Post by: bearpaw on April 19, 2012, 09:22:04 AM
Sportsmen Taking Charge of Predator Problems
Editorial News/Press Release
April 19, 2012
Montana's Wildlife Agency and Governor Operate Outside Of the Law
Now, that's a pretty strong statement to be openly making about Governor Brian Schweitzer and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Perhaps, but that elected official and the state fish and wildlife agency he literally rules have just as openly ignored state legislation mandating procedures the agency must take, or how, under Schweitzer, MT FWP has totally violated the mission they are supposed to fulfill, as outlined by law in the Montana State Constitution.
The most recent violation of enacted state legislation involves the moving of Yellowstone bison onto the Ft. Peck Indian Reservation, in the northeastern corner of the state.
During the 62nd Legislature, in April of last year, a bill known as SB212 was signed into law. The purpose of that legislation was to establish "An Act Clarifying The Authority Of The Department Of Fish, Wildlife And Parks To Manage Wild Buffalo Or Bison". One of the very first requirements of that legislation clearly mandated MT FWP to submit a management plan before wild buffalo or bison were released or transplanted onto private or public land.
State Senator Greg Hinkle (R-SD 7), Thompson Falls, MT has stated, "We passed SB212 last session requiring FWP to have a Management Plan and an Environmental Impact Statement before any bison were transported in the state. They went ahead, over a weekend, and transported bison to Fort Peck without obeying the law. In my view, in direct defiance of the mandates from the legislature."
MT FWP covertly transported those bison from the Yellowstone area to the Ft. Peck Indian Reservation in late March. And that has not set well with the Montana legislators who drafted SB212, which passed into law with a 91 to 8 vote. The illegal moving of those buffalo has also upset those with the Montana Stockgrowers Association.
In a MSGA release on March 21, executive vice president Errol Rice stated, “MSGA is disappointed to learn of a deal being signed between Fort Peck and the state of Montana for the relocation of bison without any of the concerned parties having the opportunity to review the agreement before action was taken."
Rice pointed out that bison management and bison relocation is a top priority for MSGA, adding "During the 2011 Montana Legislature, we worked hard to ensure the passage of SB 212, which requires FWP to adopt a management plan before bison are translocated anywhere in the state of Montana. MSGA members also passed policy in 2011 declaring that MSGA opposes bison relocation, but should the state decide to proceed with a relocation proposal, it should adequately reflect the intent of SB 212. It is unfortunate that this deal was done without the opportunity for more local input and due process. We have requested a draft of the agreement signed from the state of Montana to review on behalf of the ranching community, especially to ensure that all elements of SB 212 were addressed and disease monitoring protocol are followed."
State Representative Wayne Stahl (R - HD35), Saco, MT is calling for Schweitzer's impeachment, accusing the governor and other officials of intentionally and knowingly breaking Montana law. In order for that to happen, the Legislature would have to call a special session, requiring a majority vote to put the governor on trial by the 67 members of the House.
"He is really not caring whether he breaks the law or not," claims Stahl. He points out that Schweitzer, in a nonchalant manner, intentionally ignored the law which he had signed into being law. He asks, "What's next?"
Many Montanans have repeatedly accused Governor Schweitzer and upper management at Fish, Wildlife and Parks, along with a few members of the FWP Commission, of violating state law with the manner in which they have handled the wolf issue. With wildlife populations in much of the western half of the state in shambles, due to excessive predator numbers, especially wolves, MT FWP and the FWP Commission have been accused of lying about the true number of wolves in this state. Even though once great elk herds, such as the Northern Yellowstone herd and the West Fork of the Bitterroot herd, along with most others up and down the west side of Montana have been pulled down by as much as 80-percent, FWP has basically called the sportsmen who speak out against the loss "liars" by falsely reporting much higher populations. The agency has also tried to shift much of the blame on mountain lions and bears - and even global warming.
Residents of this state know better. They have witnessed firsthand the dramatic rise in wolf numbers, and the dramatic loss of the past 75 years of wildlife conservation. They've also felt the loss of hunting opportunities, even though the Montana State Constitution guarantees that FWP's mission is to insure an abundance of wildlife and quality hunting. Montana's hunters and wildlife watchers are fully aware that the real cause of all this loss is due to excessive wolf numbers, with a real wolf population of "at least" 2,000. FWP is currently claiming an "at least" wolf population of just 653 - and that the state's elk herds are "at objective".
