Montana's Wildlife Agency and Governor Operate Outside Of the Law

[PlateauNDN]

A significant issue with regard to these Bison is the fact that they spread Brucellosis.  When that disease is spread to cattle and elk, it causes aborted fetuses, among other major problems.  Currently, Montana is classified as a "Bruscellosis Free" State.  Once Montana loses it's "Bruscellosis Free Sastus", we lose our way of life and our means of production.  No more ranching and no more hunting.  This is more than "who owns these bison".  It's about Montana's livelihood.

The MAIN issue is being diluted here....

Where is it being diluted?  Where is the actuall proof that any bison in particular whether it was the ones that were just delivered or the ones that have been living in this area for decades?  Your previous post listed Linda Prescott as the private property host/landownder and rancher that resides right next to the containment area that has had bison for many years according to the Tribe and she admits herself to not ever having a problem with the bison or having her land or animals contract brucellosis from them, so where's the evidence that animals are contracting it from any bison for that matter or that these or any bison are causing any damage to private or state land by running unmanaged and free?

According to yellowstone park service they have not once had a confirmed transmittal whether it was cattle or the public.  Where's your proof that bison are the reasons brucellosis is being spread?  USFWS and the Yellowstone website both say the same thing that elk have been the more contributor to the spread than the bison and not one of these website says that there have been bison spreading it to cattle.  Both of these website declare bison are the main culprit and one even goes as far as doing controlled testing and in a controlled environment is the only way they were able to produce a transmittal and state itself that the possibility is minimally low at best.

In the Interagency Bison Management Plan one ranch owner has 80 bison that have not transmitted the disease and are disease free and he wants to increase this herd (he's a non-tribal member) and disperse them later.

I'll say it again, sure some time down the road this will and the pronghorns will get brought before a judge and it all comes back to what foundation you have to stand on and I'll say this much, our Treaty is what we stand on and having that as our foundation has won almost every case in regards to our ability to govern ourselves. 

Also, yes TWG2A,that group wasn't allowed near the containment fencing because it is Tribal Land (private property) and the Tribe can deny access on their land.

We've had bison on our Lands for quite a while and we haven't had a problem with them?

[PlateauNDN]

Here's some more info. in regards to the USFWS stance; "The Native American Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service".

Section III. Government to Government Relations, paragraph 2 & 3,

Reservation Lands

The Service recognizes the authority that Native American governments have for making fish and wildlife resource management policy and for managing fish and wildlife resources on trust lands within their Native American reservations. Under certain circumstances, a Native American government may have fish and wildlife authority affecting nonmember reservation lands. In such cases, the Service will give proper recognition to the relative rights of both the Native American government and the affected State(s), according to the specific nature of
the case.

Non-Reservation Lands

The Service recognizes and supports the rights of Native Americans to utilize fish and wildlife resources on non-reservation lands where there is a legal basis for such use. The Service recognizes that as a result of treaties,
statutes, and judicial decrees, certain Native American governments, along with State governments, may have shared responsibilities to co-manage fish and wildlife resources. In such cases, the Service will cooperate with
Native American governments and affected resource management agencies to help meet objectives of all parties. While the Service retains primary authority to manage Service lands, affected Native American governments will be afforded opportunities to participate in the Service’s decision-making processes for those lands.

IV. SELF-DETERMINATION

Support for Self-Determination

The Service favors empowering Native American governments and supporting their missions and objectives in assuming program management roles and responsibilities through contracting and other mechanisms. Therefore, the Service supports the rights of Native Americans to be self-governing, and further supports the authority of Native American governments to manage, comanage, or cooperatively manage fish and wildlife resources, and to protect their Federally recognized authorities.

Indian Self Determination and
Education Assistance Act
(Public Law 93-638, as amended)

Just some info. about the official stance from USFWS in regards to our ability to govern ourselves and how they are to handle the relations between themselves and Tribes.

[TWG2A]

So, the Federal Government of the United States of America says so, and YOU still trust them?  LOL!

The facts are out there for those who care enough to look beyond the Federal deceivers. That was a zillion clicks ago from my standpoint.

