Post by: JLS on February 13, 2014, 09:51:53 AM
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2014/02/12/2823977/yellowstone-bison-slaughter-begins.html (http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2014/02/12/2823977/yellowstone-bison-slaughter-begins.html)
Yellowstone bison slaughter begins
By MATTHEW BROWN
Associated PressFebruary 12, 2014 Updated 17 hours ago
BILLINGS, Mont. — Yellowstone National Park transferred 20 bison to a Montana Indian tribe for slaughter on Wednesday, marking the first such action this winter under a plan to drastically reduce the size of the largest genetically pure bison population in the U.S.
The transfer was first disclosed by the Buffalo Field Campaign, a wildlife advocacy group, and confirmed by park officials.
Five more bison that had been captured were to be turned over to the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Thursday for use in an experimental animal contraception program, said park spokesman Al Nash.
Yellowstone administrators plan to slaughter up to 600 bison this winter if harsh weather conditions inside the 2.2-million-acre park spur a large migration of the animals to lower elevations in Montana. It's part of a multiyear plan to reduce the population from an estimated 4,600 animals to about 3,000, under an agreement between federal and state officials signed in 2000.
Tens of millions of bison once roamed the North American Plains before overhunting drove them to near extinction by the early 1900s. Yellowstone is one of the few places where they survive in the wild.
James Holt, a member of Idaho's Nez Perce tribe and board member for the Buffalo Field Campaign, said the park's population target was an arbitrary number that threatens to infringe on treaty hunting rights held by his and other tribes. Members of those tribes travel hundreds of miles every winter for the chance to harvest bison.
Holt said many tribes have a sacred, spiritual connection with the animals because American Indians historically depended on them for food and clothing.
"We're talking about the last free-roaming herd here," he said. "It does them a disservice and is a disrespect to them that they are being treated in this manner."
But Montana's livestock industry has little tolerance for bison because of concerns over disease and competition with cattle for grass.
Steps taken by former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer to give bison more room to roam outside the park have yielded mixed results, with ranchers and local officials pushing back.
The last major bison slaughter occurred in the winter of 2008, when 1,600 were killed. Schweitzer later placed a temporary moratorium on the practice that has since expired.
The latest group of bison destined for slaughter was transferred to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai tribes.
Nash said hundreds more bison remain clustered near the park's northern boundary, where the 25 animals were captured Friday after they wandered into a holding facility. That sets the stage for potentially more shipments to slaughter in coming days and weeks if more bison start to move into Montana.
"We're set up and ready to go should we see bison come down in significant numbers," Nash said
Read more here: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2014/02/12/2823977/yellowstone-bison-slaughter-begins.html#storylink=cpy (http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2014/02/12/2823977/yellowstone-bison-slaughter-begins.html#storylink=cpy)
Post by: kentrek on February 13, 2014, 10:10:07 AM
Post by: JLS on February 13, 2014, 04:33:06 PM
Hmmm....so all tribal hunting, loss of hunting opportunity for folks on the list issues aside...they dont want the bison to leave the park ??? Why did wolves get such a special treatment compared to the bison ?? Maybe I read this wrong
Because bison are managed by the MT Dept of Livestock.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 13, 2014, 04:52:43 PM
Post by: JLS on February 13, 2014, 04:55:11 PM
My guess is if they lower the Yellowstone bison herd by 1600 animals to 3000 the wolves are going to need something else to eat like those Montana cattle and then hopefully they will start worrying about the wolves even more.
It really has nothing to do with wolves.
Edit: I forgot to add the mandatory >:( when mentioning the "W" word. Here you go Bobcat.
>:(
Post by: Rainier10 on February 13, 2014, 04:59:17 PM
Post by: JLS on February 13, 2014, 05:07:45 PM
You don't think wolves eat bison? You don't think lower the number of bison in the park by 35% is going to affect wolves?
