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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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????

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

-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.

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"

-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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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!

"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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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

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

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.

*

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

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.

-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???

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.

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.'

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.

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.

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.

*

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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

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.

Again, 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. I have asked you whether you are a spokesperson for the Galanises and you answered with a rhetorical dance of the 7 veils.

You and I tangled here when you started screaming in capital letters to my first comment:

"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."

Now it has taken over 80 additional comments for you to fess up and reveal that the following: "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."

--The DOL has a mandatory charter per legislative direction.

--The DOL charter extends to means and methods on both private and public land as per that legislative direction.

--The Galanises own the dirt while the sovereign owns the wild animals

--Private property rights do not extend to managing the sovereign's animals in a manner inconsistent with the sovereign's wishes and mandate.

--Galanises bought their property knowing, or should have known, all of this.

By the way I have no association with any agricultural entity public or commercial.

My last comment was denied by Akismet. Don't know why. Please include it. Thank you.

Edit-

my last comment-last sentence,... should be "the" air you're breathing

ALL buffalo, domestic or wild are descended from wild buffs, so there is no difference one from another. That eliminates that as an argument.
As for private property rights, remember that was ruled on by the courts in the Park County Wyoming case vs. Mike Jimenez, when they said that a government official is not guilty of a crime if it is committed while doing his job. Therefor planting wolves on private property was ok. Now do you guys really think that the courts will rule that it is not ok to remove a potentially dangerous animal from private property? Precedence was set in a case that went the way enviros wanted it to, so I suspect they will have to live with it.
There is plenty of feed in Yellowsotne especially since the elk numbers are so low. They roam because that is what they do, just like antelope go under fences, it is their nature.

Marion,
I think you need to get out more. You say the Elk numbers are dwindling but yet the Madison Valley Ranchers have tens of thousands in their pastures in the spring. You say the Moose are declining, yet we have more Moose here, than we've had in over 40 years. If the Elk numbers are so low then why does your state continue to feed them at alarming numbers? The amount of Elk harvested this year is low yes, BUT the weather has not been such that the elk are coming out of the mountains. And we all know most of the hunters nowadays won't get out there and actually HUNT them they would prefer to have them down low where they can access them from their trucks. And here where I'm at the Elk numbers are no lower than they were years ago if anything they are Higher.
Precedence's are out there and can be changed. Wolves have killed more Livestock than Bison.

EDIT:::: ............than Bison have.

As per the photo, Craig, I am a photographer and I would much rather have taken the picture myself (no offense, Ann), but I live in Livingston and it wasn't really feasible for me to drive there for one photo. I caught wind of this story and solicited information about it from sources. The photo was sent to me, unattributed, and now has become the subject of debate. Not quite sure why, but as I said earlier, I take my objectivity and attention to opposing views very seriously. This story would be the same regardless of where I heard about it or who gave me the photo.

As the over 100 comments on this story attest, there are many, many views on this issue. I hope to work on this story more in depth this winter and would be happy to talk to all sides. I'll probably take my own photos for that story, though.

Thanks a lot everybody for reading and for your comments. Good stuff.

another marion distortion of the facts,

Marion says,
"As for private property rights, remember that was ruled on by the courts in the Park County Wyoming case vs. Mike Jimenez, when they said that a government official is not guilty of a crime if it is committed while doing his job. Therefor planting wolves on private property was ok."
Marion, you know this is a bald face lie. It was proved in the courts that Jiminez was getting biological info on an existing wolf pack.
Yes Marion I am calling you a liar. sorry to say is that you know this too.

Dave, my last substantive comment has been censored from inclusion. Don't know why. Please have it restored or explain why it will not be included. Thank you.

My question about the picture came about because of Ann's admission that she took it and has refused to reveal how it made its way to you. She has made herself part of the story with her picture, her refusal, and her commentary in my opinion.

To Hal Herring:

Hal you are missing something, 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. I posted this earlier but 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."

As well, this is not the first time the Board of Livestock (BOL) has imposed its will to shut down win-win solutions for wild bison in Montana. The seven member BOL acts as the "director" of the Department of Livestock. I encourage all of you to learn more about this heavy handed BOL and attend one of their meetings sometime in Helena.

Just the other day (Nov. 6, 2007) the Chairman of the BOL suggested to the public that the government should fence the boundary of Yellowstone National Park. He wasn’t kidding and he remains serious about this idea.

As well, on January 29, 2007, the BOL on a motion by Meg Smith defeated a request by the governor's office and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks to conduct a public process and environmental review for wild bison recovery and conservation in the Upper Gallatin Canyon south of Big Sky. Interestingly, there are no public minutes of this meeting or decision ever taking place. The BOL/DOL is clearly a rogue agency that is out of control and they need to be reined in. They have suppressed a scientific review and public process for a potential great solution.

The Upper Gallatin is almost entirely public land, including land in Yellowstone National Park, the Gallatin National Forest and State owned land within the Gallatin Wildlife Management Area. Wild bison can't use any of this public land because the BOL/DOL won't let them. They have stopped the bison both physically through hazing, capture and slaughter and also through "wink and a nod" backroom deals that the public is largely unaware of. David, when you do you larger story on this issue, I would love to show you around the Upper Gallatin and discuss the vast opportunities for win-win solutions there.

Also Jeff E. is right. Contact the governor's office at 444-3311 or by email at . As well, I suggest you contact the DOL at 444-9431 and the FWP at 444-5618 and let them know this insanity has to stop. Ask to get on the BOL’s mailing list so you can get copies of their agendas and meeting notices so you can start monitoring what is going on here.

Craig-

Sorry about that. Your comment was not censored, it just got caught in our SPAM filter. It happens sometimes. Our editor went into the inner workings of our NewWest.Net motherboard, found your comment and reposted it.

Jeff, perhaps you'd care to read this:
quote:"State of Wyoming vs. Michael D. Jimenez, United States District Court for the District of
Wyoming, Case No. 04-CR-98J and State of Wyoming vs. Michael D. Jimenez, United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. This case involved Park County, Wyoming, allegations
that a USFWS biologist violated state law by trespassing and littering (leaving immobilized
radiocollared wolves) on private property during a routine wolf capture and radiocollaring
operation near Meeteeste, Wyoming, in early 2004. The District Court ruled that Mr. Jimenez
was immune from such state charges because he was carrying out his official duties as a federal employee." end quote

The facts were that Mr. Jimenez located the wolves in 4 different locations tranquilized them and took them to a a calving pasture on private land near Meeteetse for collaring. The wolves were left in that pasture after the biologists finished their lunch. Mr. Jimenez claimed he didn't know it was private property despite the fact it was when the chopper went over the shop where the rancher was working that they were alerted.

The most important part as far as I can see is the fact he did go on private property, and put the wolves there, that was acceptable. By the way this was the Washakie Pack and fortunately they headed back to where they came from up in the Dubois area.
Actually it does not matter what I think or what anyone else thinks, if this goes to court. A judge will decide, and I doubt that either of us will have any input. I can't help but think a court case was the whole purpose of this, don't know.

Craig;
If by answering your question about being a spokesperson for the Galanis' by saying, " I never said I was a spokesperson for anyone but myself. " Is what you say "...........answered with a rhetorical And alternative dance of the 7 veils." Then so be it.
Craig your getting redundant. I understand your stance is behind the DOL no matter how ridiculous and costly to the taxpayer it is. Nor how wrong (morally) they may be. So save your breath because I'm tired of your posts. So you can now repeat yourself to others. As I said before it's not your concern as to whom I send pictures to or not.
It has NO bearing on the issue of Private Property Rights being stepped on.

Ann, it is total BS to suggest that I have said anything in support of the DOL. My opinion remains that conversation and negotiation beat confrontation. Anything I have said about the DOL is merely a statement of what is so (reality of the situation), nothing more. Let me add that it doesn't appear that the DOL is 'stepping' on anyone's Private Property or their rights to same by using helicopters to fulfill their charter mandate. If you don't want the choppers, there is a negotiable solution -- how about cowpokes on horseback. To deny this reality is ridiculous. But nothing happens when folks hide behind signs or their 7 veils and forgo the opportunity to sit down at the table and craft workable solutions.

Craig,

From reading your posts, it does seem pretty clear that you are in support DOL. Just an observation.

Cathy, once more here is my opinion:

"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."

Again, merely a statement of what is so.

I am rapidly coming to wonder if perhaps this is an environmentalist group backed challenge to the State of Montana to try to gain control over the DOL. At first it seemed to be a difference of opinions, but from where I sit it is beginning to look like maybe there is a lot more at play here than first appeared.