Schweitzer is going to be dethroned this election, and this is just one of the reasons why. They do not have the authority to do this without input from ALL citizens of this Nation. They (and your tribe, according to you) slammed the door on opposing viewpoints, and that is breaking the law.

USFWS, NPS says so...... hmph.   you *might* want to do some independent research on this issue, instead of trusting the Federal Government of The United States of America.  That should go without saying.

[TWG2A]

For those of you still interested in learning more about why we're concerned about these Bison, how Schweitzer violated State Laws, and the Bruscellosis problem, here's some reading that should give you enough info to do more research on your own if you care to.  This info is from APHIS and explains how the virus is transmitted.

Here are the main concerns...

1) Cattle ranching is a major industry here in Montana
2) Hunting is a major industry here in Montana
3) The Bison transmit Bruscellosis, which would destroy BOTH of those industries here in montana
4) We know the Federal Government, and parts of Montana, have signed on to Agenda 21 and the destruction of cattle ranching and hunting are both of paramount importance in that agreement.  We, The Informed People of the State of Montana are fighting Agenda 21. This is part of it.
5) The Governor and his aids violated State Law by shutting out opposition and by not performing the required analysis before moving those Bison.
6) The tribe has provided no information on how they plan to contain herd of Bison and keep them from wreaking havoc on neighboring ranchers. How do they plan to keep a wild animal comparible to a toyota 4runneer from tearing down fences (which they commonly do) and wandering onto neighboring cattle ranches and/or infecting elk herds in the area? A "Great Wall"? How will they keep them on tribal land?
7) This is not so much an issue of tribal rights. It's an issue of how to manage these Bison, obey the laws of this State and to do everything within our power to avoid the total destruction of our two primary sources of revenue in this State.