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2014/01/report-yellowstone-wolf-populations-declines-predators-target-bison (http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2014/01/report-yellowstone-wolf-populations-declines-predators-target-bison)
I don't think it will have a significant effect, no.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 13, 2014, 05:16:47 PM
Okay, but as I read that article it says as the number of elk in the park decreased and the wolf population in the park decreased this last year the amount of bison the wolves ate increased and was the highest percentage of bison ever taken. So I am seeing the wolves depending more on the bison for a food source as elk numbers decrease and now you are going to decrease the wolves new food source by 35%. That seems to me if they are relying on bison more for food and you are decreasing the availability of that food it is going to affect the wolves. And my guess is if when the elk numbers decreased the wolves ate more bison one could logically conclude that when the bison numbers decrease the wolves are going to eat something else....cattle.You don't think wolves eat bison? You don't think lower the number of bison in the park by 35% is going to affect wolves?
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2014/01/report-yellowstone-wolf-populations-declines-predators-target-bison (http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2014/01/report-yellowstone-wolf-populations-declines-predators-target-bison)
I don't think it will have a significant effect, no.
Just my :twocents:
Post by: carlyoungs on February 13, 2014, 05:24:57 PM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on February 13, 2014, 05:48:49 PM
One thing they figured out with the Wolves, they impacted the Elk population.
The reduces browsing/grazing along the waterways caused the vegetation to flourish, creating more available food for other ungulates, increasing birthrates, feeding predators...
Now they have an over population of Buffalo ??
Free range, actual WILD Buffalo ??
Seems to me, the outfitters that are loosing out on Elk hunts, should be offering some Buffalo hunts :dunno:
Only thing I would rather get would be a Moose..., or maybe a Sheep....
Post by: JLS on February 13, 2014, 07:40:05 PM
I think the OP was about MANAGEMENT :dunno:
One thing they figured out with the Wolves, they impacted the Elk population.
The reduces browsing/grazing along the waterways caused the vegetation to flourish, creating more available food for other ungulates, increasing birthrates, feeding predators...
Now they have an over population of Buffalo ??
Free range, actual WILD Buffalo ??
Seems to me, the outfitters that are loosing out on Elk hunts, should be offering some Buffalo hunts :dunno:
Only thing I would rather get would be a Moose..., or maybe a Sheep....
Except the state of Montana recognizes them as less important than a Black Angus. It's sad and pathetic.
The reason I said this has nothing to do with wolves is as follows. Bison have grown in numbers with wolves. Bison still have no recognition in Montana as having any sporting or cultural significance. Even if wolves turn to cattle for food, they will be shot by Wildlife Services, so how does that create any leverage to maintain higher numbers of bison? It doesn't.
It might affect wolves, it might not. I don't care. I care that bison get so little recognition and respect as a game animal.
Edit: Sorry Bobcat, missed it again.....
>:(
Post by: Rainier10 on February 14, 2014, 02:31:56 PM
This I will certainly agree with and wish there were more bison. I love the effort that goes into restoring elk to there original range and wish that more effort would have been put into restoring bison numbers. I understand the cattle conflict but wish there was a solution. You know what the say about wish in one and blank in the other?
Except the state of Montana recognizes them as less important than a Black Angus. It's sad and pathetic.
I care that bison get so little recognition and respect as a game animal.
Edit: Sorry Bobcat, missed it again.....
>:(
Anyways we can definitely agree that bison should be a higher priority game animal than they are.
Post by: villageidiot on February 14, 2014, 05:59:46 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 14, 2014, 06:13:57 PM
Hopefully a solution to the brucellosis in the buffalo can be found so that it becomes a non-issue. I think if we want to help get more buffalo we should push for a solution to the brucellosis problem in the buffalo rather than expect Montana Ranchers to ultimately suffer incredible financial losses. :twocents:
Post by: kentrek on February 14, 2014, 07:10:11 PM
It might affect wolves, it might not. I don't care. I care that bison get so little recognition and respect as a game animal.
