Business and the New Economy News | New West Network

Conservation easements are an important tool to protect farm and ranchland, as well as wildlife habitat. It's great to see that the Sun Ranch has both. My concern is whether the place will truly be ranching food in the future. How will the land be accessible and affordable to the next rancher? Has Lange considered how this could be built into the easement--see the work Equity Trust has done around farm tenureship coupled with easements (http://www.equitytrust.org/Res_forFarmers.htm)?

The 10 three-acre "envelopes," slated for development (read: million-dollar mansions?), will be worth much, much more with this conservation easement. I would hope that the increased development value of these 10 parcels is subtracted from the overall easement value. The role of our tax dollars is not to facilitate the multi-thousand square foot homes surrounded by "open space" with limited public access.

But perhaps Lang is using these three-acre envelopes as a way to protect the larger ranch at a rate that is more affordable to the public and perhaps the next rancher. ?

Perhaps he is buying some good will after the brutal way a wolf was killed on his ranch....and the taxpayers will pick up the tab in the long run.

Gosh, Marion, you're outraged by that wolf kill, but not others, and an advocate for ranchers, just not this time. Looks like you've been taking dancing lessons from Craig; you're just flying all over that old ethical map.

I realize hypocrisy is synonomous with environmentalism, the "do as I say, not as I do" thing. He made a big deal out of being able to live with wolves....until they attacked his cattle, then it wasn't so great even though he had millions for every dollar other victims have.
I don't like brutality, which of course is the hallmark of wolves, nevertheless I hate the thought of one of them being tortured too, as that one was. I don't care about the wolf he shot, not that it is a problem for him since he talks about how wonderful they are, it doesn't matter what he actually does.

We need to start asking whether Roger Lang is deserving of what is clearly a carefully crafted image as a conservationist. He's already running cattle on his land--and anyone with any ecological awareness and education know that cows and land/wildlife conservation are not compatible. He certainly has no economic need to run cows. He can earn more money from his "ecotourism" business.

Now he's talking about bringing domestic bison onto his land and thus into the brucellosis imbroglio. Further, some of the discussion focuses on the construction of 3 300-acre pens for the vaguely defined purpose of "genetic research." Just what is that? Is he in fact negotiating to build additional wild bison quarantine sites, which clearly are incompatible with wild bison conservation? So far, he hasn't said.

He needs to say.

More livestock--particularly domestic bison--in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, given the alleged brucellosis problem, certainly doesn't benefit the conservation of bison, much less the conservation of elk, wolves, or grizzly bears. As this "conservation" easement proceeds, people need to start questioning Roger Lang much more closely about his intentions.

Remember, at least $4.5 million of public money is going to pay for this easement on private land. Those public funds are certainly a public investment in private enterprise, and our public investment in Lang's operations gives us the right to expect certain returns from our investment.

We get no return from the presence of domestic bison or cattle on Roger Lang's property.

Is Roger Lang a conservationist? Or is that merely a marketing scheme with no substance?

Robert, you bring up some valid concerns that the public needs quite a return on such a large investment. I haven't seen the details, so I can't judge.

Your assumption that cows and ecological management don't mix is both flawed and counter-productive. In the larger picture, ranches need to be economically viable as agricultural operations if they are to stay open, support local economies, and provide wildlife habitat.

I always find it ironic when my city-based, environmentalist friends knock ranching. Some of them even hunt on private ranches, because the wildlife habitat is so good. And most still eat plenty of beef. (That's not to put you in that category.)

It's important for people who care about Montana's environment and communities to respect what ranchers have done here, many over the course of several generations. We depend on the ranching community for many services beyond food, which they rarely get compensated for, including wildlife habitat.