Ignoring the opposition and the facts they present is not the best way to go about such an endeavor.  Yes?
*******************************
Overview
Brucellosis has caused devastating losses to farmers in the United States over the last
century. It has cost the Federal Government, the States, and the livestock industry billions
of dollars in direct losses and the cost of efforts to eliminate the disease. Brucellosis
causes abortions, infertility, and lowered milk production in cattle and bison and is
transmissible to humans as undulant fever. In people, the disease causes severe flu like
symptoms that can last for months or years. Treatment in humans is not always
successful. Moreover, treatment is not successful in animals.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) has been working cooperatively with the livestock industries and State
animal health authorities to eradicate brucellosis from the United States. As of March 1,
2002, 48 States have achieved brucellosis-free status with no known infection.
The only known focus of Brucella abortus infection left in the nation is in bison and elk
in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA). With respect to this area, APHIS is cooperating
with State and Federal agencies to implement a bison management plan, in order to
provide for a free ranging bison herd and to prevent exposure of cattle to potentially
infected wildlife.
There has been concern about the presence of brucellosis in the Yellowstone National
Park (YNP) bison herd since the inception of the Cooperative State-Federal Brucellosis
Eradication Program in 1934. Until the last few years, the number of infected cattle and
bison herds in the Nation was so large that efforts were focused in other private and
public park herds. In addition, YNP officials felt they could effectively manage the
disease risks with a border control program. Until 1988, the number of bison leaving
YNP was limited. The few bison that did migrate were either hazed back into the park or
shot at the border by Park Service, State of Montana personnel, or licensed hunters.
During the winter of 1996-97, with the herd population at record levels, the limited
forage in YNP was covered with record levels of ice and snow. As a result, larger
numbers of bison moved to areas outside the park looking for food; 1,079 bison that
exited the Park were shot or sent to slaughter. An additional 1,300 or more bison starved
to death inside the park. The involved Federal agencies-APHIS, USDA's Forest Service,
and the Interior Department's National Park Service-then proposed a series of
contingency measures to address the problems caused by that year's severe winter
weather in YNP. The short-term objective was to limit as much as possible additional
killing of bison during the balance of the winter season, while also preventing
transmission of brucellosis to livestock outside the park.
The long-term objective was to develop a long-range plan for management of the
Yellowstone bison herd to prevent the transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle and
maintain a viable bison herd.
While USDA is charged with eradicating brucellosis from the United States, it also
remains committed to maintaining a viable and free-roaming bison herd in YNP. The
goals of the eventual elimination of brucellosis from the GYA and maintaining a freeroaming
bison herd have been jointly agreed to in a Memorandum of Understanding
between the U.S. Department of Interior, the States of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming,
and USDA. Eliminating brucellosis and managing a free-roaming bison herd at YNP are
not incompatible goals, and achieving them will require a cooperative effort by all
involved agencies. The Record of Decision for Final Environmental Impact Statement
and Bison Management Plan for the State of Montana and Yellowstone National Park
was signed December 20, 2000. The goal of the bison management plan is to maintain a
wild, free ranging bison population while minimizing the risk of transmitting brucellosis
from bison to domestic cattle on public and private lands in Montana adjacent to
YNP. This plan is a bison management plan, not a brucellosis elimination plan.
Threat from Bison
More than 50 percent of the bison in YNP test positive for brucellosis. A positive test
indicates that animals have been exposed and are most likely infected. The concern is that
when these bison leave YNP, they may transmit brucellosis to cattle in the surrounding
States. All three States surrounding YNP are officially free of brucellosis.
In 1990, researchers at Texas A&M demonstrated that bison infected with Brucella
abortus could spread the disease to cattle through contact. Although this was proven
under controlled conditions, it is difficult to document transmission of a disease in the
wild. In order to document this, a researcher would need to be present when the
transmission occurred and collect samples for tissue culturing. In addition, the animals
would have to have been previously tested before the transmission had occurred to verify
that the event was caused by the bacterial transmission at the observed time. Therefore, it
was necessary to conduct this research under controlled conditions.
Even though transmission in the wild is difficult to document, results of epidemiological
investigations point to domestic bison as the likely source of the disease in infected cattle
herds found in Wyoming and North Dakota. In addition, wild elk or bison in the GYA
have been identified as the most probable source of infection for five additional cattle