Montana State Senator Debby Barrett, (R - SD36), Dillon, MT points out that MT FWP has operated in violation of state law for quite a while, by not fulfilling its obligation as mandated by the State Constitution and State Legislation. On several occasions, while testifying in front of the state's Environmental Quality Council, she has openly accused the agency of also violating its own policies.
Barrett shares, "The Montana Elk Management Plan and the Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, for instance, were designed by the agency's own biologists and passed through the Montana Environmental Policy Act. "
Even so, she says that FWP Director Joe Maurier claims that the agency cannot implement these plans - due to lack of funding. Still, earlier this year FWP chose to give across the board pay raises for FWP employees, with some fairly lavish jumps in salary for top level supervisors. FWP chose to do so over mandated commitments, such as adequate wolf control.
She adds, "Legislators had the foresight to actually get certain portions of those Wildlife Management Plans codified into law. The agency must comply with state law - whether funded or not."
Debby Barrett feels that the only way this issue will ever be resolved is for a major lawsuit to be filed against MT FWP. In Montana, the state's fish and wildlife agency answers directly to the governor. For MT FWP to operate in violation of State Legislation and the State Constitution means that their actions, or lack of appropriate actions, have had Brian Schweitzer's seal of approval.
All of this has openly taken place with the state's Attorney General, Steve Bullock, turning a blind eye away from all of the corruption. Now, he's running on the Democratic ticket to replace Schweitzer as Governor of Montana. Many Montana residents are now wondering, if Bullock is elected, will the wolf nightmare continue?
Toby Bridges, LOBO WATCH
Post by: PlateauNDN on April 19, 2012, 10:09:35 AM
LOBO WATCH
Sportsmen Taking Charge of Predator Problems
Editorial News/Press Release
April 19, 2012Montana's Wildlife Agency and Governor Operate Outside Of the Law
Now, that's a pretty strong statement to be openly making about Governor Brian Schweitzer and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Perhaps, but that elected official and the state fish and wildlife agency he literally rules have just as openly ignored state legislation mandating procedures the agency must take, or how, under Schweitzer, MT FWP has totally violated the mission they are supposed to fulfill, as outlined by law in the Montana State Constitution.
The most recent violation of enacted state legislation involves the moving of Yellowstone bison onto the Ft. Peck Indian Reservation, in the northeastern corner of the state.
During the 62nd Legislature, in April of last year, a bill known as SB212 was signed into law. The purpose of that legislation was to establish "An Act Clarifying The Authority Of The Department Of Fish, Wildlife And Parks To Manage Wild Buffalo Or Bison". One of the very first requirements of that legislation clearly mandated MT FWP to submit a management plan before wild buffalo or bison were released or transplanted onto private or public land.
State Senator Greg Hinkle (R-SD 7), Thompson Falls, MT has stated, "We passed SB212 last session requiring FWP to have a Management Plan and an Environmental Impact Statement before any bison were transported in the state. They went ahead, over a weekend, and transported bison to Fort Peck without obeying the law. In my view, in direct defiance of the mandates from the legislature."
MT FWP covertly transported those bison from the Yellowstone area to the Ft. Peck Indian Reservation in late March. And that has not set well with the Montana legislators who drafted SB212, which passed into law with a 91 to 8 vote. The illegal moving of those buffalo has also upset those with the Montana Stockgrowers Association.
In a MSGA release on March 21, executive vice president Errol Rice stated, “MSGA is disappointed to learn of a deal being signed between Fort Peck and the state of Montana for the relocation of bison without any of the concerned parties having the opportunity to review the agreement before action was taken."
Rice pointed out that bison management and bison relocation is a top priority for MSGA, adding "During the 2011 Montana Legislature, we worked hard to ensure the passage of SB 212, which requires FWP to adopt a management plan before bison are translocated anywhere in the state of Montana. MSGA members also passed policy in 2011 declaring that MSGA opposes bison relocation, but should the state decide to proceed with a relocation proposal, it should adequately reflect the intent of SB 212. It is unfortunate that this deal was done without the opportunity for more local input and due process. We have requested a draft of the agreement signed from the state of Montana to review on behalf of the ranching community, especially to ensure that all elements of SB 212 were addressed and disease monitoring protocol are followed."
