GUEST COMMENTARY: A PRACTICAL STEP FORWARD
Royal Teton Ranch Deal Critical for Yellowstone Bison
By Guest Writer, 4-23-08
Yellowstone bison have been mired in hopeless controversy for more than a decade. Some people argue for killing every bison that leaves Yellowstone Park. Others believe that bison should be allowed to roam without restriction. Practical people all ask the same question: isn’t there an option that treats bison like a valued wildlife species, while respecting the needs of private landowners and livestock interests? The National Wildlife Federation believes there is, and leasing of grazing on the Royal Teton Ranch north of Yellowstone National Park is a critical first step in that vision.
We believe the key to resolving the bison controversy lies in establishing areas outside of Yellowstone Park where bison can migrate at critical times of the year. This approach requires leasing or retiring a small number of grazing allotments--some on public land, some on private. Such retirements would involve negotiation with willing sellers who would receive fair compensation for the grazing they give up.
This approach benefits all parties. By providing winter habitat for bison outside the park, it meets the needs of bison and their supporters. By eliminating those cattle grazing areas where the risk of bison/cattle interaction is highest, it serves the livestock industry by that is concerned about disease transmission from bison to cattle.
Further, establishing areas outside the park for bison is a critical step toward managing numbers within Yellowstone National Park. We have watched as bison populations have grown larger and larger over the past several years, everyone knowing a hard winter would trigger a mass movement.
The bison slaughter we’ve experienced this year was not only predictable, it will happen again unless there’s change. Providing habitat for bison outside the park can create increased opportunity for fair-chase hunting that can keep bison in better balance with habitat and forage available to them. It’s the same successful approach the State of Montana has used for decades to keep elk and deer populations healthy while remaining sensitive to landowner concerns.
We know this method can work. A few years ago the National Wildlife Federation negotiated a grazing retirement with the ranchers who leased the Horse Butte allotment on the Gallatin National Forest, near West Yellowstone. We secured equivalent grazing land for these ranchers, closer to their home base. Recently, cattle grazing on private land on Horse Butte ceased, and now the stage is set for agencies to allow bison to use this historic winter range once again.
Retirement of grazing on the Royal Teton Ranch is not the lip service some well-intentioned but short-sighted bison activists have suggested. Nor is this the attack on the cattle industry that some livestock representatives have suggested. Rather, it’s a hugely critical first step that creates an important template for resolving the Yellowstone bison controversy. The reason grazing retirements and leasing can work is because this approach recognizes both the economic concerns of ranchers and the value of a wild bison population.
The inability of interest groups to recognize the genuine concerns of their adversaries is what has stymied resolution of the bison controversy. It’s time to move on.
Editor:s Note: Hank Fischer is Special Projects Coordinator for the National Wildlife Federation.
[End of article]NWF is perpetuating, not solving, the problem by continuing to treat free-roaming buffalo differently than deer, elk, moose and every other large mammal in Montana. As long as they consider them Park animals, we're just spinning our wheels.
NWF helped create the "hopeless controversy" in the first place by supporting the Bison Management Plan, which it apparently still supports. Despite the obvious failure of the Plan to control brucellosis and protect wild buffalo from senseless slaughter, at enormous cost to taxpayers, NWF forges ahead with yet another subsidy to players with a proven (bad) track record. Oh, they'll raise a ton of money with their happy-talk, skimming enough to keep their lucrative NGO jobs. But like many of the other so-called (wolves & grizzlies)wildlife "victories," there will be more dead ones than those they save. The Plan must go.
You guys got a great deal for the buffalo Hank! It only cost you $15 million for 25 buffalo for 30 years thats only $20,000 per buffalo! That is assuming that those buffalo have been tested with a faulty test, had a transmitter shoved up their you-know-what, and are back in the Park by April 15th. After the 30 years is up you can do it all over again but for even more money. Helluva deal Hank!
Comment By Buffaloed, 4-23-08I'm including the $13 million already paid to CUT for the very same purpose.