There are answers to Mr. Lang’s “dilemma of how to balance conservation and “use of the land”. But first, certain long held perceptions need to be looked at more closely to find those answers. These include understanding what “wild” and “domestic” means. Words such as these do not have to be exclusionary when applied to herd animals.
“Domestic” does not have to be a dirty word to ecologists, nor does “wild” have to be viewed as “inefficient” by ranchers. I look at “wild” the same as people think of the Bush administration when he calls their nations “evil”. Both “wild” and “evil” have their use coming from the unknown. Depending on ones bias each word, domestic or wild, can be looked upon as good or bad, fearful or awe inspiring. I spent 30 years in Yellowstone’s backcountry eliminating “fear” from my surroundings. I do not know what wild is.
If biologists and range scientists advising Mr. Lange had baseline knowledge of how herd animals developed through the ages as being dependent on extended family infrastructure for survival of each individual …. as well as understanding how this contributes to ecological compatibility and “domestic” landscape sustainability, then they could better advise Mr. Lang how to apply this knowledge to whatever herd animal he chose to put on his land. There would not be the frustrations.
Whether it is functioning cattle or bison makes no difference in the environmental long run when compared to all the ecologically fracturing disruptions both species have been subjected to. Yes, bison are native and therefore as each individual uses some of those traits for the better on original buffalo “lands”. This advantage pales, however, in comparison to all the positives social herds from both species are capable of.
Whether his animals are genetically “pure” or have genes of either of them “soiling” the other’s body is also insignificant when compared to the lack of either having the infrastructure needed for all successful species or human inspired organizations. How can it be better to study “pure” bison on his land than bison that tested one cattle marker out of thousands? Does one have characteristics not present in the other? Studies such as these are only applicable if we look at herd animals as each being an isolated individual.
If Mr. Lang required the ranchers who put cattle on his land to keep the horns on those cattle, and required extended family groups with all the roles within that group to be intact, then he would not have to worry about dealing with the negative publicity incurred when one of his employees ran down a wolf. Naturally occurring bovine families protect each other, whether it is bison or cattle. They do not become vulnerable to indiscriminate wolf predation by running away bug eyed as dysfunctional herd animals do.
Yes, he will probably have less death by wolves on bison than cattle because each individual bison can spin and kick to the side faster. But what good does this do if his herd, consisting of well studied pure but dysfunctional bison, can’t hold their ground and instead panics in face of a well seasoned “buffalo” wolf pack? As quoted in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, I see “Run away, Run away!!!” as being more appropriate for orders given by whoever is the King Arthur of these dysfunctional pure bison herds. Forget the “retreat” word used in functioning armies. Mr. Lang will occasionally have big holes blown in his fences not matter how strong or high if he has dysfunctional herds.
And if he required ranchers to maintain naturally occurring male segments of his “cow” herds on a year round basis (instead of agricultures and state F&W;biologists engrained mantra for bull-cow breeding ratios) Mr. Lang would not be quoted as saying “Traditional ranchers have to take care of the land, otherwise they lose productivity the next year”. Mature males can and sometimes prefer to eat a lot more coarser, “over mature” and dormant vegetation than females and dependents (kind of like men liking jerky more than women). Without this male population cattlemen erroneously do see the “need” to graze every year. I see the benefits of having normal amounts of males on the land all the time in my bison herd. I saw what male elk and big horn sheep ate in Yellowstone’s backcountry. Males spread the seeds in more than one way.
Mr. Lang also would not have to worry about man's Management Intensive Grazing to keep his land in what Range Sciences call the “productive” state if he changed management. He would also not have to listen to an applied science that feels the need to elevate man over his surroundings. It is all a bunch of bull. I grew up on an Iowa farm with five feet of black soil under me. I always heard my fertile land neighbors saying – and feeling – they were the most important people in the world. They would say, “We feed the world.” They then would hop into their air conditioned tractor, start plowing away, and not even give a thought to all the occupations and infrastructure needed to make their 150 bushel yields possible.
Efficiency is the same for all herd animals. Each segment of a social order herd has its role and these roles make for environmentally sustainable space … whether it is a “wild” or “domestic” creature. It is also the same whether this animal is in Yellowstone or on Mr. Lang’s ranch. The Pelican-Mirror Mt. Bison herd does it very well in ranch size settings, thank you ma’am.
As for possible eventual ‘contamination” with Yellowstone bison, who controls the turf will depend on two things; which has the best social family infrastructure, and which herd has the best sense of home. If his herd is well developed, Yellowstone’s egressing bison in search of the Promised Land will respect and use his herd and land as valuable genetic variety. Nothing more!!
When it comes to the needed dollar, something any private person in this country has to keep in the fore front, domestic and wild are the same whether one chose’s to market as either or both. Economics of social order herds well outweighs any dysfunctional animal. The meat is more nutritious, land herd management costs less and it is all sustainable. On top of all this they also have the spirit of "wild" animals, something our soul needs. Wow what a deal….and it was all there before humans even set foot on this earth and thought we needed to make a better earth.

Robert: Those were the exact questions I among others asked when this last-second genetic purity curve came up. Speaking for myself at least, the answers have been satisfactory, although you know others in my own group who don't like easements in general, with some justification.
I am satisfied we are not looking at Phase 3 of the quarantine, or any other worst-case scenarios. All fencing has to be wildlife-friendly, for one thing. As far as Lang keeping his options open, far better bison than some possibilities. Based on what I've been told, precluding wild bison is not remotely their intention, and given recent discussions it's even less likely. And, maybe by the time they show up FWP will be in charge. I must confess some surprise they apparently planted the seed for this idea, some time back, as my own track record enthusing them about bison management has been mixed!
What we've pressed for all along is a simple, one-line condition that livestock practices should not present an undue risk of disease transmission. I have not given up on seeing that in the easement yet. I should point out their existing practices pretty well already fit this.
Beyond that, I've spent quite a bit of time up behind the Sun Ranch, my son killed his first three bull elk there, and I think $4.5 million to preserve that landscape is cheap!! As far as access goes; there already is access to the better habitat with their Block Management participation, and hunting out on the flats doesn't enthuse me.
Roger, et al... I can't more strongly urge you to give Bob Jackson's herd management practices a hard look. They hold equal promise for private and public herds. Obviously, in your case the economic value of wild bison completely eclipse domestic ones, and since all we have to do is get out of the way to facilitate this, I trust the potential is not lost on you.
I suppose in the interest of disclosure, I should point out I'm kind of biased toward this thing given my involvement with the Madison Ranchlands group, and yes, there is a lot of support for this in the Madison. Part of the Sun is already under easement, and this protects in a significant gap in the upper valley, much of which is already platted into 20 acre parcels. I'm not sure we can fix the bison battles with this easement, and I at least am assured we're not throwing up another gate.

I am trying to understand why we taxpayers paid $4.5million for a conservation that gets us absolutely nothing, no public access, no expanded hunting opportunities, and no curtailment of commercial hunting.

Lang has the wealth to have donated this easement (such as Turner did) instead he decided to fleece the pockets of the taxpayers so he could buy another ranch in the Bitterroot where he will probably play the same ploy.

If he is so concerned the environment, why did he not remove the 200 subdivision lots? This something he could have done on the cheap with a title restriction, instead our congressional representatives and the Forest Service have decided to waste $4.5million of very precious habitat monies for something with no public benefits. What a swindle! Another good example of welfare for the livestock industry.

Timothy, this is a good example of how the greens manage to rape the system. Lang is NOT a rancher, never was. He is a rich entrepreneur who realized he can make tons of money by talking about how environmentally friendly he is. He gets a pass killing wolves, because he is such an environmentalist, and says he can live with them, so should everyone else. Meanwhile the real rancher who sees his income diminishing can do nothing except hope FWS takes out the right animals, instead they will come collar and release the livestock killer.
This whole thing is a typical environmental ploy, he cleans up his tarnished image and takes millions of taxpayer dollars in the process.

What a crock of manipulative tripe. Marion, you have no shame.