:yeah: cant agree more....it shouldn't matter how they taste (even tho they taste amazing)
Why or how management puts more effort into one animal than another doesn't seem rite
Post by: bobcat on February 14, 2014, 07:34:27 PM
Post by: deaner on February 14, 2014, 08:09:30 PM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on February 14, 2014, 08:13:17 PM
sorry, your argument is useless. no matter how hard it is to comprehend, the fact is that the tree humping city dwellers only worship the carnivorous killing machines. they are "majestic and noble" while the deer/ elk / woodland caribou / moose/ pronghorn / bison etc are not even worth mentioning, let alone filing a lawsuit over. :dunno:
Unless it was other taxpayers that are the carnivorous killing machines, then we are psychopathic murderers, not "majestic and noble"
Post by: deaner on February 14, 2014, 08:16:11 PM
sorry, your argument is useless. no matter how hard it is to comprehend, the fact is that the tree humping city dwellers only worship the carnivorous killing machines. they are "majestic and noble" while the deer/ elk / woodland caribou / moose/ pronghorn / bison etc are not even worth mentioning, let alone filing a lawsuit over. :dunno:
Unless it was other taxpayers that are the carnivorous killing machines, then we are psychopathic murderers, not "majestic and noble"
thats affirmative! for some reason any animal EXCEPT US that goes around killing for fun is instantly noble and beautiful. go figure?
oh and how these animal rights people love their pet cats!!! their pet cats that torture mice and birds and snakes for 10-20 minutes before killing them, and not even eating them. just torture and kill for fun. but they LOVE them!
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 15, 2014, 12:42:17 AM
Bison should be on the endangered species list. The wolves were, so they got restored. Now it's time to restore bison to all of their historical range. Besides, the wolves need more to eat. Win-win........
I agree Bobcat. It amazes me that sea mammals for instance are considered endangered and everything is being done to return them to their historic range in historic numbers, no matter how they affect fishing which is feeding our country the same as farming. I would put wolves into that category up to a point. But they will never be allowed to return to their historic numbers. And justifiably so. But Bison on the other hand, they seem to have another set of rules for them. They will never be allowed to return to the great plains in wild roaming herds, let alone historic numbers as their effect on agriculture would be devastating. It would sure be awesome to be able to hunt them all over the west and midwest though.
Post by: bearpaw on February 15, 2014, 01:19:41 AM
Post by: Bean Counter on February 15, 2014, 01:43:59 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 15, 2014, 02:15:22 AM
Hi guys.. stupid question here: What about transplanting the excess bison to another state/area with suitable habitat with the intention of growing it into a huntable population?
I agree if the brucellosis can be eliminated before they leave the area. Don't know if that is possible?
Post by: steen on February 15, 2014, 11:15:29 AM
sorry, your argument is useless. no matter how hard it is to comprehend, the fact is that the tree humping city dwellers only worship the carnivorous killing machines. they are "majestic and noble" while the deer/ elk / woodland caribou / moose/ pronghorn / bison etc are not even worth mentioning, let alone filing a lawsuit over. :dunno:
Unless it was other taxpayers that are the carnivorous killing machines, then we are psychopathic murderers, not "majestic and noble"
I don't think it is really has much to do with wolves except that is the animal they chose for their financial gain. They've used them to get city folks to feel sorry for them and pour money into it so they can continue their agenda. More than likely undermine hunting. People are such suckers for the poor animal commercials that they pour a lot of money into it. It could have been cougars or bears. What I don't understand is they want to get ride of ranchers. Do they not know it will undermine the food chain? Confusing to me.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 15, 2014, 01:25:14 PM
It's impossible to restore bison to all their former range and numbers because it doesn't exist, just as it's impossible with wolves. :bdid:
Bearpaw, I actually agree with you as far as bison go. There would have to be too many changes for it to even be possible. It would totally upset the food supply in this country. But we can make room for a few wolves. We just disagree on what a "few" means. And you refuse to admit any benefit wolves might create.
Post by: KFhunter on February 20, 2014, 07:30:16 PM
Post by: Huntin Hounds on February 21, 2014, 12:02:11 PM
On to brucellosis. First it was brought to this country by European cows that infected the uninfected bison herds. Second elk also carry brucellosis in Montana, and are thought to be the animal responsible for the latest transmissions to cows. The Montana department of livestock has been trying to get management authority of Montana elk for years. If they ever do they will manage elk just like bison. I don't believe there is a way to get rid of brucellosis from our wild game herds. We just need to find areas where conflict will be at a minimum.
http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/director/SO08.htm (http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/director/SO08.htm) here is an article by Montana fish wildlife and parks that talks about brucellosis.