Comment By Buffaloed, 4-23-08Oh, and by the way, buffalo are still not allowed on the now cattle free Horse Butte Peninsula. What makes you think MDoL will do things differently on RTR?
Comment By Ann, 4-24-08How much Fencing would 13 million dollars buy? QUITE a bit. Sure the first year of purchasing and building the 'game-farm' style fences would be costly, but that would be the last time that amount of money would be needed. Ranchers have to 'repair' fencing every year, so they could 'repair' any fencing of the 'game-farm' style fence, at no different cost than repairing the Barb-wire, etc.
Money saved from NOT hazing off the Horse Butte could be spent on fencing, and testing, and vaccines for the Ranchers. Why is it so difficult to see that it would, in the long run, save money and be beneficial to all.
It is much easier to fix a hole in the bucket, than to just let it continue to trickle out. The CUT deal is a waste of Time, money and resources. Money saved from NOT hazing year after year after year, could be spent on IMPROVING the vaccine FOR the Cattle.
APHIS needs to rethink the Brucellosis issue, and catch up to the 21st century. We KNOW how it is transmitted, so PREVENT that You don't need to kill everything. And for people to be lied to about Yellowstone being the only resevoir for Brucellosis, is just more proof of the 'Authorities' LYING to the public.
I'm glad Hank and the National Wildlife Federation have been buying up and closing some livestock grazing allotments, but, nevertheless, as with Horse Butte and even more so with the Royal Teton Ranch, when it comes to bison, Montana Department of Livestock pretty much beats them every time. All their PR, after the fact, about what a great beginning it is or was, is not very convincing.
Comment By Glenn Hockett, 4-24-08Sportsmen and other bison advocates please also consider these stunning costs and commitments of this deal, especially the commitments required of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP):
I. Cash: Cut will receive $1,876,500 upfront to initiate the agreement and $76,500 each year for the next 19 years of the 30-year agreement. This totals $3.3 million dollars and since payments are highly “front-ended”, the capital value of the deal is much greater (considering interest that could be earned on the money).
II. Ongoing costs and commitments required of FWP:
1. FWP shall construct and maintain fences and cattle guards.
2. FWP shall construct and maintain a bison confinement facility.
3. FWP will post warning signs where bison may pose a danger to people or property.
4. FWP shall monitor bison movements, 7 days/week, November through April.
5. FWP shall mark bison.
6. FWP shall prevent bison from using CUT lands outside the bison movement corridor and 3 “bison use areas”, which have yet to be disclosed.
7. FWP, in cooperation with other agencies in the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP), shall take actions to move bison through the bison movement Corridor.
8. FWP shall monitor births/abortion materials
9. FWP shall address lethal removal of bison as needed, obtaining CUT permission for lethal removal from CUT properties.
10. FWP shall remove bison carcasses and birth materials.
11. FWP shall provide 24-hour notice in advance of any routine management activity.
12. FWP shall address and alleviate any threats of bison to persons or property.
13. FWP shall indemnify and defend CUT against all liabilities, costs or damages, including attorney’s fees, for any damages resulting from actions of FWP. (Since FWP is responsible for all the management and monitoring of bison, this would likely include any unexpected harm or injury.)
14. FWP and CUT shall monitor range conditions within the bison movement corridor and the 3 bison use areas. FWP shall consult with CUT on range conditions.
15. Upon notification by CUT that range conditions have deteriorated below baseline conditions, FWP shall take appropriate action to mitigate bison impacts to range conditions in the 3 bison use areas.
16. FWP shall initiate a meeting with CUT annually to review administration of the agreement.
17. FWP shall consult with CUT on the location of any new capture facility near CUT lands.
18. Should the state and federal agencies desire to modify the IBMP, CUT agrees only to consider any resulting changes in the agreement that may be necessary. Thus, CUT could be a roadblock to modifying the IBMP.