Actually, Roger Lang is doing what he wants, making money, and the rest of us are being made to subsidize it.
The simple fact is the ranch's ten parcels could be sold as a package with joint tenancy in common, basically, ten house footprints and a tenth share of the land interest. That would get X amount of money for the property, possibly a premium price. It would also assure that any changes would have to be agreed on by the people who own the ground.
But Mr. Lang sees four and a half million of public money either as a writeoff that he can take, or good old cashola from taxpayers, while he still sells the ten footprints for no less that he could for a joint tenancy.
So it's a transfer payment from the average Joe to the rich. The primary beneficiaries of CEs are not "the public" (hey, look at Ameya and tell me where the public access is built in) but instead a small cadre of land trusts, rich people, and possibly high-dollar sportsman clients. The public that will pay for the conservation easement through tax substitution (and that includes the local property tax basis which is now reduced by a CE, meaning all other county taxpayers ante up the diff) will get almost nothing in direct return.
And liberals still wonder how the rich get richer and the poor poorer?

It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who apologize for the livestock industry when its history of intransigence, dishonesty, mendacity, greed, and brutality toward people and wildlife is so clear and still playing out in contemporary times. One need only look at the abuse of Yellowstone bison to understand that the industry has changed very little in how it does business from the range wars of a century ago. The industry's only interest is maintaining its illegitimate oligarchical status in the face of the West's changing demographics and values.

My assertion regarding the incompatibility of livestock and wildlife/land conservation may be counter-productive--however only if you're an apologist for the industry or have a vested interest in it--but it certainly isn't flawed. The science behind this assertion is extensive and unimpeachable. Cows and conservation are not compatible and no amount of manipulation of the facts or ideological pro-livestock propaganda will change that.

The only thing the industry has going for it now is the open spaces argument, upon which this issue of conservation easements is based, but George Wuerthner has dealt with that argument in detail and conclusively; we cannot in fact prevent development at the large and necessary scales conservation requires because conservation does not maximize returns on financial investment by developers. In other words, market forces drive development of ranch lands. Truly, what we're "saving" through such easements--or even outright purchases--in the face of such extensive greed is pitiously small. This is why what public lands we already have or can acquire and devote to wildlife habitat are so critical.

While I have the greatest respect for Bob Jackson's extraordinary knowledge of bison behavior, I cannot agree with his discussion of the meanings of wild vs. domestic, which at base asserts that allowing bison to live out their life history can occur within limited habitat, such as defined by a parcel of private property, so "wild" and "domestic" really don't matter in any discussion about wildlife.

I would argue that the kinds of movement restrictions under which bison must exist in commercial operations such as Jackson's, no matter how enlightened, do in fact prevent bison from living out their life histories as evolved over milliennia and even millons of years on millions of acres. Bison are not deer mice or pocket gophers that evolved to survive with limited ranges.

In short, the wildness or domesticity of an animal is partly a function of the animals' freedom or lack thereof to live out its life history as it evolved in native habitat.

This is precisely the ecological issue we are facing with Yellowstone bison, not to mention Wyoming's feedground elk as well asw wolves and grizzly bears facing management plans from the States of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem that explicitly intend to restrict and obstruct their movement. We are in fact engaged in explicit policies to destroy their wildness (and doing a good job of it).

The issue is control; the issue is the least intensive management humanly achievable versus heavy handed, livestock style management.

An understanding and acceptance of this distinction between wild and domestic is absolutely vital to achieving some level of conservation of these animals as wild animals.

To return to the Sun Ranch easement. It is my understanding that negotiations over the easement did in fact, and perhaps still do, address the presence of domestic bison on the ranch as well as the construction of 3 large inclosures for "genetic" research, the nature of the research and whether wild or domestic bison would be involved left unspecified.

I am not satisfied, given the limited amount of information that has released out regarding this easement, that it will be beneficial to bison conservation, or conservation in general, in Montana. We need to know the exact terms of the easement, which is our right given the large public investment involved.

In any case, there is no doubt in my mind either politically or biologically that the presence of domestic bison--as livestock--on the Sun Ranch would further obstruct efforts to expand the range of bison outside the Park.

The blunt fact is, as a practical matter bison conservation requires the removal of all (brucellosis vulnerable) livestock from whatever potential bison range we can create.

Roger Lang is quoted in David's story thus: “If and when society says ‘let’s let bison roam again,’ then I want to be in a position to help ... I don’t want this easement to preclude Sun Ranch from participating in those kinds of issues.”

I would like to remind Roger Lang that in fact society has proclaimed "let bison roam." Public opposition to the bison plan was extensive, widespread, and vocal. It still is. That opposition was acknowledged in the Final EIS and ROD for the bison plan, and is still acknowleged by the agencies. It's just that the agencies have become so profoundly captured by the Montana livestock industry that public concerns and opposition simply DO NOT MATTER. The National Park Service and the Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks have abdicated their authority and responsibility for the conservation and protection of bison in the public interest to a negligible private interest--the livestock industry. This is neglect of the public trust no matter how often and loudly they deny it.

I have discussed in other fora how the livestock industry has provided no evidence whatsoever that brucellosis is the severe threat to the livestock industry that is claimed. Based upon the experience here in Wyoming with loss of brucellosis free status for two years, it is clear that loss of status had no significant ability of Wyoming livestock producers to market their cattle out of state, nor is there any data to demontrate a decline in prices from loss of status.

The Final EIS for the Jackson Hole Bison and Elk Plan in Wyoming noted that increased costs to Wyoming producers from loss of brucellosis free status constituted only 1% of total production costs.

Brucellosis a serious disease? Horse manure.

In short, for a lot reasons, the so-called brucellosis problem is actually the brucellosis fraud. The bison plan in Montana, like the elk and bison plans in Wyoming, has nothing to do with maintaining the economic viability of the livestock industry. The purpose of the bison plan is not disease control to protect Montana's cattle from brucellosis, but to control wild, free-roaming bison for the oligarchical (political power) benefit of the livestock industry.

The true character of the livestock industry as I defined it above is unmistakable.

It seems to me that Roger Lang, if he really wanted to be a conservationist and conform to broad social consensus regarding wild free-roaming bison, would throw open the Sun Ranch to wild free-roaming bison. This would require courage and political-legal savvy, but it would certainly benefit bison and wildlife conservation.