State Representative Wayne Stahl (R - HD35), Saco, MT is calling for Schweitzer's impeachment, accusing the governor and other officials of intentionally and knowingly breaking Montana law. In order for that to happen, the Legislature would have to call a special session, requiring a majority vote to put the governor on trial by the 67 members of the House.
"He is really not caring whether he breaks the law or not," claims Stahl. He points out that Schweitzer, in a nonchalant manner, intentionally ignored the law which he had signed into being law. He asks, "What's next?"
Toby Bridges, LOBO WATCH
Wow, talk about not having all the facts and being one-sided. The talks and discussion in regards to the buffalo had been in the works for 8 or 9 years I believe and he reports it as if it just all of a sudden occurred and happened. The agreement between the State and the Tribe had to be approved by either side and final approval had to go through the Department of the Interior which is head of B.I.A. and all the Tribes. According to reports the vote was unanimous for the agreement because it placed all responsibility out of the States hands and solely on the hand of the Tribe itself. therefore ruling SB212 null because the State has no authority over the bison and are not the ones managing them.
The rest of this report is interesting though, I just don't agree with the first part.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on April 19, 2012, 11:21:06 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 20, 2012, 06:49:20 AM
Regardless of the number of years this has been in planning, if they didn't dot all of the Is and cross all of the Ts, they have a problem. According to the article, they didn't. No matter how good the idea is or how good some people think it is, if they didn't follow the letter of the law, they're assuming powers that aren't granted them by the people. That's an abuse of power and abuses of power should always be addressed. As we've seen on the Federal level in the present executive administration, allowing abuses of power is a message to the abuser: continue on, no one will oppose you. And, they will.
Post by: PlateauNDN on April 20, 2012, 12:01:50 PM
LOBO WATCH
Sportsmen Taking Charge of Predator Problems
Editorial News/Press Release
April 19, 2012Montana's Wildlife Agency and Governor Operate Outside Of the Law
Now, that's a pretty strong statement to be openly making about Governor Brian Schweitzer and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Perhaps, but that elected official and the state fish and wildlife agency he literally rules have just as openly ignored state legislation mandating procedures the agency must take, or how, under Schweitzer, MT FWP has totally violated the mission they are supposed to fulfill, as outlined by law in the Montana State Constitution.
The most recent violation of enacted state legislation involves the moving of Yellowstone bison onto the Ft. Peck Indian Reservation, in the northeastern corner of the state.
During the 62nd Legislature, in April of last year, a bill known as SB212 was signed into law. The purpose of that legislation was to establish "An Act Clarifying The Authority Of The Department Of Fish, Wildlife And Parks To Manage Wild Buffalo Or Bison". One of the very first requirements of that legislation clearly mandated MT FWP to submit a management plan before wild buffalo or bison were released or transplanted onto private or public land. It's Trust land, outside the jurisdiction of the State.
State Senator Greg Hinkle (R-SD 7), Thompson Falls, MT has stated, "We passed SB212 last session requiring FWP to have a Management Plan and an Environmental Impact Statement before any bison were transported in the state. They went ahead, over a weekend, and transported bison to Fort Peck without obeying the law. In my view, in direct defiance of the mandates from the legislature." They are not managing the bison, the Tribe itself is managing the Bison along with other Bison they already have on THEIR LAND, outside the jurisdiction of the State.
MT FWP covertly transported those bison from the Yellowstone area to the Ft. Peck Indian Reservation in late March. And that has not set well with the Montana legislators who drafted SB212, which passed into law with a 91 to 8 vote. The illegal moving of those buffalo has also upset those with the Montana Stockgrowers Association. Covertly? They announced they would be moving them ASAP at the public forum weeks before they actually moved them.
In a MSGA release on March 21, executive vice president Errol Rice stated, “MSGA is disappointed to learn of a deal being signed between Fort Peck and the state of Montana for the relocation of bison without any of the concerned parties having the opportunity to review the agreement before action was taken." They had many public forums for the communities to voice their concern or comments prior to the agreement even being signed.