According to the MCA Laws 81-2-120 It is stated that, "Whenever a publicly owned wild buffalo or bison from a herd that is infected with a dangerous disease enters...." But what I read is PUBLICLY OWNED WILD BUFFALO OR BISON. And the last time I checked I'm a resident and still residing in the State of Montana, so think I'll take Montana's word for it. Everything I saw stated that the wildlife belonged to the people and was left in the care of the sovereign.
But not to worry I'm sure Craig will be more than happy to copy and paste what he seems to think is even more legal than the State of Montana's own Laws.
The two tribes in ID are going to hunt no matter what you or I say. And Just because the Galanis' said hunting might be more humane than the hazing that does NOT mean they would allow it on their property, which is their choice because it is THEIR property.
And if Craig would quit copying and pasting the same redundant stuff, and maybe do some research, he would already know that they use horse back and ATV's and pickups and snowmachines and helicopters. In so doing they tear up the ground they run their ATV's over and their trucks and they use the horses to run the animals through the fences that they refuse to come back and repair. In other words they DAMAGE the Private Property and why would anyone in their right mind want that to happen to them.
Typing to Craig is exactly the type of table talking, meeting, or what ever other word you want to use when you meet with the DOL. So why bother again? Been there done that.

Yes Marion and the World Trade Towers was an inside job.

Craig, I don't need to read twice to know whose side you're on. It was obvious the first time. Why should anyone come to a table if the same rhetoric is going to be repeated over and over again? The DOL has not suggested soften it's position if the Galines' come to the table. They have not indicated that they are willing to compromise. They want to project the appearance of a willingness to work with the Galines' so that when the Galines' walk away from the table, it will look as if they are unwilling. Let's hear a clear and public agreement that the DOL will respect the Galines' posted intentions and that they are willing to change their policy which the majority consider to be unreasonable, before anyone comes to any table.

"Since the beginning of regulated society the wild animals have belonged to the sovereign."
In 1842 Martin v. Waddell, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that "since the revolution, the people of each state became themselves sovereign; and in that character, held the absolute right to all their navigatible waters, and the soil under them; for their own common use.....including the animals living on it." Taney's decision became known as the "public trust doctrine". This concept, upon which wildlife has been managed and regulated in the United States, maintains that the government holds natural resources IN TRUST FOR ITS CITIZENS, and that wildlife should not be privately owned.
The public owns wildlife, but the government has been given the responsibility of managing wildlife species.
This responsibility of managing wildlife is the exact reason that, unfortunately, I don't believe that the Galanis' can win this in court. (I'm not a lawyer and hope I'm wrong.) The only court they
CAN win in, is the Court of Public Opinion, and I hope that is exactly where they choose to fight it in. As loudly and widely as possible.
In Montana, by law, property owners may either allow or not allow hunting on their private property as they choose. Hunters must in every case obtain permission from the property owner. The sign above clearly states "no hunting".

Cathy, I have no sides or sympathies for either the DOL or the Galanises. I merely observe the machinations and disingenuous maneuverings of those with agendas who are using others and the animals as their pawns to leverage their snit to create a confrontation.

Don't want to negotiate, fine. Seek redress in the legislature to change the law which mandates and empowers the DOL to address the bison issue. Then, have the Interagency Mangement Agreement rewritten to your heats content. I would respect those efforts.

No Ann, the WTC bombing was NOT an inside job.

DOL doesn't negotiate. They use fear and intimidation. Ask the residents of Horse Butte.

Marion:
I'm a board member of BFC and I didn't know about this story until I saw it on this website. It's not some enviro conspiracy, just people that are sick and tired of the DOL's B.S. and don't want them on THEIR property needlessly harassing wildlife.

If you look at the statute you will see the word "may" repeated several times. DOL doesn't have to chase buffalo from land that never has cattle and where the residents want them, they choose to do it. DOL won't accomplish anything by trespassing, like they ever really did, they will only give themselves a black eye and maybe they are stupid enough to do it. If so I think the tide of public opinion will change even more against this asinine policy and it may finally be changed.

The livestock industry is only looking for solutions that will help themselves and they won't take into consideration anyone else's values or let anyone else be at the negotiating table.

Jiminez made a mistake. He shouldn't have been there but the DOL isn't making a "mistake" they are willfully trespassing and throwing their weight around.

They ARE a rouge agency and have put the safety of many innocent bystanders at risk, namely campers in Baker's Hole Campground and motorists. This has to stop.

Well Marion the WTC inside job made as much sense as enviros trying to control the DOL. But that's just my opinion. :o)

Seems to me that again the message has been ignored,
Not wanting to and having been there are two seperate scenarios.
I don't know how many times a person is supposed to get slapped in the face before they decide to walk away.
But with me, only once.

I do believe because of the DOL's practices and procedures they could be thanked for the Munns family selling maybe not the whole reason but a big part of it.

Buffaloed, you say the livestock industry doesn't consider anyone but themselves? It seems to me that it is the buffalo people and environmentalists in general that are determined to remake the country, no matter who or what they destroy in the process. they have their dream of utopia and keep those donations rolling in because the are going to force someone to make it the way they want it. From what I have seen enviros never have enough, if they forced the Munns to sell they will keep pushing further and further and try to take over more and more to feed their egos.
Ranchers have invested thousand, millions into their homes and ranches, they produce the feed for millions, but they do not count, only those who destroy what others have for the sake of "nature" should have any voice. BS
I guess a few months from now we'll see what happens.

Marion,
Only being able to pasture maybe 75 head of cattle for three months and having to transport the distance they did wasn't cost effective for them. The Munns Ranch was a dream of the Father and the 'boy's' had their own lives and ranching in ID. They basically cut their losses. Only one of the boys out of 6 was getting any benefit from the Ranch and that's because he ran horses on it NOT cattle. It's a little hard to run cattle if you can't keep an eye on them. I did a lot of checking of the cattle but when taking care of an invalid Mother at the same time there were Days and sometimes weeks I couldn't get out there either. They weren't 'run' out of the business they just moved it closer to home. And the Galanis' made that easier for them by giving them a damn good price for the Ranch. So again you are making assumptions without knowing what it is your talking about.

That along WITH the DOL's procedures made it not cost effective. Thought I better clarify that or someone would try to put words in my mouth. Don't forget I've grown up here and seen all the crap and threats that have been tossed around.

Aren't the Munns the ones who had their lease cancelled at the last minute a few years ago? Wouldn't that kind of fall under "forcing them out of business" as mentioned earlier?
From the article in the Bozeman Chronicle, it doesn't look like negotiation has taken place or will. It appears to be a contest to see whether the laws of the State of Montana or the environmental groups will win this one. Gonna be interesting.

http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2007/11/10/news/10bison.txt

No it wouldn't fall under 'forcing them out of business' Since I told you they are NOT out of business they moved it back home to ID. The entire Family of Brothers lives down there, you add gas for transport, and brand inspections, testing and all the other crap the DOL insists on doing, and it was more cost effective to bring it back home. 700 acres +/- isn't enough to allow that many cattle. The lease was canceled quite awhile back, and I can't give you the particulars on that because I don't know all the facts. They were given 'allotments' in an area closer to home as well when these up here were 'taken' away. Even if they weren't canceled like I said before, it was too costly to run unattended cattle up here, for that family. When their Father was alive he spent the summers up here and was able to 'tend' to the cattle. I was with him every day he was here.
The only 'improvements' that were made on the place was fence repair. Their Father died in the 70's and they continued ranching, up here, for 30 years. Some of the 'Boys' were ready to sell back then.
So quit trying to blame Environmentalists for something that had been in the works for years.
What is happening with that ranch now is better than development of over 100 homes. Why should another meeting make a difference of tolerence IF disease is truly the reason for the operations? Either they will or they won't (DOL) continue the operations on this isolated NO cattle, piece of ground. And if there is any 'trespassing' by agents it will be documented as well as any more damage that they do.

Funny (peculiar) how you want to blame the environmentalists for a disease.

Marion, thank you for the link to the Bozeman Chronicle article. It certainly adds missing facts otherwise obscured by the nonsense bantered about here.

--Galanises are a Salt Lake City couple

--Bought property in August of this year

--Have never met with the DOL

--Have been invited by the DOL to sit down, talk and explore options

--No response from the couple

--Without the cattle in the area there is flexibility to management solutions


There is obviously a whole lot more to this story and questions to answer:

--How did the Galanises come to buy this particular property?

--Having no experience with the Montana DOL, why won't the Galanises take the opportunity to have a conversation?

--Are the Galanises members of or closely involved with members of wolf and bison advocacy groups who oppose ranching in the west?

What is Ann hiding by not revealing how her picture became part of this story and what her role in this dispute is? (In my opinion, appears to have a heavy axe to grind while using the Galanises as surrogates for her issues)

--What is the DOL 'side' of the story?

--What does the DOL see as some of the flexible approaches to accommodate the landowners while fulfilling the DOL charter mandate?

Glanis is on the Hebgen Lake committee:
http://www.gallatin.mt.gov/Public_Documents/gallatincomt_plandept/hlac

His subdivision proposal:
webapps.gallatin.mt.gov/propdev/

He made this proposal in the spring according to the aricle date in March 07:

westyellowstonenews.com/articles/2007/03/30/news/news1.prt

Google is amazing.