The fact is the environmental movement is all about saying, not doing.....unless of course they can get the courts to force other folks to do their will. The other problem is their single species focus, if you absolutely feel you have to rule Mother Nature, try to be inclusive instead of exclusive.
Robert, you are full of it when you blame cattle for every woe n the world. When I read some of your rants I wonder if the milk cow planted her dirty foot in the bucket when you were milking. again Lang is NOT a rancher, has nothing to do with ranching other than the fact he owns lots of land, and is playing at ranching.
There are many of us in this country who like beef and like milk and I frankly do not think you have the right to take that away. You focus so exclusively on what you hate that you simply cannot and will not see the advantages that cattle ranches have provided, aside from food for humans is food, water and habitat for wildlife. I do know of a single environmental lawsuit that has directly provided anything to wildlife, it has only been to force others to do what you want good or bad.
Brucellosis is a disease, face it, just like small pox, diphtheria, West Nile, etc. It is beyond my understanding why anyone wants to keep it alive. If you really want free roaming buffs, why don't you work on other states to turn loose non diseased animals and let them roam? At a minimum work on eradicating the disease. You'd think I was nuts if I insisted on protecting mosquitos and their right to live despite WNV....and you'd be right.
I post this over and over, but if and when you completely destroy the ranches you will have lost a tremendous amount of habitat and food and water for wildlife. Robert You live around Dubois, take a drive along a ranch road at sun up or sundown and look at the wildlife feeding in fields and pastures. Perhaps you feel deprived if you don't get to see wolves feeding on cattle, sheep and horses, as you drive thru, but you will see wildlife.

I would love to spend 8 hrs. per day for 2 weeks discussing with you, Robert, what WILD means. Though I am relatively new to these forums, I agree with much of what I have read of your comments. I think we are looking at the same WILD but thinking of it in different words. My above comment was already too long otherwise I would have described the parameters of my interpretation of WILD a bit more.

I know well MY idea of wild because I faced the image of WILD all the time in the backcountry with rangers, biologists or visiting backcountry users wanting desperately to be identified with an illusionary concept of WILD. Too many of these people craved to make it a core part of not only their professional but also their personal identity. It became so counterproductive to them. Their emotional identity needs were based on the same things as those who want to move to the WILD West. If I was to survive in my surroundings, I could not fall into this trap.

But this emotional need for mysticism of WILD means the very people who should be figuring out what is going on in the WILD are unable to. It’s kind of like keeping one’s eyes closed during sex. It feels good the way it is and we don’t want our image ruined or see what our partner needs by opening our eyes.

Breaking down the emotional WILD means trying to find out, with all our might, what makes WILD tick. Gradually there is no more WILD. At least that is the demise of my WILD.

If we apply this understanding of nature to herd animals, we soon realize it is not cows (cattle) that are a problem with the environment but the people who raise them in ways that stymie how cows would live without man manipulating them. This is what I think you mean when you talk about the “heavy handed” management by today’s cattle ranchers. If they understood how to raise cattle more in tune with how cattle lived before Man “domesticated” them, and also realized this management was more economically sustainable, then I think many “heavy handed” and abusive practices would disappear. The South American Indians hunted a lot of vital wild cattle herds of domestic origins on the Argentine Pampas. Ranchers in N. America could also allow for the same formation in their herds and thus the surrounding ecosystem would be much better for it. It is not perfect but it would be 100 times better for the environment than what we see happening on the land today. If private ranchers did not want to change for fear of economic failure then at least the public could require sustainable herds on public lands. Thus subsidized govt. “experimentation” could lead the way for ranchers to change.

To understand wild in herd animals, we need to understand these animals. If we realize all herd animals have homes and these homes need to be defended, then we realize they maintain their own “fences” and boundaries around each of their homes. Thus, bison do not need millions of “wild” acres to be viable. Herd animal life is based on a system of multiples and these systems can be large or small.

The bison most of us think about in our romantic minds is the former Plains bison and its herds of millions of bison. But lots of Eastern USA had smaller but still viable populations of bison where large number infrastructure was not possible due to large expanses of forest. Roger Lang’s ranch is probably bigger than the acreage enclosing the “pasture fence” around Yellowstone’s Mirror-Pelican Mountain bison herd. In this minuscule area, they have successfully lived for thousands of years. They now have dangers to their survival but it is not because of their doing but this is another story. Mr. Lang has enough land to make his own viable “wild” bison herd(s). It would take 15-20 years to “make” these herds functional but it could happen. That’s what I did. Purists could, of course, label it “domestic” if they had the emotional need to hang on to that mystical WILD feeling. In the end, it would still be the same sustainable herd that ecologists and environmentalists strive for. Yes, Mr. Lang’s herd, however, would never be as cultured as the expansion herds from Yellowstone bison families because it doesn’t have the culture of Yellowstone’s herd. But with only 75 years under the belt for Yellowstone’s Lamar Ranch descendents, earth time is not that much different.

The principles of vitality and wildness are not limited to bison and cattle, however, when it comes to turf. Grizzly Bears have their homes and maintain their own fences. They do not open their gates to others unless they are invited. Most elk in Yellowstone use its lands as their summer homes. They then travel to lower elevations to their winter home. It can be a hundred miles away. Does this mean elk need millions of acres to be viable? Not when one understands there are also herds (the 300 animal Yellowstone Delta elk herd) in Yellowstone, who call home an invisibly fenced in area maybe 5x5 miles. These Delta elk are some of the most majestic animals I have ever seen and they have lived in this small area for thousands of years. Yes, there are genetic inclusions from other singular animals in any naturally occurring herds. But the core extended family group remains the same.

Thus, if one understands how herd animals tick we can “raise” them in so called “domestic” environments to have similar vitality as seen in both the Pelican buffalo and the Delta elk herd. All they need is enough area so more than one family can live. Multiple family developments means interactive uniqueness needed for vitality. No, the predators will not be the same but every species has internal as well as external controls to keep them vital. In the absence or deficiency of one, the other control takes on more significance.