Rice pointed out that bison management and bison relocation is a top priority for MSGA, adding "During the 2011 Montana Legislature, we worked hard to ensure the passage of SB 212, which requires FWP to adopt a management plan before bison are translocated anywhere in the state of Montana. MSGA members also passed policy in 2011 declaring that MSGA opposes bison relocation, but should the state decide to proceed with a relocation proposal, it should adequately reflect the intent of SB 212. It is unfortunate that this deal was done without the opportunity for more local input and due process. We have requested a draft of the agreement signed from the state of Montana to review on behalf of the ranching community, especially to ensure that all elements of SB 212 were addressed and disease monitoring protocol are followed."
State Representative Wayne Stahl (R - HD35), Saco, MT is calling for Schweitzer's impeachment, accusing the governor and other officials of intentionally and knowingly breaking Montana law. In order for that to happen, the Legislature would have to call a special session, requiring a majority vote to put the governor on trial by the 67 members of the House.
"He is really not caring whether he breaks the law or not," claims Stahl. He points out that Schweitzer, in a nonchalant manner, intentionally ignored the law which he had signed into being law. He asks, "What's next?"
Toby Bridges, LOBO WATCH
More one-sided reporting.
Post by: PlateauNDN on April 20, 2012, 12:09:38 PM
December 15, 2011
Hello to all of the enrolled members of the Fort Peck Tribes, I am Chairman Floyd G. Azure with an update on your government actions for this week. We got all of the paper work done so that we can move forward with our precapita payment of $225.00 for this year, so it is going to happen on schedule on the 13th of December.
My week at the office was cut short and I was only in the office for three days this week. I had to travel to Helena Montana starting Thursday morning because I had a meeting with Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks on Friday morning, so Thursday was a travel day. While I was at the meeting there were alot of people that were there to speak for and against the moving of the Yellowstone Bison to the Fort Peck and Fort Belknap Reservations.
There were more people for moving of the Bison to the reservations then against the move. I thought the meeting on the Bison was going to be first thing in the morning but it seems that most of the people that attended were more worried about what was going to happen with the elk hunting season because that took the entire morning. The issue with the bison only lasted about forty five minutes.
When it started the chairman asked for a motion for the action and a motion was made by our previous Chairman of the Fort Peck Tribes Rusty Stafne for the move. Rusty Stafne was appointed to the commission by Govenor Brian Schweitzer during Rusty's previous administration. The motion was seconded by Director Joe Mauier. When the Commissioner Chairman asked for discussion I asked him if it was alright if he allowed me to speak last so that I would be able to answer any questions. I was given permission to speak last which was a great advantage for me to do it this way. Most of the discussion was about how the Fort Belknap Tribe was not being responsible for their present herd of bison.
No one was there to speak directly against the Fort Peck Tribes but the feeling in the room was that these people that were speaking against the move were against it going to either tribe. I felt that they were saying that if they went to either of the tribes that there would be no control what so ever of the bison. When everyone was done I got to make my presentation and I told them how we have prepared for the bison, with all the work we had done to a range unit that was previously for cattle and how we had upgraded it so that it would be adequate for the bison herd. I also made my case for the bison with how much these animals had played a part in our survival, our religion, our culture, and our history. I also stated that we are willing to care for the bison by making sure that they will survive into the future for our children and our tribal members to utilize as our ancestors did.
I used Stoney Anketel's statement because I liked it and it is exactly how I feel "these majestic animals have sustained our people for thousands of years and it is time for us to pay them back." When I was done with my presentation I asked if there were any questions and the only question was who was responsible for damages it the bison got out and I stated that as long as I am Chairman we the Fort Peck Tribes are responsible for the bison. The commissioners had some more discussion on the way the agreement would be and that before it was implemented that they would have the chance to review the agreement and make sure it is what they want. The chairman then asked for the vote and it passed unanimously, so it looks like my trip was not in vain. We are going to get our bison soon, I have to thank Chairman Rusty Stafne for the part that he played in us getting this passed at the state level, he did a great job in helping this move forward. Thank you Rusty, and thanks to all the enrolled members for letting me represent you for this historic event.
Thank you from Chairman Floyd G. Azure.