My last point is private property rights. No farmer or rancher should have to wake up and find a herd of bison destroying their wheat field or breaking down their fences. In areas with high agricultural use, bison should not be considered for restoration. In areas with limited to no private property, bison should be considered for restoration. We have an obligation to keep wild animals and wild places for our future generations to experience.
Post by: bearpaw on February 21, 2014, 12:16:57 PM
It's impossible to restore bison to all their former range and numbers because it doesn't exist, just as it's impossible with wolves. :bdid:
Bearpaw, I actually agree with you as far as bison go. There would have to be too many changes for it to even be possible. It would totally upset the food supply in this country. But we can make room for a few wolves. We just disagree on what a "few" means. And you refuse to admit any benefit wolves might create.
Unfortunately wolves simply were not needed. There is no real benefit, only liabilities to having wolves in the lower 48. I understand we are stuck with them and not really opposed to small numbers of them that do not impact herd numbers, livestock, or our way of life. The problem is all the wolf lovers never want them managed, they are creating most of the opposition with their narrow mindedness and desire to use the wolf to limit hunting opportunities and ranching. :twocents:
I would love to see bison herds in more areas where they do not impact ranchers. But that needs to be done responsibly.
Huntin Hounds, yes I know about the Book Cliff's bison, they first accidentally escaped from a rancher and then I think UDWR has added to them, they aren't hunted yet, but someday they will. There are currently two hunted herds in Utah on Antelope Island and in the Henry Mountains.
Post by: Northway on February 21, 2014, 12:42:25 PM
Hi guys.. stupid question here: What about transplanting the excess bison to another state/area with suitable habitat with the intention of growing it into a huntable population?
I agree if the brucellosis can be eliminated before they leave the area. Don't know if that is possible?
I don't believe there has ever been a documented case of bison transmitting brucellosis to cattle? I wonder whether that argument is a tool to keep bison out of other areas, because that will absolutely create conflicts with the cattle industry.
The American Prairie Reserve is trying to create a large space in Montana that will include bison, and will also provide open access to hunters. From their website:
"The goal of the American Prairie Reserve project is to create the largest and newest wildlife reserve in the lower forty-eight states, consisting of more than three million acres of both private and public lands. American Prairie Reserve intends to acquire and manage approximately 500,000 private acres, which will serve to glue together roughly three million acres of existing public land. Multi-jurisdictional management of the eventual wildlife complex will be conducted by the various entities with land ownership and wildlife management authority including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Montana Department of State Lands, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks and American Prairie Reserve. Conservation biologists have determined that a mixed-grass prairie would need to be approximately 5,000 square miles (roughly 3.2 million acres) in size in order to be a fully functioning ecosystem that supports the full complement of native prairie biodiversity and provides room to endure episodic localized natural phenomena like fire, disease and winter ice events."
Montana is about 94 million acres, so the scope of that project is significant.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on February 21, 2014, 02:22:56 PM
The US Department of Interior-Park Service, and US Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service create an impossible regulatory scenario. The Park Service pretends YNP is an ecosystem, and allows no management of wildlife within its borders, so YNP is a reservoir for brucellosis (yes, it came from Europe and cows). At the same time, if brucellosis is detected domestic cattle, USDA revokes the states' brucellosis-free status, affecting the viability of every ranching operation in the state.
The states of Montana and Wyoming (maybe Idaho has been affected too) are between a rock and a hard place, thanks to the regulatory empires of these two departments of the federal government and their unwillingness to work with the states to attain a reasonable compromise. Montana, in particular, has been dumped on for being forced to take draconian measures to attempt to prevent a brucellosis infection detection in cattle. It is not a question of the disease consequences on individual ranches, it is the federal hammer on the entire states' cattle industry - it is a regulatory conundrum for which the states are thrashed by the feds.
Post by: Huntin Hounds on February 21, 2014, 03:02:18 PM
Doublelung: You bring up an excellent point about the conflicting management. To many government agencies involved applying their own sets of regulations. Idaho is also affected by the brucellosis threat and they will send out state employees to kill any bison that comes into Idaho. I don't believe many bison move into Idaho in the winter though (this is only speculation as you never hear about them).