Everyone wants to call Yellowstone’s bison WILD. But without predators for all this herd’s formative years, I ask, what would make this herd wilder and supposedly more functional than a herd that had the same amount of land they occupy now (and it is very little of Yellowstone) … but was fenced by a rancher or game preserve operator? There is no difference in wildness if management, land and fauna are the same. As unknowledgeable humans, we are unable to see those fences in the WILD. And I need to add, the animals of this country we now consider as having superior wild traits, such as elk and deer, are being subjected to state imposed management practices that makes them less ecologically sustainable than any larger rancher who managed for extended family order. To say this, for me as one who lived and appreciated being in the most remote spot in the lower 48 for 30 years, means we have a sad state of affairs in this country, whether it is private or public lands.

The states can not take out, via skewed sex hunting regulations, most of any species’ males without severely compromising that population and its environment. They also can not select for “harvesting” only individual animals with no regard for what it does to extended family infrastructure and think WILD means everything is hunky dory. In MY “pristine” Yellowstone, hunting regulations outside the Park meant matriarchal extended elk herds summering there had trouble maintaining family stability. The numbers of animals that F&G;depends on may have been there but the level of infrastructure was severely compromised. It would be like saying 100 start up companies had the same efficiency as one corporation with well developed infrastructure. The lack of male populations also means wolf predated elk herds had to school up into much larger herds in the fall for protection and the few bulls in these easily found herds become sitting ducks for outfitters. The fear and panic in these elk’s eyes was there for anyone to see. I quit hunting elk because of this. At least on my farm, I can manage my take to allow most of the “wildlife” a self determining life.

Just because hunted animals run doesn’t encapsulate all of wild. The elk in Mammoth graze amongst the buildings and tourists. Their life is the same as all their outlying cousins except they carry it all out surrounded by tourists. Does this mean they should not be deemed wild? I contend these non fearing elk family groups are a lot more compatible and sustainable with their environment than all the dysfunctional, fear induced and hunted elk outside Yellowstone. The Lewis and Clark journals tell of coming upon elk and buffalo herds that had no fear of man. Should these animals be labeled domestic? Using the same modern day logic by biologists and sporting groups today, would we say Lewis and Clark’s non hunted animals had to be inferior … because these animals needed to be hunted to maintain viable and healthy populations?

No, vitality of any herd animal depends on its ability to express emotions which can only come from extended family make up. That is why I say Wild and Domestic can be the same animal. Public lands are important because we as citizens have a say in their use. Hopefully, my inputs mean greater understanding of how these systems work and this knowledge can be implemented before exploitation and abuse renders these lands further impaired. The same can be said for private lands. I believe anyone who locks these lands in from exploitation is giving us another day. A caring land owner, on the other hand, can enact positive changes so much faster than seen in today’s public service sector. Roger Lang can do it. So can those people setting seasons for our public herds.

Bob Jackson,
I'm just curious, but if the matriarchs aren't wantonly killed, could roundups of park bison for inoculation be conducted at select locations in the park during summer without excessive trauma? Seems to work in Utah and at Moise.

Thank you for your question Mr. Skinner. It makes me start thinking of possible answers. The only problem is one could write a book answering just this one question. So I will try and keep it short and focus of what I think you are talking about concerning the brucellosis issue.

The simple answer is, the more infrastructure the more the extended family wants to protect their members …. and the more ways they have to protect each constituent. Thus there is no single matriarchal leader in well formed up social order families. Instead there are many matriarchs just like the Indian tribes had many chiefs (which the US Army never figured out). This knowledge did not pass by the buffalo hunters in order to make a successful stand however. As quoted in second person by buffalo hunter, Vic Smith, a person I found to be a despicable and very prejudiced individual,

“In the winter of 1881, Vic killed over 4500 buffalo on the Red Water, and he had his men haul the hides to Glendive on the Yellowstone River. He made the largest killing in one stand on the record–107 buffalo in less than one hour. The method he pursued was to approach a herd of buffalo, pick out an old cow, and shoot her just in front of the hips. Then he would hit another cow in the same place, always picking the old cows, as their children, grandchildren, cousins, and aunts would stop with the wounded. When shot in that spot, an animal, be it elk, deer, or buffalo, seldom gives more than one or two jumps and stops still, all humped up with pain. After placing about 15 shots where they were most needed, he had the herd stopped and the buffalo paid no attention to the subsequent shooting.” The Champion Buffalo Hunter

Of course the dependents stayed there because of the horror of it all not because they were stupid. That being said, the animals of Yellowstone and my herd acts entirely different in corral situations than the dysfunctional herds of the Bison Range and Utah’s Antelope Island (Yellowstone corralling operations personnel and their dysfunctional herd advisors have yet to figure this out). Add to this, in open space situations such as Yellowstone, we not only have to be aware of one but many leaders leading the family to safety. What Yellowstone and the Bison Range have in common in corralling, however, is the infusion of TERROR. It makes for animals being long term traumatized. With dysfunctional animals they become numb. In functional herds they leave the area whether there is a HOME or not. That is part of the reason why Indians did not hunt extended families in the summer and early fall.

Summer is not the time to do any corralling, whether dysfunctional herds or not. Many calves get crushed and if sorting means separation of mother and calf for even one night the cow will no longer claim it. Corralling of bison is done in late fall and winter, which means little corralling of Yellowstone Bison in Yellowstone. This is because its high elevation meadows are not accessible then.

I don’t know about the Antelope Island corrals but Moise’s new corrals are just as poorly designed as Yellowstone’s. If you ever get a chance to view them, look at the 150-200’ of single animal wide alleyway leading to the squeeze chute. There is no way for an animal to be released from this tunnel. If they get flipped upside down they have to be drug out from either end. And with lots of animals running in this tunnel this also means any downed animal being trampled. There is a lot of traumatizing going on in the Moise corrals.