March 26, 2012
Hello to all of the enrolled members of the Fort Peck Tribes, this is Floyd G. Azure Chairman of the Fort Peck Tribes, this has been a very exciting week for the Fort Peck Tribes as we have received a small herd of genetically pure Yellowstone Bison from the state of Montana. It has been a very long road in getting to where these Bison are finally on their original homeland where they had roamed for thousands of years and where our ancestors hunted them for those thousands of years. This has been a mission by Tribal Executive Board and our Fish and Game Department have been trying to accomplish with the State of Montana for over five years. This just didn't happen over night as the Senator John Brendan, Senator Rick Ripley and the opponents of this Bison transfer have stated. They have also made statements that our other bison herd that we have here at home have been basically doing what ever they want to do without any supervision from the Fort Peck Tribes. They have absolutely no facts to back this up, and I would like them to provide the evidence that this has been happening regularly as they have stated. They also don't have any facts to back up their accusations that these bison are the ones that have been transferring brucellosis to the cattle herds here in Montana. Where the cases of brucellosis have been recorded in the cattle herds there were no bison around them, and the cases that were resolved were reported to have been caused by elk. The only reason that they are not blaming the elk is because they make alot of money on them by allowing the rich out of state hunters to hunt these elk on their land.
They are also in fear that eventually these bison will be found in all the federal and state public lands and they won't be able to get the public land dirt cheap for their cattle like they are now. These negotiations to have these bison moved to our reservation has been a very long process in that we have had community hearing, numerous meetings with Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks officials, and hearings in Helena. The last hearing I went to was in Helena and in that hearing we were to have an MOU between the Fort Peck Tribes and the State of Montana that would protect everyone during the duration of the MOU. We had alot of meetings and conference calls between Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, the Governor, and our attorneys until both parties were satisfied with our agreement. So on the 16th of March we finally agreed to the MOU and I signed it and sent it off to the Governor to sign. The Governor and I both knew that in order for this transfer to take place we had a very narrow window in which to transport these bison. The reason being is that these bison are about to have their calves, and if we moved them any later we might have caused them to abort their calves. If we waited until after they had their calves there would have been a chance that some of these calves would have died of stress in transportation.
I also have to comment on Senator Brendan's comment that he made when he was being interviewed on the radio talk show 'Voices of Montana,' in which he insinuates that if any of our bison get out of their range unit that they will not get very far. I take that as a threat aimed at the Fort Peck Tribes, he is suppose to be a person of high integrity and be a person that represents the state of Montana. I don't think that we as citizens of the state of Montana definitely do not need people like this that are making very important decisions for us in our state legislature. Representatives like that are the ones that cause a divide in the people of Montana, and when the people are divided and not working together we get nothing done. Working together is what creates great nations and societies, that is how this nation was formed and how it will stay a great nation.
April 9, 2012
Hello to all of the enrolled members of the Fort Peck Tribes, I am Chairman Floyd G. Azure with an update of the recent happenings with your tribal government. This past week has been a very exceptional week in that we had another meeting the Governor of the state of Montana Brian
Schweitzer. We had this meeting with personnel from the Department of Interior where we had an outing up at the new range unit that contained the newly acquired Yellowstone Bison. When we got to the range unit there were about seven protestors and only one of them had land on our reservation her name is Linda Prescott. The first thing that we did was take the personnel from the D.O.I. over to the pen enclosure of the Yellowstone Bison and showed them that we are serious about keeping these bison on our reservation and that we are very capable of taking care of these bison. Then when we were finished with that the Governor decided that we should go over and see the bison protesters. When we first arrived at the bison range there were about seven protestors at the site, the one we first encountered was Linda Prescott whose family has owned the tract of land that is right next to corrals that we have the Yellowstone Bison in.
The Governor and her were discussing her concerns over the transporting of these bison to our reservation and that she was very concerned about
them getting out of the containment area. That is when I interrupted and asked her " how long have you owned this land that is here?" She stated that it has been in her family for years and that is when I had asked her " How long have you been farming this land?" She stated that they have been farming it since they had owned it. That is when I asked her if there has ever been a bison in her wheat field?" She said no! I told that in that case she doesn't have an argument to that fact because this field has been thirty yards from our business buffalo herd since it was established and that she had just stated that there was never a bison in her field. She said that she had heard that they were out from Senator John Brenden from Scobey. That is when I said that he was a liar and that I don't go on hearsay and that she has to produce the facts for her accusations that the bison have never been out destroying her property. The discussion continued with the Governor explaining to them about brucellosis and how it is transmitted between the animals and that there has not been a reported case of Bison transferring brucellosis to cattle but that it has been transferred from elk to cattle.