herds. Infected elk were the most probable source of brucellosis infection (fistulous
withers) in horses in Wyoming. Most recently, elk were the source of infection of a cattle
herd in Idaho.
About Elk
The bison and elk populations in the GYA are the only wildlife populations in the United
States known to be infected with B. abortus. Due to the behavior of bison and elk, there is
more risk of disease transmission from individual bison than from elk. Bison are more
gregarious than elk and tend to congregate together more than elk during calving time,
which is when disease transmission is most likely. There is a greater chance of spreading
the disease to herd mates through direct contact with birthing fluids and contaminated
soil and vegetation during calving than at other seasons.
On the other hand, under natural conditions, elk prefer to calve in seclusion, meticulously
cleaning up the area by consuming the placental tissues and fluids to avoid attracting
predators. They prefer to keep the calf separate from other animals for the first few days
before returning to the herd, a behavior pattern that also reduces the chance for disease
transmission.
However, under unnatural conditions, such as at artificial elk feedgrounds, elk are more
concentrated and less likely to calve in seclusion. Infected elk also may abort during the
time they are congregated in the feedgrounds. Under these conditions, the risk of disease
spread from elk is increased. APHIS has assisted the State of Wyoming with funding to
vaccinate elk on elk feedgrounds to reduce the prevalence of the disease and to fund
habitat improvement efforts to keep the elk dispersed over a larger area and away from
cattle and feedgrounds. Eliminating brucellosis in elk remains a high priority with
APHIS.
What About Other Wildlife?
Other species of wildlife are more resistant but can become transiently infected with the
brucella organism.
Predators and scavengers, such as coyotes, crows, vultures, and bears, are rarely infected
and are not at high risk for shedding the bacteria. However, predators can serve as
mechanical vectors by dragging infected tissues, placentas, and fetuses away from
abortion sites.
Developing a Vaccine for Bison and Elk
Strain RB51 vaccine is a brucellosis vaccine conditionally approved for cattle in 1996
that does not interfere with blood test results. Tests of the RB51 vaccine in bison look
promising. Preliminary studies indicate that RB51 is safe and effective in bison calves. In
order for RB51 to be conditionally licensed in bison, it must pass additional safety and
efficacy trials.
Researchers are testing this vaccine on bison calves, male bison, and pregnant bison to
determine its safety and effectiveness. Strain 19, the traditional brucellosis vaccine is
about 65 percent effective in preventing infection in cattle and bison under field
exposure. (Sixty-five percent is considered effective for a brucella vaccine.) The primary
difficulty with Strain 19 vaccine is that it can cause an animal to produce antibodies to
brucellosis blood tests and, therefore, produce false-positive results when tested. The
RB51 vaccine does not cause animals to produce antibodies that can be detected with
standard tests and, therefore, eliminates this problem.
Brucellosis Research Efforts
APHIS has committed in excess of $3 million toward research on the brucellosis problem
in the GYA.
APHIS continues to support brucellosis research at universities and is also working with
USDA's Agricultural Research Service to further study RB51 vaccine, and to develop
alternative brucellosis vaccines that would be more effective in wild bison and elk herds.
Current vaccines are about 65 percent effective. It is unlikely that new vaccines would
protect 100 percent of vaccinated animals. However, new vaccines may provide
additional protection for the animals and help reduce the incidence of the disease within
the herds. APHIS is also involved in studying the brucellosis disease agent-how it is
transmitted and shed by infected animals into the environment.
Research efforts are also underway to develop a safe and effective vaccine delivery
system so that bison can be vaccinated remotely, as opposed to only hand injection. In
addition, APHIS has a veterinarian with wildlife management training and experience
stationed in Montana, to function as a liaison among involved government agencies.
APHIS is confident that, as more activity is generated on this issue, this liaison position
will become increasingly important in ensuring that all involved parties are informed and
that APHIS' involvement is coordinated.
Can Brucellosis Be Eradicated From Yellowstone Wildlife?
Yes. APHIS officials are confident, based on experience in other public and private bison
and elk herds and on other successful disease eradication programs, that use of a
combination of disease-eradication and herd-management measures will lead to the
successful elimination of brucellosis from bison and elk in the Yellowstone ecosystem.
APHIS' Position
APHIS is interested in protecting the bison and neighboring livestock from diseases
introduced into the herds from outside sources. APHIS intends to work with the
cooperating agencies to develop a plan to eliminate brucellosis from the GYA while
ensuring a wild, free-roaming, and viable bison herd in Yellowstone. Similar eradication
efforts have been successful in other parks, including Wind Cave National Park and
Custer State Park in South Dakota and Wichita Mountain Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma.