The only place and time any corralling (I am taking my feelings out to say this) of YNP bison could happen is during the winter. The door has already been opened and I would say just about all of Yellowstone’s Lamar and Hayden Plains bison would migrate out of Yellowstone for the winter within the next 20 years if left undisturbed. Then they could be “handled” when bulls are separate from cow-calf herds and they don’t move as fast. The success of any vaccination program means the herds have to be allowed to winter OUT of the Park. One would also have to start baiting them with hay just like the Rangers did for winter corralling at the old buffalo ranch when Yellowstone’s plains bison were very dysfunctional.

Summer corralling in Yellowstone would be the worst time for the welfare of any herd. Heat builds up in worked up adult bison and this means bulls become sterile and cows die. Ignorantly, this is the time Park biologists still does most all their intrusive studies and it has disastrous effect on these herds. It is why 6 helicopter netted bison died in one summer.

Summer is not the time to vaccine any bison in Yellowstone whether it is by corralling or by darting. The first kills directly and the later means cow calf herds leave the country. I hope this answers your question, Dave.

Someone explain buffalo jumps and the use of horses by Native Americans. I don't see how either process of killing bison, herded over cliffs, or shot from horseback, made impacts that did not disrupt herd socializations.

In some stuff I have read, it is noted that teepees, tipis, were made from cow bison hides, and that cow bison were killed in winter because they were way better eating than bulls at that time of the year. One source said a hide lasted no more than 4 years, and it took 10 or more to cover a tipi. Another said the advent of rifles, without buffalo hunters, would have had a similar result, only 20 years later, due to the preference among Native Americans for cows and young bison. There would have been a lot of bulls left at some point in time, but few cows.

I also wonder about the thermal inertia of bison, and if that is a detriment in temperate climates. Are bison like fruit trees, and in need of some very cold weather annually to thrive? How well will they do in Gore's climate changed world? Should bison recovery take place way to the north in order to save them from global warming?

To answer your questions, Bearbait, I pose another that I have asked before. To maintain infrastructure, is it more detrimental to remove key elements of, let’s say all three towns in one county, or totally remove one town and leave infrastructure intact in the other two ... so they can absorb the resources of the defunct third town?

The Indians used the later method of food procuring in the use of piskuns, surrounds and jumps. They killed all of a family instead of fracturing many. Most buffalo jumps meant at most 25-35 animals dying. Judging from the analysis of sex and age killed, it appears to me those put over the cliffs were matriarchal family groups. Not only that, but it looks to me like most victims of jumps were animals of spin off satellite groups. This is logical because these were the groups most vulnerable to hunting, similar to the spin off duck and goose flocks today. The bones of very few older bulls were in remains at the bottom of these jumps. This is also logical because it is hard to force bulls anywhere.

I do not know if this was a conscious endeavor in sustainability by Natives, but they definitely knew it was better to kill all of the members of a family so as to not allow savvy bison to thwart future hunts. When using the surround method, a way of hunting used after horses came on the scene, every escaping mature individual was run down pronto. The younger ones fleeing to the fringes were dispatched with more leisure because the hunters knew these emotionally dependent animals would not leave the scene without their mothers and older brothers and sisters.

Yes, there were also a lot of individual hunters going after individual animals throughout the year but think of what was easiest to pick off prior to the gun. It was mostly the naive and it was the animal on the edges of the herd, the ones the families shunted to the outside. Call it callousness of families if one wants, but elimination of these members did nothing but benefit the infrastructure of these herds. These were also the same animals the wolves found easiest to kill.

As for predominance of killing cows, it happened after Whites came on the scene and the Indians had to trade the thinner and easily tanned hides of cows with them for the guns needed to protect their families.

Also, as the infrastructure of the tribes was breaking down, it was harder for the elders to control the hunting of the herds by the young braves. Thus it is the whooping across the prairies on their horses Buffalo Bill style that was most recorded by Whites.
There was not a preference for cows and their dependents for food as is commonly thought and written. Yes, females were preferred in the winter but the bulls had more fat on them than cows in the later part of spring and summer. Thus the Plains Indians Spring and Fall hunt…. the first for males and the second for matriarchal extended families.

The use of all ages and the sexes of hunted mirrored the needs of the tribal components … young animals for the old and very young, and mature and robust animals for the active constituents of the tribe. Extraction of the nutrient rich connective tissue and bones of the mature animals took longer to obtain, however. Thus if Indians were on the run from Whites they had little time to boil down these components. Therefore, in these times they had to settle for the less nutrient laden young animals. This further skewed Whites assessment of what Native Americans preferred.

Finally, yes, I agree the buffalo would have been eliminated by the Indians once the horse and rifle came on the scene, but only because Whites intervened in a well balanced system and buffered the attacks of tribes upon other tribes. With any new weapon or tool comes there are counter measures in nature to neutralize one species’ or population’s advantage over another. Thus wars by humans always meant no man’s land (today’s National Parks and locked in non hunted private lands) between combatants. This is where wildlife was left alone and flourished.

Population controls within any species, in this case, humans, also meant these new weapons would be used to limit populations within that species. Yes, guns can kill animals faster. But the same guns can kill the people faster that kill those animals. Thus having a lethal weapon such as the gun should have meant elimination of tribes (with their spin off satellite groups going first) and other tribes flourishing. The question of whether it’s better to fracture all towns or eliminate one entirely comes into play again.

As for temperature and bison distribution limitations, these animals were originally found in what is now Northern Mexico and in Texas. I think geographic distribution has more to do with availability of grasses and forbs and the protein content in this vegetation than temperature. In areas of high rain fall, protein goes down. Thus if climate change means trees are being replaced with grass lands then lands suitable for bison should expand.

The above responses constitute very brief “answers”. I hope it helps but at the same time leaves the mind to ask even more questions. It is the only way to save the bison.

Mr. Jackson: Thanks for the explanations. So a friend who grew up in Glendive, education at Dickinson and MSU, spent some time at different digs by way of classroom study and labs. He told me there were buffalo jumps of such magnitude that they have been mined for fertilizer using heavy equipment. That is a lot of organic material over a very long time.