Galanis is on the Hebgen Lake committee:
gallatin.mt.gov/Public_Documents/gallatincomt_plandept/hlac

His subdivision proposal:
webapps.gallatin.mt.gov/propdev/

He made this proposal in the spring according to the aricle date in March 07:

westyellowstonenews.com/articles/2007/03/30/news/news1.prt

I am taking the wwws out in order to try to get it thru the spam filters, you may have to add them.

Google is amazing.

Craig
Where are you from?
where do you live?
What kind of business do you do?
Why do you drive the kind of car that you do?
What did you have for breakfast?
where did you go on your honeymoon?
Do you use one-ply or two-ply toilet paper?
Now tell me what kind of business is it of mine to ask you these questions?
Just as my picture of the sign, what business is it of yours, how or why or to whom I sent it?
AND what do they have anything to do with the Private Property rights being ignored?
If it is so damned important to you to KNOW why the Galanis' don't want to meet with the DOL, at this time, then by all means ASK THEM!

I state only what I know to be true, and it's NOT my place to speculate as to why, how come or anything else, that the Galanis' do or don't.
I have seen the letter that the DOL sent them and it pretty much tells what the DOL's stance is on the issues at hand.

I have tried to link to his proposal made in March, his membership on the Hegben Lake committee, and the application for the subdivision. The spam filter is blocking them, but google is great to find this.
Why was he on the HL committee if he lives in SLC????

In addtion to the Chronicle article this one is also enlightening.

http://westyellowstonenews.com/articles/2007/03/30/news/news1.prt

Looks like a real estate investment banker and his wife who wish to develop a prime piece of property into 34 ranchettes without interference by regulatory authorities be they the Forest Service, DOL, or local zoning. I can truly understand that motivation. "Follow the money."


And Ann, you made yourself part of the story with your picture, that is why it is relevant.

Well Maybe because he's had a summer home in the area for years and is part of the community. And would rather see fewer subdivisions on land around here. Again what difference does it make even if they came from timbuktu? They bought the property legaly. They pay taxes in this state. How does that have anything to do with Private Property Rights?
You two sure like sticking your noses in where they have no business being.

Well hate to burst your bubble AGAIN Craig BUT they are NOT putting in 34 ranchettes. They could put in over 100 with guest houses. Again it is THEIR Property. What part of that don't you get?
And How does my taking a picture mean so damn much? I didn't make myself a part of this because of any picture. I'm making myself a part of this because of people trying to ASSuME things that aren't so.

Ann, read the link to the West Yellowstone News that I provided. Sheeeesh!

Seems funny (peculiar) to me also, that two people that have no clue even where this property is have soooo much advice to give the people that are directly involved.
And one of them probably wouldn't know a Bison if it came up and bit him.
Now how's that for assumptions?

DUHHHHHHHHHHHHH Craig I did Note the DATE on it too SHEESH

Or are you telling me that they can't improve upon their plans because of what was printed nine months ago?

Yes Craig and Marion, it's one big conspiracy. I'll admit, I set the whole thing up by myself. I gave them the $10,000,000 to buy the place so that we could have a big fight with the DoL and introduce bison, wolves, and grizzlies but what I am really excited about is the introduction of the rattlesnakes. Just wait 'til one of those DoL guys gets bit! Whooo Wee!

Oh, and Ann took that picture because she is hoping that we'll put African lions and elephants on the place too. You heard about that plan to reintroduce reasonable facsimiles of what was in North America before the die off of the large mammals after the last ice age didn't you. We're part of that.

Once were done with that we're going to introduce Stalinism.

Oh, sorry for spilling the beans Ann.

Ann, if the Galanises went back on their word as delieved by Ron Slade of Bechtle-Slade, the project's architect and land planner, that there would be no further expansion of the project, I guess that is up to them and the people that accepted it. See again the WYN article. To do so is not exactly western manners is it?

CRAIG I will try to type slower this time. I said they COULD. Now if you do just a little more 'snooping' you'll see they are NOT expanding. So get busy and google. Then swallow hard.

Buffaloed, Not to worry about spilling the beans I'm sure that Craig would have found out sooner or later. :o) Just like fire won't melt steel, It's a conspiracy!

Ann, when you get done scraping yourself off the ceiling please try a calmer attempt at conversation.

I couldn't get any calmer, this is starting to be hilarious, at all this googleing and quoting articles that could have children by now. A lot of things can happen in 9 months.

Yep, it sure is hilarious, we were supposed to think it was jsut soem nice people trying to fight big brother. If they could knock out a few ranch famileis in the process so much the better. So they only live in WY in the summer when the buffs are safely inside of Yellowstone?
Why did they need Snowcrest Environmental group to help them set this up? What is their agenda?
Insults won't work, I'll keep on googling and trying to get at the truth.

Uh-huh. Ann, what has changed in the facts as presented in the WYN aritcle since the time it was published? Please be specific.

"In My Opinion"

Here's what I think is happening. According to the WYN article the Galanises, or their representatives, have met and discussed their plans with the local zoning officials and the Forest Service. Obviously, they recognize the value of communication in achieving a plan. They have not to date, regardless of invitation, had similar conversation with the DOL. Why? Ann, you would have us believe the reason has something to do with your long-standing battles and grudge with the DOL over cows and bison. I believe what you represent is merely a convenient side-show to gain leverage over a larger issue. That issue is the right of a government agency to enter upon private property to fufill that agencies mandate as per the governing statutory law and agreements between federal and state government. To concede that right of entry would dramatically reduce the saleable value of the intended 34 ranchettes. The fear is that by merely meeting with the DOL may give ground on that issue. Unless the Montana law is changed, I don't see an alternative to litigation to solving this bison management issue

Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with the Galanises making major bucks on their investment and fighting to maximize their gain. That is the American way. But the real fight here is not about the bison, its the money. "Follow the money."

Now, the building of a development directly in the path of a bison migratory route saddens me. Look to what happened at Whitefish, MT when the Iron Horse development went in on the flanks of Big Mountain. Resident bears both black and grizzly were displace, and the grizzlies that used those south flanks as their natural migration route from Glacier Park to Whitfish Lake and River drainage to the Canadian border were also displaced. Consequently, bear activity both black and grizzly picked up in town. That was never a problem before.

Ann, continue your fight for the bison as you see it, but supporting an intrusive development is not the way to go.

Seems to me you are jealous. The land was put on the market so MARION get it through your head that they took nothing and ran noone off that property. What does it matter, they bought it fair and square. They've saved it from huge development. There will be NO cattle on the entire peninsula. They are trying to preserve a little bit of land for the wildlife. They have been bullied by the DOL as per the letter they recieved. and they are NOT the only ones that recieved that same letter from the DOL. So now you want to destroy just a little more land that doesn't belong to you or is even IN your state, Marion. Makes me wonder if you work this hard to eradicate the elk feedlots in your own back yard as you are trying to discredit some very nice people.

Hey Marion, why not post the whole list why just name Rob and Janae, Never mind I'll post it:
American Bank
Bozeman, MT
Brass Monkey Antique Restoration, Bozeman, MT

Big Sky Owners Association
Big Sky, MT
Big Sky Community Park Option Parcel, Big Sky, MT

Bruce Rauner
Winnetka, IL
Ranch on Greybull River, Meeteetse, WY

Cedar Breaks LLC
Sheridan, WY
Darlington Stables, Sheridan, WY

City of Bozeman
Bozeman, MT
Future site of downtown parking garage, Bozeman, MT

City of Bozeman
Bozeman, MT
Residential property near former library, Bozeman, MT

Donna Todd
Big Timber, MT
Stetson Ford, Inc., Big Timber, MT

Edith Clarke Harper
Miami, NM
C Spear Ranch, Sheridan, WY

HLH, LLC
Bozeman, MT
Firelight Meadows condos utilities, Big Sky, MT

Hope Lutheran Church
Bozeman, MT
Future site of Hope Lutheran Church , Bozeman, MT

Ken Fraser, Fraser Inc.
Bozeman, MT
Winchester Angus Ranch, Bozeman, MT

Mary Lair
Big Timber, MT
Undeveloped land, Big Timber, MT

Paul Fingersh, Nolan Realty
Kansas City, MO
Undeveloped land, Paradise Valley, MT

Ranch Landscape Heritage Corp.
New York, NY
Ranch in Paradise Valley, MT

Rob & Janae Galanis
Salt Lake City, UT
Horse Butte Ranch, West Yellowstone, MT

Town & Country Foods
Bozeman, MT
Livingston County Market, Livingston, MT

UPS Capital Business Credit
Hartford, CT
Future site of veterinary clinic, Logan, MT

Wagonhound Land & Livestock
Douglas, WY
Ranch in Laramie Mtns. near Douglas, WY

Wagonhound Land & Livestock
Douglas, WY
Ranch and trailer court near Douglas, WY


So what is wrong with Snowcrest? Is there something wrong with trying to save some land? Or help people so they can help others?
I'm not getting what your point on bringing that up really is?