Post by: bearpaw on February 22, 2014, 12:30:23 PM
Bison do eat grass, and damage fences, and transmit brucellosis. However, those aren't the significant issues; it is a matter of conflicting management between two federal agencies, and the adjacent states and their ranchers get caught up in the bull pucky as a result.
The US Department of Interior-Park Service, and US Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service create an impossible regulatory scenario. The Park Service pretends YNP is an ecosystem, and allows no management of wildlife within its borders, so YNP is a reservoir for brucellosis (yes, it came from Europe and cows). At the same time, if brucellosis is detected domestic cattle, USDA revokes the states' brucellosis-free status, affecting the viability of every ranching operation in the state.
The states of Montana and Wyoming (maybe Idaho has been affected too) are between a rock and a hard place, thanks to the regulatory empires of these two departments of the federal government and their unwillingness to work with the states to attain a reasonable compromise. Montana, in particular, has been dumped on for being forced to take draconian measures to attempt to prevent a brucellosis infection detection in cattle. It is not a question of the disease consequences on individual ranches, it is the federal hammer on the entire states' cattle industry - it is a regulatory conundrum for which the states are thrashed by the feds.
:yeah: You explained it well. :tup:
Post by: bigtex on February 22, 2014, 12:50:55 PM
Under federal regulations the federal land management agencies MUST cooperate with the state wildlife agencies. However, under federal exclusive jurisdiction the state actually cedes those lands to the federal government, so there really is no state government. Under federal exclusive jurisdiction the lands are technically not in the state, for example Mt. Rainier is technically not in the State of WA as the state has ceded exclusive jurisdiction to the federal government.
Under the two other types of jurisdiction (concurrent and proprietary) the feds must cooperate with the state wildlife agencies. So if Mt Rainier wanted to shoot every elk in the park they could, WDFW would have no say. If Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area (concurrent jurisdiction) wanted to shoot every deer in the NRA they would at least have to work with WDFW on the issue.
Out of the 400 NPS sites only 30 or so are exclusive. It's typically the older, larger parks that are exclusive. There is a federal law that says parks should try to get concurrent jurisdiction, however moving from exclusive to concurrent jurisdiction can be costly for the state and counties involved.
Examples of exclusive parks are Mt Rainier, Olympic, Yosemite, Yellowstone, Rocky Mtn, Mesa Verde, and Big Bend.
Examples of concurrent parks are Grand Canyon, Lake Roosevelt, South Dakota NPS lands, and Colorado NPS lands (other then Rocky Mtn and Mesa Verde)
Examples of proprietary parks are North Cascades, all Utah parks, the California desert parks.
Post by: bearpaw on February 22, 2014, 01:18:30 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 22, 2014, 01:52:13 PM
Great info bigtex, that helps a person understand numerous issues regarding parks. :tup:
No problem. Exclusive jurisdiction can really throw a wrench into things. It's the reason if you look at fishing regulations on the Olympic Peninsula every river that flows out of Olympic NP have their WDFW regulations beginning at the park boundary, because once the river hits the boundary WDFW has no authority on what happens upstream.
Like I said, federal law (Congress) has directed the NPS to seek the downgrade of exclusive lands to concurrent (as well as moving proprietary up to concurrent.) Problem is it places a whole new burden on the state and county. As an example, Mt Rainier has been exclusive since 1901. If it goes from exclusive to concurrent it means all state and county LE agencies would have to patrol the park, courts would see an increased workload resulting from the cases originating in the park handled by state/county agencies, WDFW would have to spend time on biological studies and setting seasons on park waters, and all other state agencies "doing their thing." It would be the equivalent of WA and Pierce County (small portion of Lewis as well) growing by 236,000 acres. In times of decreasing budgets the last thing a government agency wants to do is expand their coverage area. Several years ago Great Smoky Mtn National Park asked Tennessee and North Carolina to move it from exclusive to concurrent. North Carolina did so, but Tennessee said it would cost the counties and state too much. So now the park is concurrent in NC and exclusive in TN.