That is when Ric Holden insinuated that we did not know how to manage our bison, I was very offended by that statement because basically he felt that he could talk down to us right in the middle of our reservation own our land and right in front of me like I wasn't even there. I told him that I resented that statement and that he isn't even from around here and doesn't know what he is talking about. He stated that John Brenden had told him that. I told him that he (John Brenden) is the biggest liar they have got backing them and that this is just racism. He told me that he resented that statement and that he was a quarter Chippewa. I told that I was also a quarter Chippewa and that I was still able to call a spade a spade! This person is Ric Holden is from the Glendive area and I have dealt with him before when he was an Insurance
Adjustor for Farmers Group Insurance Company and at that time he adjusted for Squires Insurance in Wolf Point Montana. He treated the Native
Americans alot different then the Non Native Americans, and I had an incident with him and threw him out of my shop and told him never to cross my threshold again and to take his business with him. He was also a Republican Senator out of Glendive but I don't know how long he had served
on the Senate. When we were done there we took the Governor and the D.O.I. to the range unit that the bison were going to be kept in which is further south then the containment area. There we showed them the solar powered water wells, the new fenceing, and the newly aquired 320 acre tract of land which increases the range unit to over 5000 acres of land. In all it was a very good day with the bison the Governor, and the D.O.I.
These are excerpts from the Chairmans Report for the Tribe in Question.
Post by: bearpaw on April 21, 2012, 07:15:36 PM
I would think a lot of people would support bison being moved within MT if it was done legally and the bison were checked for disease since there is disease in the YNP bison herd. I don't claim to know all the issues on this topic, but it sounds like there may have been some violations of state law. I certainly thought this was an interesting topic.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 21, 2012, 07:37:04 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=94641.0
Post by: TWG2A on April 24, 2012, 04:49:51 PM
Here's an email sent to me from a Friend who was very involved in this issue. I'll find more, but this should give you an idea of what we've had to deal with here. Schweitzer and Salazar have done nothing but spit in our faces since this issue started. He acts as though he's our ruler, and not our representative. They guy should be wearing a cape and crown.
"Alan and I went to Fort Peck yesterday to Stand United with fellow Montana citizens. Our mission was to take advantage of an opportunity to seek answers from Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer and Secretary Salazar on the relocation of Yellowstone Bison here in Montana. We left at 4:30 AM and got back home at 3:30 this morning. It will take me some time to get a little rest and listen to the audio recording to give an in depth report, but felt it important to get a short summary to everyone now.
Secretary Salazar reportedly was on tour in North Dakota in the Oil Field and did not appear at the Bison Containment area. Governor Schweitzer and his fans/security arrived about 1:00PM. His group included a significant number of Fort Peck police, including Tribal Fish & Game officers. There was included in the group a representative from the Interior Department and the USFWS. However, none of these representatives spoke or would engage in the discussion. The Tribal Chairman of the local Reservation was in attendance as well. Representatives of the Governor in part included his lap dog Resource Advisor Mike Voleski who was very rude and confrontational with the people asking questions.
Land Owner Linda Prescott graciously hosted fellow patriots that made the trip and we all need to thank her for her courage and resolve, to stand up to the government for her rights. From the very beginning, the Tribal F&G officer on duty, was on defense, and made every attempt to deny us the right to gather at the site. He advised us we were not authorized to be on Tribal lands. We made a very distinct attempt to advise him that we were not on Tribal lands, but rather we were on Private fee title lands. Our host advised him that we were on her property, but he was not willing to listen to anyone. It became obvious very early, that he was taking orders from a higher LE authority. We eventually temporarily resolved this issue through the use of GPS mapping where we were able to show the boundary
(+ or – 3 ft ) between the Tribal Lands and the other Private Property is clear. (I will be downloading the GPS information that I recorded and will provide that to the landowner) Even after that, the friction and conflict over land ownership with Tribal authorities will be an ongoing point of contradiction. Representing the other private property interests, included the landowner, mentioned here and 7 other citizens from different parts of Montana. We also had a reporter from Glasgow Montana representing the local paper there. Our friend from the Northern News Network arrived a little late. It was learned that she was detained and interrogated by the Tribal authority who refused to allow her to drive the half mile to the containment area. The LE authority eventually gave her a ride.