19. FWP shall ensure that bison use of the CUT land is in accordance with the IBMP. Consequently, FWP is responsible for implementing all related aspects of the IBMP that the Government Accounting Office (GAO) just recommended by refined, revised or replaced, even if one or more other agencies is unwilling or unable to cooperate in any of the Plan’s activities. This adds the following commitments of the IBMP:
20. Capture and test bison; identify sero-negative bison.
21. Remove bison from outside Yellowstone National Park by April 15 each year.
22. Remove bison from the east side of the Yellowstone River where there are thousands of acres of conflict-free public lands currently being managed by the U.S. Forest Service and FWP for large ungulate winter range and grizzly bear habitat.
23. Equip bison with radio collars and vaginal-implant transmitters.
What will all this cost FWP over the years? How much of this will come from hunter and angler license fund monies?
Most disturbing, we are paying for a "grazing lease" where it appears the overwhelming majority of the CUT property/forage in question will not be available to bison. It appears all CUT lands outside the narrow "corridor" and undisclosed "bison use areas" can be grazed by horses. As well, all CUT land not protected under the previous CUT $13 Million dollar conservation easement (portions of section 1, 6 & 31 just north of Beattie Gulch), which is the majority of the land in question can still be developed and/or subdivided. Furthermore, the majority of the "corridor" crosses land where the public already has preserved a public right-of-way for wildlife migration including a little used county dirt road.
In summary, this agreement provides little or no additional habitat or forage for bison that we didn't already own.
Glenn,
This so-called 30 year agreement is so flawed in so many ways, but this is one of my favorites: on page 9 Section E Effect of Termination on Initial Payment, there is a table deliniating what CUT must return of the initial $1,876,500 if the deal is terminated any time in the next ten years. In 0-12 months, CUT would have to return $900,000 ... BUT if CUT shows patience and terminates after only ten years THEY PAY BACK ZERO DOLLARS!
I just hope i live long enough to see this happen so i can tell the governor, FWP, YNP, GYC, NPCA, Defenders, MWF and all the other supporters of these "first baby steps" ... YOU GOT SUCKERED BY CUT, who are truly the only beneficiaries of this sham.
barb in west yellowstone
I hate to see too much bashing of these groups who supported this fiasco. Yes, they let their overconfidence lead them into a bad deal with our money; but, again, I look at the disgusting, ridiculous, and despicable history of this CUT bunch; their completely asinine ideology; the way they use it and get it to pass as religion for tax purposes; their absolutely ridiculous "Prophet" and her convenient mental incapacitation; and their schemes in general and I'm convinced that they must be such expert and convincing grifters that only the most hardened and experienced vice-squad snakehandlers would be safe from their manipulation. It reminds of that old rock and roll number, "She's so fine; there's no tellin' where the money went!"
Comment By Ann, 4-24-08I have an idea. Maybe we could form a cult on the Horse Butte and Name the Bison as our'God'. Maybe we could get that kind of money, and get them to Protect our religion, and our 'Idol'. After all these other idiots fell for CUT and their 'IDOLs'. After all we are supposed to have freedom of religion. What ever it takes I'm ready to 'convert'
Comment By Ann, 4-24-08That was said tongue in cheek. But Still I'm willing to do what ever.
Comment By Robert Hoskins, 4-25-08Hank
The key question to ask here is, has the CUT deal materially improved the lot of Yellowstone bison? The answer is clearly no, as Glenn Hockett and others above have pointed out in unequivocal, glaring detail. For every step forward this deal allegedly makes, it take five steps backward.
This deal, which has cost the public an obscene amount of money, especially when added to the obscene amount of money already handed over to CUT, will do no more than theoretically allow a mere fraction of cyberbison (poked, prodded, reproductive-tract implanted) of the Yellowstone bison population into the state of Montana, but only before 15 April of each year, while leaving the vast majority subject to the gross mismanagement and abuse of the so-called Interagency Bison Management Plan.
The entire IBMP is a fraud, and so any action that supports it is a fraud. The CUT deal is therefore a fraud, as are those who have facilitated it.