So now you refuse to post my comments? How fair is that?

Apparently truth doesn't work either.

Marion, Why not put the whole list out there?
There is a Church, a Grocery store, a Soon to be Vet clinic, some Cattle ranches. Quite a list of Businesses that the Snocrest Environmental group helps.
In fact 5 Livestock ranches in Wyoming.
Do you think maybe their agenda is to help people out?

Oh for Gawd's sake! Snowcrest Environmental is just a site assessment company! They're not an environmental activist group.

http://www.snowcrestenvironmental.com/

Obviously this site is tired of the attention it's getting and not publishing the comments anymore. Pretty poor management it seems to me. They invite responses then quit printing them.

Marion, are you off your meds again? Are you actually so paranoid as to believe that the Galineses are out to "knock out a few ranch families"? Their "agenda" is clearly posted. They want thier land to be a Bison Safe" wildlife refuge. What kind of conspiracy can you read into that?

I don't know how many times I've tried to tell her that The property went on the market and the Galanis' were the first to put their bid on it. A developer from Big Sky was next in line and then another developer out of Salt Lake. We were lucky to get the Galanis'. I guess the conspiracy was when the Munns family conspired to bring their operation closer to home.
The next thing she'll come out with is Rosie O'Donnell for president.

HAY MARION, you still need to answer for your false claims agenst me on this board. Or do you have no honer at all?

Craig - Marion

Just for a point of reference here how much time have eather one of you spent on Horse Butte?

I had a length comment that was disallowed, again. I see none of our comments are being posted. I intend to refrain from further comment until New West resolves this matter. For what it's worth, and in the interest of the bison, why don't the Galanises just sell their Horse Butte property to the Nature Conservancy at the price they paid for it so that the land could be maintained without any development if this matter is really about the bison and conserving them in some semblance of a natural state? Could it be this is really about the money after all? Take care everyone. It's been interesting.

Craig

I find it odd the need to look for some larger conspiracy here. This story seems to be pretty straightforward, and although I'm sure an in-depth discussion on the World Trade Center bombings might be quite intriguing, I doubt it will move this discussion along.

Craig, your inquiries implying some sort of conspiracy still puzzle me. The Galanises are from Salt Lake City, so that somehow changes everything? Is it really plausible that environmental groups like the Buffalo Field Campaign put the Galanises up to all this in an effort to bring down ranching in the West? If we even entertain that notion for a minute, how precisely would it affect the issue at hand, i.e., the DOL performing hazing operations on the Galanises' property? And one more time: if Ann gave me this picture in an alley under the cover of darkness--which I have repeatedly said she didn't--how precisely does that change anything? There is no over-arching slant or censoring going on here. I would again challenge all of us to stay on point.

By the way, my story did mention the DOL's request for a meeting and the Galanises' refusal.

Has anyone considered the fact that maybe the Dates of the meeting that DOL suggested wasn't conducive to the Galanis' schedule? After all don't forget they run a business in Salt Lake, and just maybe there are scheduling conflicts? They do have a life you know. Just a thought.

And what happened David did you run out of room on the site, for these posts?

Dave, if you wish to discuss, please send an email. Thank you.

Dave, I forgot to add my name to that comment. Craig

Craig, I AM SPARTACUS, I gave the Galineses the money to buy the land and I took the picture and sent it in. All just to start a revolt.!!!!!!!!

It seems pretty apparent that the page cuts off after so many posts, yet some are ranting on and on even though no one can tell who they come from.

Craig wrote:

"The DOL charter extends to means and methods on both private and public land as per that legislative direction."

I do believe this discussion is about how to remove Montana's Department of Livestock from having operative jurisdiction over the last wild bison in America for a variety of reasons. I must admit that seeing you respond to all of that with an assertion that it is the DOL's right to do just that has me wondering if you have ever considered leaving a fox in charge of your hen house. I don't ever recall seeing you in the field during a haze but I assure you that what you get when you put the cattle industry in charge of the one animal representative of a targeted people and the one animal that competes with their holy cows for food you get bison abuse. Here is what the DOL itself had to say on all of this: [VIDEO] BFC: 5/01/07 Montana's Department of Livestock Speaks...

Marion wrote:

"ALL buffalo, domestic or wild are descended from wild buffs, so there is no difference one from another. "

That was spoken exactly like someone who hasn't been among wild bison. It also displays an almost willed ignorance of the existence of intricate social structures in bison communities that are themselves key to having this species effectively exist, leave ecological extinction, and fulfill their role in healthy grasslands.

There is no way around it: any major changes are going to mean some businesses losses and though everyone is expected to fight for themselves and theirs, one always hopes that some among them will see the truth of things, namely that sometimes one's self is NOT more valuable than the whole rest of the living earth.

Marion said,
"Why did they need Snowcrest Environmental group to help them set this up? What is their agenda?"
I'd sure like to know what else she was able to dig up on Google. Seems pretty strange how things got quiet after the unveiling of what Snowcrest is REALLY all about. hmmmmmmmmmm case of hoof in mouth disease?

Marion wrote:

"I am rapidly coming to wonder if perhaps this is an environmentalist group backed challenge to the State of Montana to try to gain control over the DOL. At first it seemed to be a difference of opinions, but from where I sit it is beginning to look like maybe there is a lot more at play here than first appeared."

Perhaps you simply don't have enough of the truth on your side to win and simply can't admit that. Perhaps this conspiracy that you see is just your explanation for your own relative unfamiliarity with the facts. Just a thought but always remember that it is better to learn than to appear learned.

Frank wrote:

"Taney's decision became known as the 'public trust doctrine.'"

I prefer public involvement to public trust. Again, unless the state fights for the right of each citizen to be represented and stops impeding the access of accurate information, knowledge, and higher learning, it is not a sovereign but a racket.

Craig wrote:

"Cathy, I have no sides or sympathies for either the DOL or the Galanises. I merely observe the machinations and disingenuous maneuverings of those with agendas who are using others and the animals as their pawns to leverage their snit to create a confrontation."

However you have declined each opportunity to cite any science when it conflicts with the law as it is written. Championing the law over facts is its own bias. This merely perpetuates the state as it is and demonstrates a willingness to chart a course through what all our sciences tell us are extremely dangerous waters. Ignoring what the land needs will not only be the extinction of endangered species but also of you and yours.

I say where law conflicts with what we know, what we know take precedence both in the moment and in the consideration of new, better laws.

Marion, persistent troll, insists:

"Buffaloed, you say the livestock industry doesn't consider anyone but themselves? It seems to me that it is the buffalo people and environmentalists in general that are determined to remake the country, no matter who or what they destroy in the process."

Environmentalism itself considers all. It is those that put the whole world, i.e. YOUR ENVIRONMENT, on a back burner behind the right to eat beef ( because as we all know, the planet can just die just as long as I get my hamburger) that are on a crash course!

The livestock industry, in the face of the facts, is beginning to redefine ITSELF as being a selfish industry. It's very continuance is a vast selfishness.

Craig wrote:

"Looks like a real estate investment banker and his wife who wish to develop a prime piece of property into 34 ranchettes without interference by regulatory authorities be they the Forest Service, DOL, or local zoning. I can truly understand that motivation. 'Follow the money.'"

They have also reduced their target number to five and, Craig, I don't think anyone is convinced that you would give a hoot about that snip if they were running cattle.

Like I've said before there is too much ASS-U-ME ing going on. Craig wants me to elaborate on things that are not my place to elaborate. Marion won't be happy till everything is eradicated except the cattle and the disease-breeding feedlots. And they don't like the idea that a very nice couple from Salt Lake, purchased a former cattle ranch ( before that a dude ranch,) and would like to have their Private Property rights respected.
According to the DOL and the BOL birthing material is how the disease is passed. Now that there are no cattle anywhere for miles, calving Bison on the Horse Butte should not matter.
Marion can't get it through her head that the Cattle Ranchers decided it would be more cost effective to them, to KEEP the cattle in ID where it isn't as expensive to transport (across state lines) with fuel costs where they are, as well as all the other costs needed, they were NOT 'RUN' out of the business. Marion seems to forget or just doesn't care that the Munns' family LISTED their property with one of the family members that is a real estate person. They got a darn good price for the property. Everything was legal and above board. Now tell me the sense in spending taxpayer money on hazing off property that is no danger to cattle getting the disease? Why is it so hard to respect a person's Property Rights no matter Who or WHAT they are or do? As long as what they are doing is legal. And as far as I know in this State it is NOT illegal to have wildlife running around or through your property. If it is there are an awful lot of ranchers and plain property owners that are criminals.
I (Ann) wrote this so there is no confusion.