[bearpaw]

I'm curious if Washington State law was violated when those speed goats were imported into Washington without the support of the Governor of Washington or the Department of Fish and Wildlife?   Kind of a reverse of the thread topic.

There was a discussion or two on that issue. Most hunters including myself are very glad to see antelope in Washington, but the process may have been questionable in regards to testing for disease before release, I'm not sure how Washington law reads on that issue.

[PlateauNDN]

So, the Federal Government of the United States of America says so, and YOU still trust them?  LOL!  Never said I trusted them but, when you've had as many successful court cases as we have (Yakamas) in regards to jurisdiction and rights guaranteed by our Treaty then you can grasp the concept that we know what we're doing and we're fully capable of self-governance.  State Laws do not apply to us nor do State Laws have jurisdiction over us.  How many times have I shared actual court cases on here in regards to this matter showing that State Laws do not apply to us?  I'll provide another recent one,  Washington State v. Yakama Nation and this was directly in regards to the WA. State Tobacco Compact and the Imposed Jurisdiction WA. State believed it had over the Yakama Nation.  This case went in favor of the Yakama Nation because we do not fall under State Government or its laws and we were again favored to not have to sign a new tobacco compact because the State has no jurisdiction.  If the State would've left us alone and accepted the money it was already collecting from Tribally owned businesses and the Tribe and stopped raiding the smoke shops and trying to impose taxes it could've kept getting the money that was agreed upon in the compacts but they got greedy and pushed and pushed and pushed so our Tribal Councilmen took them to court and prevailed.  No more compact money from us or any Tribally owned smoke shop, no future compacts have to be made and the State again was advised it has no jurisdiction over the Tribe or its members.  We brought in pronghorns with the assistance of a private group and it happened because we have the ability to do it.  If the State has problems with that then please by all means let them waste more taxpayers dollars and pursue it in court because I tell you now all that does is add more case law ammo to our arsenal and prove that we are operating within our rights.  WDFW wasted how much tax dollars over the last 2 years trying to get a conviction it new it didn't have on a Tribal Member exercising his rights on the Columbia over a sturgeon he released following Tribal Law?  Probably hundreds of thousands of tax payers dollars filing charges, filing appeals, filing subpoenas and finally taking all the way to the WA. State Supreme Court only to be reminded that they have no jurisdiction and upheld a lower court of appeals judgement.  Sure there might have been some issues in regards to testing the pronghorns prior but the Nevada F&G didn't have any health issues or concerns and so far nothing has occurred in regards to them.  Did the Tribe need public support or opinion to move forward? No, we didn't, again comes back to being a Sovereign Nation with the right to self-governance.  We are the Supreme Law of the Land on our Reservation and outside the Federal Government we don't report to know one with what we decide to do on our land, GUARANTEED by our TREATY.

The facts are out there for those who care enough to look beyond the Federal deceivers. That was a zillion clicks ago from my standpoint.

Schweitzer is going to be dethroned this election, and this is just one of the reasons why. They do not have the authority to do this without input from ALL citizens of this Nation. They (and your tribe, according to you) slammed the door on opposing viewpoints, and that is breaking the law.  Please do tell, which law was violated by the Tribe in regards to this issue?  Please provide the statute or case law and I'll believe you when you say they or even us for that matter violated a law?  You can quote State Law all you want but at least here in WA. State they have no jurisdiction and State Laws don't apply.  Whether he gets dethroned or not it's MT and I don't care as far as him being re-elected or not.

USFWS, NPS says so...... hmph.   you *might* want to do some independent research on this issue, instead of trusting the Federal Government of The United States of America.  That should go without saying.  I need to do some research?  I know what we can and can't do by experience.  I don't need to trust the Feds, I just need to know that I've got our Treaty to stand on and a whole lot of case law to back it up with.  As long as we continue to operate within our Treaty Rights we don't have nothing to worry about.

[pianoman9701]

So, the Federal Government of the United States of America says so, and YOU still trust them?  LOL!

The facts are out there for those who care enough to look beyond the Federal deceivers. That was a zillion clicks ago from my standpoint.

Schweitzer is going to be dethroned this election, and this is just one of the reasons why. They do not have the authority to do this without input from ALL citizens of this Nation. They (and your tribe, according to you) slammed the door on opposing viewpoints, and that is breaking the law.

USFWS, NPS says so...... hmph.   you *might* want to do some independent research on this issue, instead of trusting the Federal Government of The United States of America.  That should go without saying.

I'm not saying the feds don't lie. I think they do. But, show me any evidence at all that the Feds transplanted wolves into WA. I don't think they've transplanted a single wolf here and I defy anyone to come up with actual proof that they have. I've personally grilled everyone from the state and every possible federal representative on this specific issue. There have been many rumors, conspiracy theories, and assumptions about transplanting wolves, but not a single piece of evidence that it's been done in WA. Until I see proof, I don't believe it.

[TWG2A]

The facts are out there. One need only to look.

I'm not going to waste time going back and forth on this issue.  It's a teeny, tiny piece of a VERY big picture.

I've explained it from our standpoint. Enough said.

[TWG2A]

P.S.....

Understand that I believe the Native Indians got screwed by the Feds from the very beginning, and they continue to get screwed by the feds to this day.

Stand by your treaties.  And make them keep their promises and pay for what they've done to you.  THe welfare state has not been good to the Native American Indians, as evidenced today.

This is not a treaty issue in our eyes.  It's an issue of wanting to preserve the land, the livelihood for the citizens (ALL citizens) and to keep Agenda 21 from destroying what's left of this very fragile country.