Hank, you're making the same flawed argument that you and the National Wildlife Federation have been making in support of wolf delisting--that by overlooking gross violations of principle and law in favor of backroom deal making, somehow wildlife will benefit. But the only benefits are those flowing to special interests, not the public and certainly not to wildlife.
This is the attitude that if there's a problem, throw money at it, a version of the fraudulent free-market environmentalism of the PERCettes, etc.
But as I've long known, incentives to landowners for conservation are merely incentives for more incentives. The CUT deal proves that. CUT has cleaned up on this deal, and now the facilitators have the job of selling this manure to the public. But the smell is so bad that no amount of perfume will cover it up.
It is clear, Hank, that you and NWF, GYC, NPCA, etc. have ceased basing your actions on Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac and have turned instead to Donald Trump's The Art of the Deal for guidance. And conservation is worse for it.
By such actions you are rapidly losing our respect.
RH
All along the 'Authorities' have been telling people that they DONATE the meat to food banks etc. Well Guess what. Another lie from the mouths of the 'babes' The Billings Gazette this morning has a headline that the Billings Food Bank had to PURCHASE the meat. Big difference between Donating, and buying.
http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/04/25/news/local/18-bisonbank.tx
We have seen this MO over and over again; with the elk plan, various easements, the Citizen "Advisory" Council, the Bison Quarantine, the tentatives, and on and on. Region 3 FWP administration refuses to release details of pending deals until the last possible moment, and then has "cheerleaders" lined up to rah-rah things.
It usually turns out the cheerleaders are nearly as lacking in the details of these arrangements as the general public is.
The Gallatin Wildlife Association has long criticized this lack of transparency. In fact, we had a mediation with FWP over these issues.
Have things changed? It doesn't appear so.
NWF is never far from the public trough defending the agencies with whom they feed. Greenwash cheerleaders (government propagandists) are well compensated for their indiscretions. Essentially, the primary task of big-money groups today is to keep the subsidies flowing to special-interests (and themselves), act as surrogates for elected representatives unwilling to engage the public, and marginalize activists telling the truth about corrupt government agencies and risk-averse politicians.
Comment By Tom Rice, 4-25-08I certainly respect all the opinions here. Very well put. But Ann's idea of a bison religion is the answer. Ann, you're a true visionary. Pass the collection plate.
Comment By d.Bailey Hill, 4-25-08Ann has brought up a point that i think many of us would much rather not think about. It is something i try not to dwell upon. The dishonesty, the lack of even a hint of integrity, touches every aspect of the bison atrocity. In the back of many minds, i think we hope that they could make at least one forthright decision. But the momentum just carries on. One or two people have mentioned-very briefly-that the situation reflects... the state of... i'll just leave it at 'things'. The historical 'roots' that continues with the slaughter of our bison, and all that bloody history represents, really fuels my passion for this issue. I think it's the depth of this history, that keeps me going, never giving up.
Comment By d.Bailey Hill, 4-25-08Also, the article points out that the hides and skulls are given to the tribes. Is that some feeble attempt at trying to 'save face'? I think it makes those involved with the slaughter look even more despicable. It all makes me so angry.
Comment By Glenn Hockett, 4-25-08I suggest we all advise the governor to accept and implement the recommendations of the recent Government Accounting Office (GAO) report which are in part to “refine, revise, or replace the plan and agency operating procedures…” There are no respectful or sustainable solutions within the context of the existing interagency bison management plan. There is no fresh air to breath for free ranging Montana bison at the end of this expensive “3 step” big government treat bison worse than livestock forever plan.
Every good and cost effective idea that has been proposed for bison or the protection of a few cows gets shot down by the non-solution framework of this existing plan. While nearly every bad, expensive and government intrusive idea is perpetuated and mandated by this failed plan. The GAO didn’t recommend implementing this failed plan, they recommended replacing it. Let’s admit the failure of past administrations in designing this treat wild bison like diseased livestock plan and move on to a respectful habitat and public hunting based solution.