I think this was Craig talking, because it is worded like he continues to believe that I'm supposed to tell him ALL I know.
If you are referring to the article dated March of 07, it is quite well known at this time there will NOT be 34 Ranchettes. I am not an owner of the Property, and am not involved in any planning or anything else with the Property. I AM, however, a friend of Rob and Janae's. If you want specifics ASK Rob and Janae'.
Their meeting with the DOL or not, is not my concern nor should it be yours. It is between the Galanis' and the DOL.
I don't care how many times you tell me it is the 'right' of a Government agency to enter Private Property for no logical reason
you will NOT convince me that it is the CORRECT thing to do.
You obviously have NO clue where this is or what is involved, you take what you 'think' is fact and run with it.
How did you conclude it's an intrusive development? You remind me of a fly on a plow handle in the middle of a manure pile, in a story my dad told me long ago.
Maybe you should 'google' brucellosis and find out a little more about how it is transmitted. Then find out when Bison have EVER transmitted it. Then Find out how many cattle there will be on the Horse Butte Peninsula. Then find out how close the nearest cow will be TO that peninsula. Then find out when the Bison calve. Then find out when the first cow is brought into the area. Then find out how long the Brucella can survive in the open air. Then find out how many accidents there have been on the highway because of these operations. Then find out how much money is spent on these operations. Then explain to me WHY the DOL would waste that kind of money trespassing on the Private Property where there is no and will be no cattle. Then explain to me why that money couldn't be better spent on an improved vaccine, or defraying costs to the Rancher for the testing that APHIS insists on for cattle that are shipped out of state. I mean after all you are the 'google' expert.

sincerly
ann

Ann, just prior to my message to Dave, I posted that I was not making any more substantive comments here given the state of the message board and having my last long comment blocked. I have not done so.

I don't know what or when you are referrring to as being from me. Joust at windmills as pleasures you.

Craig

I just wanted to see where the updated board is? I'm not getting any new comments since 11-10-07

Craig;
In a comment that was e-mailed at 7:34;11 MST, 11/11/07:
"Uh-huh. Ann, what has changed in the facts as presented in the WYN aritcle
since the time it was published? Please be specific.

"In My Opinion"

Here's what I think is happening. According to the WYN article the
Galanises, or their representatives, have met and discussed their plans with
the local zoning officials and the Forest Service. Obviously, they
recognize the value of communication in achieving a plan. They have not to
date, regardless of invitation, had similar conversation with the DOL. Why?
Ann, you would have us believe the reason has something to do with your
long-standing battles and grudge with the DOL over cows and bison. I
believe what you represent is merely a convenient side-show to gain leverage
over a larger issue. That issue is the right of a government agency to
enter upon private property to fufill that agencies mandate as per the
governing statutory law and agreements between federal and state government.
To concede that right of entry would dramatically reduce the saleable value
of the intended 34 ranchettes. The fear is that by merely meeting with the
DOL may give ground on that issue. Unless the Montana law is changed, I
don't see an alternative to litigation to solving this bison management
issue

Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with the Galanises making major
bucks on their investment and fighting to maximize their gain. That is the
American way. But the real fight here is not about the bison, its the
money. "Follow the money."

Now, the building of a development directly in the path of a bison migratory
route saddens me. Look to what happened at Whitefish, MT when the Iron
Horse development went in on the flanks of Big Mountain. Resident bears
both black and grizzly were displace, and the grizzlies that used those
south flanks as their natural migration route from Glacier Park to Whitfish
Lake and River drainage to the Canadian border were also displaced.
Consequently, bear activity both black and grizzly picked up in town. That
was never a problem before.

Ann, continue your fight for the bison as you see it, but supporting an
intrusive development is not the way to go."


It Looked to be from you, Craig, and If it wasn't your typing I apologize to directing it to you. So whomever wrote that comment my last post is directed to them.


Like I said in the beginning of my last post I guessed it was you because of the stance taken and the wording of things. So WHO EVER it was that posted the comment above GET to GOOGLING.
I agree Craig. It seems pretty ridiculous to invite comments then all of a sudden STOP printing them where everyone can see who is asking and what is being said by whom.

Ann

Craig;
Because of this post of 11/11/07 time stampted 7:34:11 MST

"Uh-huh. Ann, what has changed in the facts as presented in the WYN aritcle
since the time it was published? Please be specific.

"In My Opinion"

Here's what I think is happening. According to the WYN article the
Galanises, or their representatives, have met and discussed their plans with
the local zoning officials and the Forest Service. Obviously, they
recognize the value of communication in achieving a plan. They have not to
date, regardless of invitation, had similar conversation with the DOL. Why?
Ann, you would have us believe the reason has something to do with your
long-standing battles and grudge with the DOL over cows and bison. I
believe what you represent is merely a convenient side-show to gain leverage
over a larger issue. That issue is the right of a government agency to
enter upon private property to fufill that agencies mandate as per the
governing statutory law and agreements between federal and state government.
To concede that right of entry would dramatically reduce the saleable value
of the intended 34 ranchettes. The fear is that by merely meeting with the
DOL may give ground on that issue. Unless the Montana law is changed, I
don't see an alternative to litigation to solving this bison management
issue

Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with the Galanises making major
bucks on their investment and fighting to maximize their gain. That is the
American way. But the real fight here is not about the bison, its the
money. "Follow the money."

Now, the building of a development directly in the path of a bison migratory
route saddens me. Look to what happened at Whitefish, MT when the Iron
Horse development went in on the flanks of Big Mountain. Resident bears
both black and grizzly were displace, and the grizzlies that used those
south flanks as their natural migration route from Glacier Park to Whitfish
Lake and River drainage to the Canadian border were also displaced.
Consequently, bear activity both black and grizzly picked up in town. That
was never a problem before.

Ann, continue your fight for the bison as you see it, but supporting an
intrusive development is not the way to go. "

The questions and comments are so similar to yours That is why as you say, I was jousting windmills"

So if that was NOT you I apologize for using your name in my last post, IF in fact it did get posted.
I then direct my last post to whomever it was that poted it.

Craig I do have to agree with you about this site though. It seems strange to me that this site invites comments then quits posting publicly the comments we send in. Strange way to do things if you ask me. And with NO explanation from the website as to why they are NOT posting our comments publicly.

Also a little tough to refer to what we've said when we don't have record of what we sent in. So from now on I will copy and paste to my own files everything I respond back with.
I've been getting sent to spam too but I think it might be because our Broadband has been going out and having to use dial up might be why. I'm not sure but will try to give this site the benefit of the doubt.

Sincerely
Ann

Hi Everyone,

Courtney here from NewWest.Net

Our apologies, but this comment thread has reached the internal capacity for the software for number of comments. We're working to fix the problem so the rest of the comments posted after 11-10-07 show up. Please be patient. In the meantime, I've set up a new thread here:

http://www.newwest.net/main/article/discussion_madison_landowners_an_the_dol/

Feel free to continue the discussion there.

Ok everyone, we're all back and all the comments that were posted after the cap was hit are up.

Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for keeping the discussion going.

Courtney

Craig,
You are the windmill jouster of all windmill jousters. You knew exactly to whom I was referring. Then you come back with, " Joust at windmills as pleasures you."
And I must say A tap dancer that would shame Sammy Davis Jr.

Marion, After reading your comment that "it is the buffalo people and environmentalist that are trying to remake the world..." I can't help but ask. Are you unnaware of the fact that it was ranchers that tried to remake the western world to its detriment? It was the cattle industry that destroyed a healthy ecosystem which was home to abundant wildlife including bison and wolves and to indigenous peoples who lived in harmony with their environment for thousands of years? It was the cattle industry that introduced the plague of exotic, invasive and paracitic species of cattle and sheep to destroy, in a matter of 150 years, a world which mutually benefited all of its inhabitants for thousands of years?????

I'm afraid we may have lost Marion in cyber space of 'google'. And Craig too for that matter.

I would like to welcome the Department of Livestock (DOL) to post a comment to this story and clarify their position in the light of day for all to see. Why would you need to enter the Galanis private property without permission to haze or slaughter bison when there are no cows and will be no cows ever on Horse Butte? Why can't the bison calve on Horse Butte next spring? Why do you feel a need to meet with the Galanis' privately? Is the DOL considered a public agency? Why don't you make the position of the Department clear for everyone to see?

I'm not lost, I jsut have mroe to do than sit at a computer all day. It doesn't matter what I think or what you think or what kind of arguements are made. It would appear that this is headed to a court of law sooner or later.
I will never understand the need on the part of some to get rid of the food producers.
As Freud would say if he were around today, "land envy", I guess.

Land envy? Marion, This from a supporter of the industry that STOLE the land from Native Americans and proceded to exploit and wreak hacoc on that land anhialate anything that threatened their profit?