My first thoughts were about how far must have bears come when the pile got ripe? Were those, not unlike the garbage dumps at Jellystone, the bear-socialization-to-bear sites? Did the great bears depend on that human activity for the protein boost to hibernate? How much of the ecosystem was depending upon gross waste by human exploitation to survive, for millennia, and is that carrion creation today the real value of wolves? If we are living in a much more biologically "neat" environment (very little carrion by game law edict), is that a good deal or not? Would it be better that when bison numbers exceed range capacity, the bison be dispatched and left as carrion? Lastly, do people do DNA work, if any DNA persists, on the buffalo jumps to see bison evolution in their genes?

I only ask questions like these because I don't think mandated range expansion of charismatic animals is always well thought through. I do know from my areas of amateur study that man came here with the great beasts at the end of the most recent Ice Age, before forests, and evolved with bison, among many other species, many of which did not survive the Holocene. With no apologies to Nobelized Gore, I will hitch my horses to the wagon of the oncoming Ice Age, just as they have occured for a million years or more with brief interglacial interludes like the one we currently enjoy. Bison, elk, moose, caribou, great bears, animals with thermal inertia to hold heat through the night, will be the basis of life in the next Ice Age. Like musk ox, bison must be preserved. So all this new understanding of their needs is important. So bear with my questions. Your answers will educate others than just me.

Mr. Jackson, please tell us how in the world the Americn Indians were able to separate the buffao according to families. They were running big herds to the jumps.
Any time big herds run together moms and calves get separated, I fail to see how you determine relationship of the bones in the old jumps.

Marion, yes, history records some very horrific and catastrophic numbers of bison dieing at one event. These were stampedes, however, not jumps. Big herds stampeded over cliffs, ravines and vertical cut streams ...and so many died at a time that some of those ravines and rivers filled up to the point where those at the end ran across "flat" ground. STAMPEDES weren't able to be replicated with consistency by man, however, at least not to the level of predicting if bison would be running over cliffs and ravines.

By the way, buffalo only ran in BIG groups during large herd movements or during rut. The other time LARGE herds formed up was after herds were fractured during the “slaughter” and the remnants massed together out of fear and panic. However, with the herds of pre-White man, Indians dealt with small family groups most times of the year.

With JUMPS, as opposed to stampedes, Indians could successfully repeat these events. But this meant only naturally occurring family herds went over these jumps. Everything had to be just right to pull off a kill successfully. Most good jump locations had to have access for bison to graze up the slope, pass close to the jump site on their own free will, and then graze on to a flat that would hold them until Indians got in place. Since herd animals always go BACK to safety it was a matter of diverting them slightly on their flight back to what they thought was safety. Thus with the pull of a "switch" the train … I mean the herd, veered off a bit and went over the drop off. The Indians used this trait of animals returning to safety (humans also possess this characteristic) to assemble Piskuns.

“If the buffalo came from the south, the people made the mouth of the pound to the north, knowing that startled buffalo ran back along the way they had come. Often they built behind a gentle rise to hide the enclosure.” by Larry Barsness in Heads, Hides and Horns: Hunting the Buffalo on Foot

I have yet to see a govt. or private corral (besides our own) that has this aspect of behavior designed into it. Why does it have to be ALWAYS forcing bison ALWAYS ahead from wing fence, to holding pen to working alleys, to squeeze chute. The same macho egos rule design of all the cattle facilities one sees around the country. Yes, our noted livestock behaviorists, who get big bucks for writing books, giving presentations and advice to McDonald’s and meat packing corporations don’t know how to design corrals any other way than to use the fear they denounce to send animals forward. They may have half circle alleyways but that is designed to keep animals from seeing where they are heading. Livestock “experts” can be so blind to the very emotions of animals that would enable much easier handling.

Archeologists know it was small numbers of bison and the sex and ages of those killed at each jump event because there were significant periods of time between successful kills. The largest of all, one south of Edmonton Canada, had several to many years between kills. The one at Great Falls MT. had a 25 year average interval of use. Thus each individual kill could be dated. Yes, there was a lot of organic material deposited at the base of these jumps. But one is looking at an accumulation over thousands of years.

If one looks at it logically, what herd of bison is going to travel anywhere near the stench associated with a kill site. I hope this puts a bit of light on bearbait’s questions of site habituation at jumps. Yes, wolves and bears did converge on any kill site but like in the area I patrolled, ravens and eagles tipped off the site to the coyotes and wolves, then the bears come in following the rest (bears have circumvented this by learning to follow shots). That is how I found most of the poached elk in the Park. Look for the circling ravens, and if there was snow, circle the larger site (ravens will always circle dummy sites if one gets anywhere near the feeding location) and follow the spokes of the different coyote tracks to the hub. Bingo!!

And yes, all evidence points to G. bears being very habituated to the food at Indian camps. Those Indians would have been issued citations for messy camps if they camped in Yellowstone today the way they once did. Conflicts were numerous and if lots of Indians occupied an area of country in year round manner all G. bears were eventually killed. Lewis and Clark noted the Indian name of White Bear Island, which is located just upstream from present day Sioux City, Iowa. With grizzlies being identified all the way back to Ohio one soon realizes they just didn’t die out on their own. Indians and outfitters had more in common than we realize.

bearbait, bears go through a period of intense eating before hibernation. They are looking for the most calories to put on before going into the den. This means fat, not the PROTEIN oft quoted in newspapers and magazines, is what is prized. Meat has 4 calories per gram while fat has 9.

I must have missed something but what I read was '“I don’t plan on getting out of the cattle business and I don’t plan on raising domestic bison, so we’ll have to figure something out” Lange explains.' KEY PHRASE: I don't plan on raising domestic bison,'

IF Cattle were allowed to roam like the Bison SHOULD be, they wouldn't destroy the land. The reason they are accused of it is because of FENCES, and human intervention. Cattle are a grazing animal and would, like the Bison, move to other areas. Unlike sheep who will eat the plant and the root system.

Cattle like most other animals are more concerned with where the next meal is, and NOT with whom they share the table.

More destruction of the lands is caused by humans on ATV's, bicycles, and on foot.
Blaming cattle, and not the ranching practices is wrong.