If anyone thinks the feds were bad for Native American Indians, can you imagine how the UN would treat them?

[bearpaw]

So, the Federal Government of the United States of America says so, and YOU still trust them?  LOL!

The facts are out there for those who care enough to look beyond the Federal deceivers. That was a zillion clicks ago from my standpoint.

Schweitzer is going to be dethroned this election, and this is just one of the reasons why. They do not have the authority to do this without input from ALL citizens of this Nation. They (and your tribe, according to you) slammed the door on opposing viewpoints, and that is breaking the law.

USFWS, NPS says so...... hmph.   you *might* want to do some independent research on this issue, instead of trusting the Federal Government of The United States of America.  That should go without saying.

I'm not saying the feds don't lie. I think they do. But, show me any evidence at all that the Feds transplanted wolves into WA. I don't think they've transplanted a single wolf here and I defy anyone to come up with actual proof that they have. I've personally grilled everyone from the state and every possible federal representative on this specific issue. There have been many rumors, conspiracy theories, and assumptions about transplanting wolves, but not a single piece of evidence that it's been done in WA. Until I see proof, I don't believe it.

pianoman, I am confused, I am trying to figure out how transplanting wolves in Washington came into this conversation? I skimmed through all the comments twice and do not see that mentioned in this topic.

I referred to Idaho in that the state of Idaho legislature passed legislation against releasing wolves and the sitting director of IDFG ignored Idaho law and signed a permit for the USFWS to release wolves in Idaho. That is documented in the Idaho legislative records.

I don't see anyone mentioning anything about the government releasing wolves in Washington in this discussion. I would like to find proof of that but as you mention, so far there is no proof and I find it more likely that wolves are migrating in and wolf groups could possibly be releasing wolves which may have been observed and thought to be the government.

[pianoman9701]

We were talking about the standard practices that must be observed by the state and feds to introduce or transplant an animal from somewhere else. This was in reference to a comment made a ways back regarding the speed goats and whether the procedures had been followed for those. All of this was in reference to whther or not the MFW&P had done their due dilligence regarding the movement of Yellowstone bison.

[Elkaholic daWg]

Citizens for Balanced Use
Montana FWP pushes for free roaming bison.
Dear Jim,

 
Agriculture and private property rights are under attack by the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks and Governor Schweitzer. After numerous public meetings where the FWP heard overwhelming opposition to a free roaming bison plan, this agency has now announced more meetings in an effort to continue their
free roaming bison plan.

MT FWP Now Formally Planning for Wild Bison

 

Northern Ag Network posted on April 27, 2012 14:37 

 

The following is a press release from Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks:

 

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks announced today that it will host a series of public meetings this spring as a first step toward developing a long-term bison conservation and management plan for the state. The plan will be developed through a programmatic environmental impact statement, which will address issues associated with bison and options for their long-term management as a Montana wildlife species.

 

The programmatic EIS, which will take about three years to complete, will examine an array of issues and possible alternatives-including no action-and each alternative's potential beneficial and adverse environmental, social, and economic impact.

 

FWP will begin a formal public "scoping" process as required under the Montana Environmental Policy Act. Public scoping is aimed at identifying issues, impacts, public concerns, and conservation challenges and opportunities. The comments will assist FWP in further identifying issues and developing possible alternatives.

 

Some issues already identified include: (1) the risk of bison spreading disease to domestic livestock, (2) competition between bison and other wildlife, (3) competition between bison and livestock for rangeland, (4) damage to fencing, (5) public safety, and (6) the legal classification and status of bison in Montana.

 

Eight scoping meetings are scheduled for May. The sessions will be held from

6-9 p.m., with the first hour dedicated to informal discussions and the remainder of the evening set for recording scoping comments. Here are the meeting dates and locations: 

 

ALL MEETINGS ARE FROM 6 to 9 p.m. 

 

May 14  Missoula  Holiday Inn Downtown - 200 S. Pattee St.

 

May 15  Kalispell Red Lion Hotel - 20 N. Main St.