I don't see how you can sit there and say that the Galanis' (since they are the focal point here) are trying to get rid of anything. They only purchased some property that was on the market, and have asked that their property rights be respected. Those 'food producers' are NOT gotten rid of. They are trying to cut the 'overhead' of running their cattle business. And you make it out that they are bankrupt or 'out' of business.
Why should any cattle rancher or environmentalist sit back and allow an agency walk all over them with absurd policies.

If a few Ranchers stood up to the ridiculous reasoning behind the DOL's operations, then maybe there would be no need of more ranchers being 'run out' of business, as seems to be the point that your tying to make.
Yes there is a disease issue here, BUT The Galanis' Ranch is not a part of that and won't be.
If women hadn't taken a stand way back when, they would still be only meant to be 'bare-foot and pregnant'. BUT lo and behold some of them stood up and protested the laws and things changed. They now can vote among many other things.
It's time for change again.

I honestly do not know exactly what the Galinis family is trying to accomplish, it sounds to me like trying to stick their thumb in the eye of Montana DOL, but maybe not.
On the other hand there is no denying the bitter hatred of ranchers I see here, and I cannot understand it.
It was the government breaking of treaties that created the Indian problems. Frequently ranchers not only provided food for native folk, they provided work in a world that was changing. Cities and city folk ended their life the way it was when all was said and done, they wanted them gathered up into convenient reserves.
If you think an American Indian is going to thank you if you manage to infect one of their cattle herds and they have to destroy it, I think you might be surprised. Most of them live a rural life style and are often negatively impacted by the bright ideas coming from city enviros.

testing connection once again.

It works

If we break 200 comments NewWest.Net is going to take us all out for bison burgers and beers! Just kidding. Keep 'em coming...

I've been following this story and the comments pretty closely. The support for the Galanis family, their private property rights and the wild bison has come from other local landowners and residents right on Horse Butte, sportsmen and conservationists from around Montana, and nationally from the Mid West and other states ranging from coast to coast. It seems pretty simple. The Galanis' as well as the majority of people commenting on this site are tired of the current bison mis-management plan being carried out by the Department of Livestock for no apparent logical reason and the laws that empower them to do so. It is time for change.

My last comment on this discussion. I have tried several times only to have those remarks rejected.

Ann, let me apologise. The post was mine but I did not know that you or anyone could see it as New West blocked it and I had no confirmation that it made it to public view. See above. I did not recognize that you were responding to one of my comments that I didn't think anyone saw. Given the disjointed nature of this conversation and the confusion I am ending my participation in it.

Ann Stovall, I will add that it seems that you are on the outs with your neighbors over bison. Seems like you took a might swing at many folks with this statement, "What a bunch of hypocrites we have in this community!" See: http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/06/03/opinion/letters/50-wrongtarget.txt

Ann, also I don't understand why you rather than the Galanises wrote this Letter to the Editor: http://westyellowstonenews.com/articles/2007/11/09/opinions/letter1.txt

Take care all and carry on. Anyone for Moose Drool if New West is buying?

I hope this is the 200 th comment.

Marion that food you claimed that was provided to the Native Americans by ranchers was more often than not from ranchers who had lucrative contracts with he government to provide that food. That food more often that not consisted of bone thin cattle that could not be sold at market. Why do you think there were so many so called "Indian Uprisings" with Indian agencies?

Yes, Cathy, it was 200. Is Moose Drool an ice cream????
Yes, Cathy, I'm sure that the Indians got bad cows sometimes, and a lot of other bad things. I am not here to defend any bad things that happened to anyone, I cannot change it. Bad things 200 years ago does not give anyone the right to do bad things to people of any race or creed today.
As I remember Indians provided some dinner at Plymoth Rock, surely the American Indians from Montana, Wyoming and Idaho did not make the trek. What happened to them?
Do you care if an American Indian ranch family have their cattle destroyed due to brucellosis?

Maybe New West could offer an opportunity to the Department of Livestock to write an Op Ed piece to clarify their position publicly on this change in landowner management and tolerance for wild bison on a critical piece of habitat on Horse Butte?

Craig;
You may end your participation but I'm going to respond to your last post.
1st letter in the Billings Gazette, was a welcome to the community letter. After having seen and had to clean up after trespassers when the Munns' had it, I was hoping to maybe make people realize that the Munns no longer owned it and they wouldn't be able to be taken advantage of anymore. You see Craig, I have lived here for over 40 years, been included in the Munns family activities and had to repair fences from not just the DOL and Bison, but from the uncaring unrespectful so-called neighbors.
I've returned cattle to the pastures, doctored them, moved them from time to time butchered some, doctored some of the horses, Even had to put a colt down, for them. I was there eyes up here for quite a few years. If there was something wrong with their operation I'm the one that got the phone call and took care of the problem so they didn't have to travel the distance. If for some reason I couldn't handle the problem I then called the brother who's livestock was affected and helped them when they got here. You see Craig I know everyone of the Munns brothers brands and ear marks. No one else up here did or does. That is what GOOD neighbors and family do.
Now for the latest letter. I have now gotten to know the NEW owners, mainly because I cussed them out (you might say) when they were first looking at the property to buy. What they did and why I said what I said to them is no one's business but ours.
Rob and Janae' posted the property and have requested that trespassers etc. stay out of there. On one of my tours of the changes that are being made there I ran across a trespasser and explained to him that it was under new ownership and was posted. He knew that and didn't care. Some of the other people that are part-time residents, felt that their access to the Forest Service had been restricted, Which is no way true. So I figured it was time to try and put things in a way that maybe they could understand the importance of RESPECTING someone's wishes. The reason I wrote that is because it was MY grandfather that homesteaded here NOT theirs. So I, not them, have Seniority out here. Rob and Janae' don't need to tell me, or anyone else for that matter, how or why I should express my distaste for blatant disregard of someone's private property wishes. If I catch someone trespassing on my property they will get more than just a letter to the editor. And since Rob and Janae' and My Mother and I have all become very good friends why would I NOT continue to keep an eye on the property my Dad broke horses on in 1928 and up and I learned how to shoot and castrate cattle on?
Now I hope that answers your question, not that it was any business of yours nor did it have anything to do with the article.

Marion, you stated,
"Bad things 200 years ago does not give anyone the right to do bad things to people of any race or creed TODAY"
That is my point exactly. Just because in the 1800's through the early 1900's people didn't know what was needed to prevent contracting Brucellosis, does NOT mean it is still that way today.
That is why I say APHIS needs to be brought up to date and DOL needs to quit some of their practices. And a good start is the Horse Butte Peninsula and the Yellowstone Ranch Preserve. And why the Ranchers won't stand up for themselves is beyond me.

If you can change federal laws be my guest. The way you want it makes a victim of ranchers as well as anyone else. That does not seem like a very good idea to me.
If you can change the laws to allow buffs to roam free and not be hunted, then you must come up with some way to control their numbers. The numbers will just increase without controls of some kind.

Where do you get the idea they wouldn't be hunted? There is already a hunting 'season' on them.
They need to have some habitat outside the park in order for hunts to go on.
I would not allow anyone to shoot on my property just like the Galanis' don't want it on their small, (in comparison to the the Horse Butte Peninsula) piece of property either. What is so wrong or inconceivable, about that?
Marion, would you like bunches of people traipsing all over your property any time they choose doing damage? Leaving gates open cutting YOUR fences, dropping cigarette butts or chew cans, pop cans beer cans etc. I wouldn't think you would.
Well that is what is happening around here. Then you get people on snow-machines and they are 10 times worse because it's harder than heck to catch them.
I'm considering getting some paint-ball guns, I'm a pretty good shot and I can always catch them when they get to town. The Police would know the color paint ball I used. So they could be on the look out too.
Anyway changing the law is a long drawn out procedure. I think there are some that are better equipped to handle the lobbying than I am are doing just that.
But right here right now The Galanis' Private Property Rights should be respected, if for no other reason than we don't have any cattle any where near here for miles and miles. Threats and 'blackmailing' should NOT be tolerated no matter who it is.

I would really love for someone from DOL to weigh in on this issue. They wanted to meet at the table, well this is just as good as any table they had in mind. So come on DOL bring it on. Does anyone know how to extend and invitation to DOL to join us at our table? As if they weren't monitoring the blog anyway.

Cathy & Glenn
You can bet your last 'veggie' burger they are monitoring the site. But, I bet, they are afraid to put anything in writing that might come back to bite them. It's obvious some of us have put some very good questions and points out there and they have no good explanation nor answer to them.
Again it is APHIS that holds the thumb screw, That is who really needs to address these inquiries. APHIS needs to get out of the dark ages and update their policies. The money and dissention that could be saved, and efforts, being put in the correct direction would benefit all that are involved.
Why APHIS continues, and the cattlemen allow it, to brow beat the rancher is beyond me. The 'advocates' and some of us that just plain see the idioticness of this (not sure that is a word but sounds good) shouldn't be the only ones questioning the policies of APHIS, the DOL, & the BOL.