As was mentioned in an earlier post, Brucellosis is a hyped up disease. Since the public is more apt to swallow the disease issue instead of the grass issue, the 'authorities' continue to BS us all.
As with Rabies it's much easier to vaccinate the domestic. Before you jump, I understand that when a rabid animal is found that it is best to destroy that animal BUT RABIES, unlike Brucellosis, IS a SERIOUS disease. If Marion had her way and they were ABLE to vaccinate ALL of the wild life for Brucellosis, then a stronger strain of the disease would arise, hence a need for a stronger vaccine. Thus a vicious cycle and waste of time and money. Where as if you keep the domestic in check you don't have to worry about the 'wild'.

I for one would rather my Tax-payer money be spent on a conservation easement than on the Idiotic Bison hazing, slaughter activities that are being done. I would much rather see land left alone,or with minimal development, than a bunch of houses whether they be Million dollar homes or trailer houses. It doesn't matter to me if I am NOT allowed to enter that property now or ever because there are still millions of acres of 'public' land that I can enter any time I so desire. With the property in the easement, the animals are allowed to expand thus having more of them available on the neighboring 'public' lands. And we all know that the animals are NOT the destroyers of the land it is the HUMAN encroachment.

Before there were horses, before there were rifles, Indians had fire. I know of a very fertile buffalo jump where the bones are aplenty. The wind blows from the west and the cliff is about 300 ft. high. Torching of the prarie grasses in the fall with a West wind would do nicely to stampede the animals without the ability to avoid the flames.

Mr. Jackson, Are any of the public or private land owners listening to you?

This is one on the most informative discussions that I have read & in no small part due to the civility of the discussion (I will make printed copies as I must re-read may of the points several times). I believe most readers of this web site--regardless of which side a specific issue that may support-- love the land & wildlife & agriculture & all want some rational solutions that will allow future generations to enjoy the endemic values of this "place".

MW, to answer your question;

With our culture of misguided animal management for so long, it is very hard to allow for development, or even recognition of culture in herd animals. In other words, whether it is the threat of being ostracized by fellow ranchers who gather at the local café, or a professor being black balled by his peers on campus, in the end the ability for anyone to "listen" is inversely proportional to the level of infrastructure following the wrong path.

As to whether this can change depends on our human “scout bulls”. They are the ones that can introduce change when it seems so improbable otherwise. Will it be a Roger Lang or will it be left up to others? I am just one of the scout bulls.

Bob, it's not the infrastructure leading the blind down the wrong path, but rather the carrot that awaits the journey. Both governmental stewards and private owners are driven by survival instincts, they follow the money-- the medium of exchange for both societal and personal prosperity while alleviating serious, reactionary discontent. The successful campaign theme during the Clinton years was, "It's the economy, stupid." That theme is being dusted off again for this cycle.

Craig,

I agree the carrot is the motivation. However, being a green company doesn’t preclude being economically successful. We need to grab the “green” top to reach the ripe carrot. While the top may not be as tasty, one needs to explore past this. The economical and ecological advantages to be made in extended family herd production can be known only to those who are willing to poke their head below the surface.

For the private world of business, the economic justification comes from what does NOT have to be done to and for these animals.

Take out the cost of vet care because there is a lot less stress in herd animals allowed to develop the way they did for all this planet’s history. Anyone thinking of “raising” herd animals needs to know that any animal not raised the way these animals evolved has stress inherent in every single individual they put on any farm or ranch pasture. There is no contented cow to be found in modern agriculture. One does not need seven way vaccines nor is there the problem of shipping fever if families are transported. Closed family living also means most diseases are prevented.

Take out the fencing costs. Forget Management Intensive Grazing. Forget having to hay off the spring flush of “too much grass”. If the male population is intact, they will eat it. Grazing will encompass a lot more plants.

Take out the need to dehorn and castrate. Males will reach butcher weight before they become fertile. And they put on faster weight gains when the time comes for this needed rapid gain for tender meat. With horns, cows can wean on their own so forget corralling and sorting out the young so mother can get in shape and pregnant for the next year.

Take out bull pens and the need to put breeding males in with cows for only a part of the year. You can have 90% calf crops and no need for labor intensive management to achieve this “goal” if that is what you want (pure bred extended family breeders will be looking more for infrastructure development instead).

Take out the protein supplements needed when grasses mature. Your herd will be getting the protein from the likes of locust tree pods or weed seed heads.

Add in higher price for product because it is a better product. Varied diets mean more flavorful and nutritious meat. Less stress means none of those bad lactic and adrenaline hormones permeating the meat either. Raising “green” also means tapping into the market of a purchaser who appreciates environmentally sound production.

As for the govt. land caretakers, most go with the flow. You know the phrase, “Go along to get along”? Besides, they will get a lot less complaints from the eco types because riparian zones won’t be trashed. Everybody ends up happy, happy….except for the energy intensive feed production agribusiness types. Such is life. We can’t please them all.

So why hasn’t it happened when “green” is in? Because of an agribusiness, govt., and ranch type culture having hundreds of years of infrastructure in place. Thus, it will be left to the “scout bulls” to try anything out of the ordinary (funny, but “ordinary” is what we had for all the time it took for these animals to evolve).

I agree with you Craig that one needs to follow the carrot. But the green at the top, though a bit bitter for some who abhor the idea of combining environment and economics, can lead to some pretty tasty roots below.

Bob, I've tried eating radish green tops. They are high in vitamins and minerals. They truly were bitter.

Unless there is a "win-win" for societal prosperity and individual effort, the animals will suffer. Just a statement of "what is so."

Bob;
I have to thank you for your insight and perspective. It is so RARE to read someone's posts, that really tell it like it is.
so THANK YOU.

http://www.fayranches.com/ranches-for-sale/listing/?PROP_ID=179



Check this out. For $5,000,000 to $8,000,000 you can pick up your little piece of heaven. Ten parcels between 20-160 acres are being offered which at the low end would bring in $50,000,000.