The Governor walked to the containment area and we were not allowed to go along, so we are unaware of what was said during this bison viewing and discussion. The Governor did return to our staging area and did engage in discussion. Our landowner/host opened the discussion with some very pointed questions to the governor regarding accountability. A tremendous amount of her concern over who is accountable for the containment and is there a protection clause in the MOU to protect these other property owners from any negative impacts caused by the bison. Another Landowner specifically questioned the containment ability and brucellosis concerns. The Governor was asked to respond to the injunction, but quickly dodged the question even after several attempts to hold him accountable. Ultimately, in regards to the authority of the State of Montana, he placed all accountability for the translocation program to the director of Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. Then when asked again, the responsibility was shifted to the federal animal control agency under the Interior Department.
The Governor made several different attempts to pacify the citizens with reassurances that the MOU and plan was solid. In his many attempts, I can easily summarize his tactics here in 3 words: “Manipulate” “Distort” and “Control.” The Governor is a well oiled machine when it comes to passing the responsibility for his actions and he was practicing in full color here. Depending on the question, he easily alternated between identifying the bison as livestock and wildlife without missing a beat. The Governor made alternate claims that the bison are owned by the state of Montana and then quickly would relinquish all responsibility of the bison to the Tribal authorities.
It was clear that the Governor was angry with us challenging his legacy program. His parting look in the “Contempt” picture says it all.
Included are a couple of pictures that I took and will share more as I get a chance to identify those that are relevant or perhaps at least interesting. There were a few derogatory posters displayed, and for some reason I failed to take a picture of them before leaving. Attached are the two signs that we displayed at the staging area."
Post by: blackdog on April 24, 2012, 06:58:06 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 24, 2012, 07:09:38 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on April 25, 2012, 10:42:45 AM
There are supposed to be all sorts of environmental and economic impact studies, public comment sessions, medical work on the animals, etc. I got the run down from USFWS, NPS, and DFW with regards to the wolves and some of the reasons why they weren't reintroduced into WA and won't be. The process is quite spendy and budgets are tight. If the USFWS, NPS, or DFW were involved at all, there's a process that must be followed. The same would be true for pronghorns. According to each person I talked with, it was professional suicide to go outside the process.
Like anything else, State Laws don't apply and since we have the ability to govern ourselves we don't need the permission on our lands to make this type of decision. They were pre-existing animals and we re-introduced them on our lands. They are not Fed protected animals and we have the capabilities and rights to govern ourselves and set seasons to animals that are not protected. We've re-introduced animals prior (i.e. bighorn & buffalo and that hasn't been professional suicide) to the pronghorn and as long as we are within our rights to do so we will continue to introduce more, if needed to sustain the herd.
To my knowledge the studies had been conducted by WDFW and presented to the public but they didn't have the budget or something to do with finances to move forward so the table turned and we jumped at the opportunity to bring another animal back to our reservation. Only group that has any voice would be the US Fish and Wildlife and even at that it has to be on a govt. to govt. basis meeting to discuss options but, since we have our own management plans and systems in place it's ultimately our decision.
Let's change this around and change it to pronghorns and not buffalo and Yakama instead of Fort Peck. Now, if the same group made the same accusations and attempted everything it did and tried to stop them here they would've found themselves in court in a heartbeat for infringing our rights to self-governance and I guarantee our leaders would've been more than happy to take every penny they could get from that group for interfering with our rights as a Sovereign Nation.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 25, 2012, 11:36:08 AM
There are supposed to be all sorts of environmental and economic impact studies, public comment sessions, medical work on the animals, etc. I got the run down from USFWS, NPS, and DFW with regards to the wolves and some of the reasons why they weren't reintroduced into WA and won't be. The process is quite spendy and budgets are tight. If the USFWS, NPS, or DFW were involved at all, there's a process that must be followed. The same would be true for pronghorns. According to each person I talked with, it was professional suicide to go outside the process.