Ann, good point about the federal government’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), this is the DOL equivalent at the federal level and they and their political buddies have been funneling money to this whole mess through a larger bureaucracy called the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee (GYIBC).

George made a good point very early in this discussion that the original purpose for APHIS to eradicate brucellosis from the USA was because it was a human health risk due to unpasteurized milk. With effective pasteurization by World War II, human disease transmission within the USA was no longer a real public concern. Now the main cost of brucellosis eradication in the USA is cattle health, not human health. Brucellosis can cause cows to abort, usually first calf heifers. Most cows that abort are culled from the herd and go directly to the slaughter house to be prepared for human consumption. If you eat beef and you are as old as I am you have probably consumed a fair amount of brucellosis “contaminated” beef. This beef enters the food chain, so what’s the human health risk?

I am all for protecting the livestock because that can be done reasonably with livestock vaccines, adult vaccinations, fencing, turnout dates, grazing steers and spayed heifers, horses and mules, testing and certification. However, when there are no cows present, there is no risk. Controlling and eradicating wildlife in the 18 million acre Greater Yellowstone Area in the false hope of eliminating brucellosis is a government boone-doggle that is being perpetuated by APHIS and DOL and their big government politically buddies.

Very well put Glenn!
One more thing is, once the cow has aborted because of brucellosis, it will not abort again because of brucellosis it then becomes immune to that part of it. So it's not like the heifer would or need be totally lost.
It is a big smoke screen for 'legitimizing' the waste of tax-payer money, and a way to 'control' the cow rancher. Like I've said before FEAR is a mighty tool.
The slaughter of the Morgan's personal 'beef' steer is proof of the control they insist on doing.

One more thing about the 'risk'. Rankin, in her own words stated that pasteurized milk and thoroughly cooked meat caused NO RISK to humans.

If anyone needs some "fire power" to sway public opinion against the DOL, NPS, or APHIS I suggest asking Yellowstone (FOA's will probably be needed) for the videos Park personnel took of bison handling at Yellowstone's Steven's Creek corrals in past years. The good ole boy mentality by those working these corrals, an attitude at the expense of bison welfare, is clear for all to see on these tapes. DOL shoulder patches are very visible in some of the inept and abusive handling. For those of you wanting to highlight this agency’s bison hazing personnel and attitude during bison operations these videos visually shows their callousness for the world to see. All the corral operations team players are culpable, however, so take your pick of agency...or even the Montana Highway Patrol who had people in uniform on the cat walks watching the freak show. Corral operations at Steven's Creek makes the hazing operation at W. Yellowstone, with running animals through fences etc., look like child’s innocent play. I would also suggest the Montana governor’s office or their agencies also ask for copies of these tapes because the rogue events happening by their govt. employees in these films is not what any agency wants to see continuing.

In viewing these tapes if one listens closely one also hears the cover up of activities proposed by NPS supervisors when the press is due there for media day. Once you get those tapes, I also suggest someone with professional equipment edit for specific subject matter. Also, the sound can be cleaned up, background noise taken out and conversation enhanced. There is plenty of material to make some good media trailers for everything from abuse, inept vets, cover up and terrible safety issues. It will take time and also means someone very knowledgeable in bison handling having to be there with the computer techs to point out significant happenings.

The horrible actions to animals at these corrals compares to the atrocities this country witnessed on film happening to humans at the US run Abu Ghraib prisons in Iraq.

After this behavior is exposed to the public, one will soon see which agencies continue to cover up and deny problems or want to do something about it. The Park Service has already shown their hand. I have given a Power point presentation to several Park Service officials the case against these corrals and handling operations at Stevens Creek. The result was people getting into trouble and being told not to talk with me anymore. Park administration also refused to allow the Humane Society to film these corrals as long as I was to be a part of the process. I needed to be there because I could point out physical signs of past abuse, like bison heads being crushed through 3/4 inch plywood, and what the problems were with construction, signs that others had not understood where there in previous visits. The filming was to be in the middle of the summer when there would be no buffalo to disturb. Why prohibit the Humane Society, when their history and mission is to work with agencies instead of sensationally embarrassing them? Thus maintaining the illusion that "everything is ok" is evidently more important than caring for the welfare of Park bison. Or is it that Yellowstone needs to use Congress appropriated “hard” funding for bison ($2 million / year I think) as soft money for other budget matters?

I would much rather work internally with the govt. to improve their handling of bison. But in the absence of them wanting any help, it appears animal welfare for Yellowstone's bison can only be obtained by an adversarial expose. For me the choice is easy when it comes to choosing between people’s reputations or allowing continued animal abuse.

If the Park answers back by saying past problems have been addressed and committees of outside people have given the stamp of approval for these corrals then I would say, bull, because to change handling for the better means this corral needs to be reconstructed. Their committees either rubber stamped or didn't know there was any difference between formidable corrals and good corrals. If the park also say injuries and deaths have been minimized since these videos were taken and say they can show the written records proving it, then I would respond by saying they then should see nothing wrong in having independent monitors, picked by outside organizations, being posted at these corrals during any corralling and handling. Plus I would ask for tamper proof video cameras being mounted at strategic locations for later independent viewing by any concerned citizen. I would also say they should have no problem with filming in the Idaho plants where bison are slaughtered. If the Steven’s Creek Corrals are supposedly "bison friendly" then trauma to bodies would be minimally occurring. As it is, all reports I get is there are lots of broken ribs to be seen and huge areas of bruising on these hanging carcasses. No one is allowed to film in these plants nor are media allowed to film anymore at the corrals during bison workings. Supposedly it is to keep animal stress down. But with any thought, locations for undisturbed viewing could easily be maintained for the media.

Such is the situation with the present bison brucellosis program in Yellowstone, and by extension a folly that needs to be redirected.

I'll bet they are really torn between following the law as it is written and following the dictates of online bloggers.
If you really want to show your power, change the federal laws that mandate killing every cow in a herd with any infection.

Marion;
Do you mean to tell me that you are 100% behind the destruction of the Morgan herd? Even the STEER? If you are then, you are part of the problem of Ranchers NOT standing up for what is RIGHT morally or otherwise.
These types of blogs tend to get more valid points out there for those that ARE trying to change the law.
Most of these Bloggers, are not just sitting in the corner like a 'whipped pup' whimpering. We are colaberating Ideas and issues to take to the fight.
I would think that the RANCHER, whom you say is the one that is getting 'run-out' of business, would at least want to get answers to WHY kill an entire herd of cattle for only a few. And would want to question the Policies that are trying to destroy them.
It isn't the Bison mandating these laws, it is the PEOPLE with a sketchy agenda. Bison migrate, they don't destroy areas, they, on their own, move from pasture to pasture as grasses are eaten and others grow. Much like Cattle would if they were allowed to.

Ann, I agree, there was no sound reason to slaughter the entire Morgan herd and the outdated rules and laws APHIS/DOL operate under need to be changed. What is the incentive for a livestock owner or wildlife advocate for that matter to cooperate with APHIS/DOL if they are just going to slaughter their herd if they find brucellosis? APHIS/DOL are sniffing around elk now and they want the FWP to do their dirty work. What's in it for wildlife advocates? I'm a hunter and I don't see the benefit to wildlife or wildlife advocates. Let's protect the livestock and move on.

Ann, the ranchers have no say....none, as I have posted many times, the law mandating the penalties for having an infected animal must be changed BEFORE you turn a bunch of infected buffalo loose. To do otherwise is harming the rancher twice. But at present it is the law, and there is nothing the rancher, nor the state can do about it. And they did kill an entire feedlot of cattle, mostly steers because they had one dry cow form the first herd infected that tested positive.
You guys are intent on challenging the state, and the state is just as restricted by federal laws as the rancher, they have to do whatever they can to prevent the spread of the disease...period.

Marion,
Like I said before laws and rules CAN be changed. Why is it so hard for Ranchers to stand up for what is RIGHT? Instead 'you' sit back and wait for someone else to do it, and make it a one-sided fight for both sides benefits. Don't you think the Rancher would benefit as much if not more, by making this Brucellosis law a more reasonable law? Don't you think the Rancher and the Advocate, could work together for a solution to the idiotic policy that APHIS has handed down way back when? I know it's a stretch but stranger things have happened and come out on top. Just like Women getting to VOTE. Yes it is a disease but so is pink-eye. To sit back and do nothing because it is the LAW, wouldn't get much acomlished in this country. It was LAW to let 18 year-olds drink, that was changed. I guess my big question to you is why do you fight the advocates but won't question the law? You tell us to change it well Marion join forces, do it for your own reasons, such as the disease is NOT that deadly nor dangerous to humans and shouldn't be the reason for killing an entire herd for one.

Marion,

Why are you still harping on Buffalo while infected Elk are the ones that have caused the problems?

You said, "On the other hand there is no denying the bitter hatred of ranchers I see here, and I cannot understand it."

