-west side of section 13, which I estimate to be about 80 acres. The rest of the habitat in the Cutler Meadows area, about 4 sections of land max or 2,560 acres is USFS land we already own.

In a letter to the media and Congressional staff the supporters of this agreement stated this deal will “create” a 2,500 acre corridor to some additional 7,500 acres for bison for $2.8 million, a clear misrepresentation of the facts. We already owned the rights for the bison to use the corridor and the USFS land beyond. The CUT is only allowing access on about 80 acres of new land that wasn’t part of the previous $13 million dollar deal.

Furthermore, this deal cements in the failed paradigm of treating wild bison worse than livestock by demanding that the bison first be hazed, captured, tested, and slaughtered if testing positive for exposure to brucellosis, in which case they might indeed be immune to brucellosis. However, if they reveal no antibodies to brucellosis and they are female they will be pregnancy tested, potentially vaccinated, collared, marked, and vaginally implanted with data transceivers and monitored 24/7. Only 25 manipulated bison are allowed through the corridor we already own to land we already own and then they can be shot by licensed hunters or Native Americans waiting at the other end.

These 25 livestock manipulated bison must also “behave” and not “overgraze” or the deal is off. As well, no other “untested” bison can enter the corridor of habitat area of the deal is off. In addition to the requirement that all the wild bison behave in order to allow 100 bison some time down the road (trust us we are the government with an “adaptive” plan) both the Park Service and the State of Montana must be engaged in an all out remote delivery vaccination program of wild bison with vaccines that are not necessarily effective, but at least believed to be safe. Meanwhile, elk wander by wondering what all the hoopla is about.

FWP has made an unbelievable commitment of resources and maintenance and monitoring responsibilities in this deal, which will likely cost sportsmen who knows how much for years to come. And remember this deal is temporary so whether it works or not, the CUT will come asking for more money down the road.

Instead why not offer to buy a real new and permanent 80 acre corridor between the river and the county road in sections 24 & 13. At $3.3 million dollars we could have offered the CUT $41,250/acre for a permanent solution, which seems more than reasonable to me. If we really feel it is necessary to remove the cows from the 640 acre Trestle Ranch property offer the CUT $30/AUM for 640 AUMS for 30 years and you get $576,000. Then at least let the bison use all the property, which they don’t get to under this arrangement.

Perpetuating the intensive livestock-style management of wild bison and adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to this already ludicrous government career building failed interagency bison management plan is probably the biggest failing of this expensive CUT deal for something we already own.