Furthermore, attempting to eradicate brucellosis from bison while ignoring all the “exposed” mammals in the GYA is a failed policy and such draconian attempts to perpetuate this ecologically devastating and economically expensive policy will have dire consequences in the future. Instead, let’s work together to protect/manage/vaccinate a few cows and let the buffalo roam to historic habitats where there is little to no conflict.
Once restored on a year round basis in southwest Montana, a respectable and sustainable public hunting program can be designed, which does not result in no bison left standing in Montana after April 15 each year.
Clearly, there are no respectful and sustainable solutions in the context of the existing interagency bison management plan or this proposed windfall for CUT. If, NWF wants to help out, please heed the recommendations of the recent GAO report and encourage the governor to replace this failed plan, which forever perpetuates the livestock-intensive and confinement style management of wild bison.
Many private and public landowners in the area are pro bison and a habitat based restoration and public hunting conservation plan that respects private and public property rights on both sides of the issue is at our fingertips. That is a solution we can all be proud of. All we have to do is to tell our government to stop wasting tax payer money and get out of the way.
Glenn I agree with you. I've written letters, called (and only gotten the flunkies) what or how can we accomplish what you suggest? I sent a letter to Tester the other day, he, in the past, has responded. Although it was a 'form' style letter. What can we do to get this in the works? The non-responses from the Authorities, makes me think that some of the 'protesters' actions may be the only way to get their attention.
Comment By Ann, 4-25-08I also have invited the 'powers that be' to come here, and I would show them the area, that is in question so they could see first hand what the Horse Butte consists of but they have not accepted my invitation. I'm new at this type of communication, or lack there of, so I don't know how to cut through the 'crap' to get things rolling.
Comment By Jim Macdonald, 4-25-08So,
There's been strategically a call for a religion and a call to request that the authorities scrap the IBMP.
I'd be curious what other strategies people think might work, and I think some of us would be receptive to putting energy into them.
Direct action, for one. Public education campaigns for another. The courts has been another proposed. There are no doubt other ingenious ways to take action, and probably the more ways the better and more inspiring for a greater number of people.
That's what we are taking on in Bozeman where we've just formed Buffalo Allies of Bozeman, and the meetings on Wednesdays at 7 PM (see http://bozemanactivist.wordpress.com for more details). We want to encourage different approaches so that we aren't so helpless in the face of this garbage from the government and these rich NGOs like NWF.
These buffalo are dying, and we can't afford to be pacified. If we meet regularly and plan together and encourage each other, we can do a lot more than we are doing. Otherwise, the powers that be will be quite happy to let us do all the cheerleading we want in the comments section (not that that doesn't also have a purpose). But, we need to meet "and roam" together.
If you aren't in Bozeman and want to take this on and organize and meet, send me an email (I'm very easy to find - you can find my email on my Web site at http://www.yellowstone-online.com ), and let's see what we can do. If you are too far away, at least I can offer tips. If you are in Southwest Montana, I bet we can organize something.
It's imperative that we not be so scattered; we also must be a herd. And, that means chewing the cud together and acting together. For those of you in Horse Butte already doing that, I really admire that (well done). For the BFC's and GWA's of this world, we need more of you and to offer more support.
And, if in the end, it takes a religion, I think there's nothing more spiritual than the power of people meeting and working together for justice, for these precious animals and the land they inhabit.
Jim
Bill; I'm Very interested, Something has come up at the moment. But when I get my Mother to bed, I will get back into this. Thank you for the links. You will be getting an e-mail from me either tonight or tomorrow.
Comment By Ann, 4-25-08Oops Sorry I meant Jim. Dang I'm starting to get like her must be the close association. LOL
Comment By Mumeundinna, 6-29-08yo guys
I read this in some column somewhere and thought it was hilarious.
" Becoming a member of a <a >Christian dating</a> service is not considered immoral, as long as the person understands the rules of dating in Christianity. A search for a good Christian dating service produces immeasurable results — there are too many to choose from. However, it pays to exercise prudence while contacting and subscribing to these services."
Christians have rules for dating? Since when?