I don’t hate the ranchers. In FACT I have not said anything agents them, though you accuse me of it.

The truth is, you just hate everyone that’s not a rancher and YOU don’t really care about the ranchers, you just want to kill Buffalo.

Now why don’t we have separate zoning for Montana when it comes to brucellosis? There is no good reason that a rancher in NE MT should lose his status if a rancher near the park looses theirs.

Also as I have stated before we could just have Buffalo proof fencing for ranchers. This would after all not allow ELK in their land as well! Why fight just to kill Buffalo when everyone can have what they want and better protection? Then people who really do care about ranchers would also have an answer to transmission from Elk.

Honestly we could even take this a step further. If we weren't spending millions on killing Buffalo we could actually pay for the fencing materials and the install and still save tax payers money!

So what would we have? Buffalo could roam as they should be allowed to, tax payers could save a few bucks, and ranchers would be protected from the most likely source of transmission (Elk) and then Buffalo.


-BTW- Marion you still have not responded to your FALSE accusations agenst me. I have posted concerns for ranchers, people involved in tourism, private property owners, and people traveling on the highways, YET you accused me of not caring who I hurt as long as I got what I want. If you have any honor/self respect I do expect an apology.

Bearclaw,
For one thing Marion is in Wyoming and the split state status wouldn't affect HER, nor her friends. So why should SHE care?

I don't mean to offend anyone but it seems to me that these Ranchers are in a rut and prefer to stay in that rut. Either they are 'afraid' or just don't give a darn. They cower to the 'authorities' yet scream at people that are TRYING to change the reasons behind the very law that pressures the Rancher. Getting it out to the PUBLIC, the stupid reasons behind these activities, is one of the quickest most effective ways to change things, yet the 'Rancher' is fighting against the very people that could be their biggest ally.

As Marion has stated before, What do the advocates have to lose? Well it seems the RANCHER who has the MOST to lose would want to change the ridiculous policy. (i.e. slaughtering an entire herd, steers? etc) That in itself proves the 'power', 'threats' et.al. that APHIS has put on the Rancher.
In order to 'better' things for EVERYONE and EVERYTHING all involved should stand up against APHIS and it's present policies.

Like I've said MANY times it is MUCH easier to fence Bison and Elk OUT than to fence them IN.

Rob and Janae' Galanis, should be applauded (which I do whole-heartedly) For taking a stance angainst a bigger 'power' by wanting their rights respected. I don't know ANYONE that has invested so much, as individuals, for the betterment of a particular area. Not only for the Bison but for the rest of the wildlife in the area. In so doing we can only hope that it also improves things for the Ranchers as well by getting this out to the public.

First of all too many folks make the comment in too many places that they want all of the cows gone, period for me to feel that all of these anti rancher projects are not a part of that. If and when I see you post anything supporting ranch famileis and the industry I will make a point to thank you and compliment you for it.
Second, I have no control one way or another, I tried and so did Craig to make the point that the law says they can go where they need to to move the buffs back into the Park. Like it or lump it the whole thing is flying in the face of law. If you don't like a law you should try to change it, not break it. As for the ranchers, I think we saw their power when the wolves were brought in.
I pointed out that a judge has already ruled that an official may go on private property without permission for whatever his business requires.

OK Marion go ahead sit back and let the rest of us fight the fight.

I've tried to point out to you that if more people, I THINK ranchers are people, would stand up AGAINST APHIS we very well could get laws changed. Not JUST the private Property infringing, but the senseless slaughter of the cattle, for only a few.
So just sit there and whine because cattle are slaughtered for no reason other than APHIS says so. If you REALLY think that you can eradicate brucellosis in the ENTIRE ecosystem,without killing everything out there, then you are way past hope, and for that I pity you.
I was told once that I couldn't sue the State of Wyoming, well I proved THEM wrong.
I'll tell you one more thing I was brought up by a rancher and WITH ranchers,(the hard core kind that despise sheep too) And I don't understand how the Ranchers of today sit back and let this BS happen to them because of APHIS. That's who is destroying the Catlle Rancher.

Marion you said, "If and when I see you post anything supporting ranch famileis and the industry I will make a point to thank you and compliment you for it."

First why dose it have to be ranch famlies? You were saying I didnt care about anyone, yet you only ask about ranchers... Pot, Kettle, Black.

To prove you wrong I have posted about ranchers using Buffalo proof fencing, (protecting agenst Elk also), then I have talked about the state paying for the fencing, none of your wanting to kill Buffalo dose anything to help ranchers protect themselves from Elk. Where have you talked about business owners? I have. So yes I have made post that would help ranchers.

Here's a letter to the editor that was published months back.
My name is Karrie Taggart. I’m a home and business owner living on Horse Butte. Having experienced first hand the Montana Department of Livestock’s (DOL) aggressive conduct and arrogant attitude toward me, and my neighbors, has forced me to educate myself.
-According to Public Health Assessment of Potential Biological Terrorism Agents prepared by the CDC, brucellosis is a category B bacterium while Anthrax, a much more serious bacteria, is placed in category A. In the CDC brucellosis overview, brucella melentesis and brucella suis are considered more important than brucella abortus in terms of public health security and preparedness. They say wild bison DO NOT pose a human health danger.
-Yellowstone bison carry a gene known as natural resistance associated macrophage protein 1 (NRAMP1). The DNA sequence of NRAMP1 has been partially conserved in these bison and conserving this trait is an important consideration for long-term brucellosis management.
-By consuming products of birth and abortion, carnivores remove the bulk of infectious materials from the site exposing any remaining brucella abortus on soil and vegetation to light and desiccation, to which they are vulnerable.
The National Academy of Science (NAS) concludes that predation and scavenging by carnivores biologically decontaminates the environment of infectious B. abortus with efficiency unachievable any other way. They conducted a model run simulating bison test and slaughter program. After brucellosis was eliminated from the model population, re-infection of bison from elk led to an increase of seroprevalence to pretest and slaughter levels. Transmission of brucellosis from elk to bison will prevent long-term eradication.
DOL’s blatant lack of respect for public safety and absence of good judgment during hazing operations has pushed me even further.
-Cattle cause Mad Cow disease. It’s given 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.
Why should anyone buy beef anymore? Cattle are becoming more trouble than they’re worth.
I’m sorry for the hardship ranching families are about to endure. However, I’m of the opinion that your very own industry has done you a grave disservice by not taking elk into account years ago. They instead pushed the fear of bison and brucellosis on you then logic looked away. Fear is what works, and they depend upon it.
On your behalf the Stockgrowers Association, and their attorney John Bloomquist, choose to ignore the fact that elk, deer, moose, pigs, beaver, wolves, coyotes and bighorn sheep carry brucellosis. Why?
It’s more logical to control disease within an already controlled environment. Millions of dollars could’ve been spent on behalf of ranchers by investing in research for a cattle vaccine with efficacy rates close to 100%. I’d like to know why they didn’t.
The cattle industry isn’t the only economic builder in Montana. Governor Schweitzer has a responsibility to tourism, education and healthcare also. He has no other choice but to take all our interests into account, so give him some moving room, would you?
Oh, and Mr. Hedstrom. Aren’t you fortunate that your children contracted measles and scientists didn’t look at them as a disease and dispose of them? They, like the bison, have the antibodies of a disease they can’t transmit since they are immune.

Karrie Taggart
West Yellowstone

And NOW they are opening the borders to Canadian import of cattle. Where there has already been Mad Cow disease.
But APHIS Continues to operate AGAINST the Cattleman and the Bison, as well as the Private landowner that has NO cattle. Divide and conquor. How barbaric is that?
Very good Article Karrie!!!!!!!!!

Everyone, please take a look at this excellent editorial in the Billings Gazette by Dr. Don Woerner, a veterinarian from Laurel, which questions the outdated rules and tactics that APHIS uses:

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/11/17/opinion/guest/20-brucellosis.txt

THANK YOU Glenn!!!!!
But again people such as Marion won't believe even the words of a veterinarian. She refuses to look at facts, and will only believe the Myths. Again, I pity people that can't use the mind our creator gave us to question those that are in authority. People like that are sheep and can only follow, and over the cliff they go taking many with them.

I guess my question to the good doctor would be what other diseases is he advocating for? Surely brucellosis is not the only disease he would like to see continue.

Marion;
You are absolutely HOPELESS! With the FACTS right in front of you, you refuse to accept them. BRUCELLOSIS Is NOT the problem, it's people like you, that are the problem. You profess to care about the Rancher, and in your cult-like, sheep following ways, you PROVE you don't give a damn about the Rancher and their plight. You advocate destroying peoples lives and livelihoods. Not to mention the wild-life. You probably still believe you can get pregnant in a swimming pool when your the only one in it.

-Marion-

You seem really god at accusing me but not so good at backing it up when your wrong, I guess we know your level of honer and respect.