 

May 16  Glasgow Cottonwood Inn - 45 1st Ave NE

 

May 17  Helena  Montana Wild Center - 2668 Broadwater Ave.

 

May 21  Billings Holiday Inn Grand MT Convention Center - 5500 Midland Rd.

 

May 22 Miles City BLM conference room, BLM center - 111 Garryowen Rd.

 

May 23   Great Falls  Townhouse Inn - 1411 10th Ave. S.

 

May 24   Bozeman Holiday Inn on Baxter - 5 Baxter Lane

 

Last year, in anticipation of a programmatic EIS proposal, FWP prepared a summary of bison history and activities in the West that offers information related to the possible restoration of bison in Montana. The "Bison Background Document" presents information on the bison's genetic and disease history, management concerns and a brief synopsis of different bison management philosophies among an array of private groups and organizations. The document is available online at fwp.mt.gov. Under 'For Fish & Wildlife Information' choose "Bison Background." The document may also be obtained on CD or other formats by calling Margaret Morelli at 406-994-6780 or via email at MMorelli@mt.gov.

 

Source:  MT Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Posted by Haylie Shipp

 

CBU has engaged in litigation against FWP for their attempt to move bison to other parts of Montana without compliance with state law and SB212. We oppose the taking of private property by this FWP action and will continue to oppose any attempt by FWP to classify these Yellowstone Park bison as wildlife. FWP is not nor do they have any expertize within their department for animal disease management. Bison from Yellowstone Park carry a disease deadly to humans which can lay dormant for 8 years or possibly more before becoming active and transmitted.

 

Numerous cases of property damage and human health risks from these animals have been reported but FWP continues to ignore the science and facts. It would seem the agenda of FWP is clear in pursuing an action that will result in the taking of private property, the destruction of Montana's number one industry, and put our human health at risk.

 

Montana property owners and citizens must be vigilant in opposing the action of FWP in their relentless pursuit of establishing free roaming bison on the Montana landscape. 

 

Please attend as many of these meetings as possible!   

 

 

 

 
Kerry White
Citizens for Balanced Use
1-406-600-4CBU
Join Our Mailing List

[TWG2A]

Most excellent, Elkaholic Dawg  Thanks for sharing this.

Figures, they open the meetings in Missoula, the HQ for the CPUSA, and they close the meetings in Bozeman, the second most communist city in Montana.

Open and closing case lies with the commies.  In a courtroom, this would be unacceptable.  But hey, at least they're actually HOLDING the meetings, and at least they're actually publishing, in advance, when and where the meetings will be held.

We'll be there in numbers.

[KopperBuck]

Time to bring up a dead horse (bison in this case):

For those with an attention span of a gnat this will be probably too long a read, but a good article in Range about this.

http://www.rangemagazine.com/specialreports/range-fa12-buffaloed.pdf

I don't think there's as much an issue as the tribe receiving the critters as people originally believed, they know the tribes are going to get them, it's about the how.

What bothered me A LOT was they mentioned that as part of the negotiation that FWP can take up to 25% of the herd at any point. That's just a little sneaky.

By the way, if you don't have a subscription to this magazine, you really need to get one.

[tmtimestwo]

I would just like to say that before us there were bison, they once roamed the entire east side of the state and were even there when the cattle ranches started. Before fences and barbed wire seperated the two and there was not any issues to speak of. Just as the wolf introduction, the impact overall is a enviromental shock and now that they have been there for some time everything adapts to the current conditions. Just as the bitterroot herd, they actually show a much higher calf percentage than in the past three decades and have proven that cougar kills out number wolf kills 3 to 1. I think the issue is not concern for the bison or ranches but the profit that is there to be made if all bison were privatized and able to be genetically manipulated to beefaloes and sell it at $10 per pund to organic hippies. It has been proven that MT is a breeding ground for successful introduction and rehabilitations of species and yet when we try and put nature back in order all of a sudden politics over-rule the natural course of events that would be if we never *censored*ed it up in the first place. Cut the fences and leave it be. Nature will take it's own course just as the fires replenish the forest the herds will re plenish the land and the natural order of things.