Like anything else, State Laws don't apply and since we have the ability to govern ourselves we don't need the permission on our lands to make this type of decision. They were pre-existing animals and we re-introduced them on our lands. They are not Fed protected animals and we have the capabilities and rights to govern ourselves and set seasons to animals that are not protected. We've re-introduced animals prior (i.e. bighorn & buffalo and that hasn't been professional suicide) to the pronghorn and as long as we are within our rights to do so we will continue to introduce more, if needed to sustain the herd.
To my knowledge the studies had been conducted by WDFW and presented to the public but they didn't have the budget or something to do with finances to move forward so the table turned and we jumped at the opportunity to bring another animal back to our reservation. Only group that has any voice would be the US Fish and Wildlife and even at that it has to be on a govt. to govt. basis meeting to discuss options but, since we have our own management plans and systems in place it's ultimately our decision.
Let's change this around and change it to pronghorns and not buffalo and Yakama instead of Fort Peck. Now, if the same group made the same accusations and attempted everything it did and tried to stop them here they would've found themselves in court in a heartbeat for infringing our rights to self-governance and I guarantee our leaders would've been more than happy to take every penny they could get from that group for interfering with our rights as a Sovereign Nation.
If the animals are restricted to tribal lands, you could be right, but I'm not even sure of that. Let's assume you're right, for the purposes of discussion. However, if any of the animals, just one, moves into state, federal, or private land, then this becomes a public issue. I don't know about MT and the Bison and how they expect those big fellas to pay attention to signs and gates, but if they are off tribal property, then there's a problem without the state or the feds having done their due diligence.
I'm certainly not disputing the cultural significance of these animals to Native Americans. I probably have very little understanding of how much this means to your people. But, there are procedures and they must be followed if this will impact the general population. The question is whether or not the procedure has been followed. If it has, fine. If it hasn't, someone's butt will burn. You can bet on it.
Ranchers have already been hit hard in MT with huge predator issues. I can easily understand their trepidation toward something else coming down their road that could easily represent the last straw for their survival. Were I a rancher, I probably wouldn't take this sitting down, either.
Post by: TWG2A on April 25, 2012, 01:00:39 PM
The MAIN issue is being diluted here....
Post by: TWG2A on April 25, 2012, 01:31:24 PM
People don't understand how very aggressive these beautiful animals can be. Many you have seen or read about it, but you really don't get the accurate perspective until you've seen one up close. They truly are beautiful animals, but one that should be avoided in person.
This reminds me of a Friend I was talking with one day a few years ago about cheese. Being Italian, and one who loves the culinary arts, I Love "Buffalo Mozzerella" cheese. It's tasty, soft and fresh. My Friend turned to me and, with a straight face and big eyes, he exclaimed "How in the WORLD do they get close enough to those buffalo to actuallyu milk one?!?!?!"
LOL!
"Buffalo Cheese" is made from Water Buffalo. Completely different than a Bison.
Post by: PlateauNDN on April 25, 2012, 03:01:40 PM
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?
Post by: PlateauNDN on April 25, 2012, 04:42:28 PM
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.
Post by: TWG2A on April 25, 2012, 05:39:44 PM
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.
Post by: TWG2A on April 25, 2012, 06:07:52 PM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on April 25, 2012, 07:16:03 PM
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? :dunno: 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.
Post by: PlateauNDN on April 26, 2012, 09:09:26 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 26, 2012, 09:17:09 AM
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.
Post by: TWG2A on April 26, 2012, 09:46:47 AM
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.
Post by: TWG2A on April 26, 2012, 09:51:43 AM
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?
Post by: bearpaw on April 26, 2012, 10:22:14 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 26, 2012, 10:31:30 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 30, 2012, 09:56:54 AM
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
Post by: TWG2A on April 30, 2012, 10:09:57 AM
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.
Post by: KopperBuck on August 28, 2012, 09:17:59 AM
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 (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.
Post by: tmtimestwo on August 28, 2012, 10:53:27 AM
Post by: KopperBuck on August 28, 2012, 11:29:49 AM
You hinted at the economic shock, but I don't think it's aimed at the real root. I don't see the issue as selling beefaloes to hippies, far from it. Do you really think these enviro groups that are pushing this agenda are concerned about ranching these animals and selling them for butcher/market??? HAHAHAHA. Good luck on that.
I'm all for the tribes securing their own herds, if managed correctly and verified disease free. But this deal feels just damn icky.