Coming to the Rocky Mountain Front near you...

[shoots-straight]

Ya, you don't mean like the North American Hereford ?

Can't wait to hunt them buggers.

 

[Eric Albus]

big-foot....bison were never referred to as "non-native"...only the Canadian/Timber Wolf.

so, if there is a place for bison yet on Montana's public lands, is there a place for T-Rex if we could revive him?....after all, once upon a time, T-Rex roamed here too.

Think of the problems of keeping a bison herd in check....and from damaging private property. Perhaps we ought to turn the first 500 loose in Helena on the Dept.'s lawn.

Bad enough to put up w/ "our" elk and the damage they do to "my" fences/crops.

 

[Big Foot]

As to Montana hunters being able to hunt. How many years would it take to establish a "wild bison" herd that was huntable and viable? Just look how well the last "re-introduction of a non-native species" has gone.

Sorry if this is misread on my part but the natural inference would be that this re-introduction of bison is being compared to the "non-native" wolves. Did I misread your statement and intent?

Property ownership and its associated rights should not rule over the effort to restore an animal which absolutely belongs on the Montana landscape.

Tell me this, I live in the Gallatin Valley and do not see the Flying D bison running all over the place. Why is the problem of keeping bison out of areas different than keeping them in?

Lastly, T-Rex is extinct, bison are not. Baseless argument in my opinion.

 

[Eric Albus]

intent was misread, after re-reading(if that is a word) I can see where you were coming from.

"Bison absolutely belong on the Montana landscape"......then let's put them in your backyard.

"Property ownership and it associated rights should not rule over effort to restore".....seriously?

What those of us who are about to have buffalo forced on them want to know is this, "who will be paying for the damage caused"? I see how quickly ranchers are compensated for livestock lost to wolves, or crops lost to elk damage, or fences destroyed from elk....... what about when a bison bull kills a bovine bull? or gets into someone's herd of registered angus cows? The bison on the "D" may stay in, but the bison on a ranch I know in the breaks did not, and the neighbors were told to shoot them on sight, and not attempt to handle them....on account of liability....you ever tried to round up or handle buffalo?
You may call it baseless, but T-Rex and bison both have something in common, neither one were here when our Great-Great Grandparents homesteaded...... Were bison in peril of extinction and my backyard the only place they could exist I would say bring them on, but they ain't.

 

[Big Foot]

To clarify, bison should be returned to the Montana landscape per the guidance of the state. This excludes my backyard and yours per the proposals I have read. These proposals have considerations for the impact posed to any adjacent private property. While there may be resentment that I write this opinion from the Bozeman area, I consider the public lands across the state (and country) as a shared public resource. Further, the wildlife contained on these lands to be defined by the majority not the minority. The metric of ~5 generations defining what wildlife exists in Montana is again baseless.

I am appreciative of the agricultural community for lots of reasons and recognize how wildlife benefits from the open space the ag community provides.

This statement is made in light of the fact that ag producers in the state, generally speaking, want to benefit from the wild private and public lands of the state while not considering the compromise needed to improve our wildlife landscape. Again: this is a generalization and does not include all Montana ag producers.

To answer your question about who pays the ag producer when things do not go your way, the general public pays, just like we normally do. Maybe not always timely but I do not always get paid for my work timely either, this is an unfortunate reality of doing business.

This issue when boiled down seems to be based on grass and who gets to benefit from it.

 

[Eric Albus]

Whilst we can agree on the basis that you & I share(and the rest of America) in BLM administered lands, one important thing is being overlooked by you and your crowd.... Permitees have a prior claim and first right to the surface use of said lands. If you think not just go to the local auction yard, buy a few cows and turn them loose on the first tract of BLM you find...you will be fined for trespassing....even though you own that land equally w/ the permitee, the permitee has a claim to the surface(grass).

As a producer who lives in the middle of "the buffalo commons" we do hold a lot of resentment toward those who would foist bison upon us. I do not know what you do for a living, but were someone attempting to destroy a way of life for you that were generations old, you would perhaps be a bit resentful as well.

 

[mtmiller]

Permitees have a prior claim and first right to the surface use of said lands.
As a producer who lives in the middle of "the buffalo commons" we do hold a lot of resentment toward those who would foist bison upon us.

Actually you live in the northern portion of a concept and I believe you meant permittees have a permit to harvest forage on public land with livestock. Not all forage is allocated to livestock.

 

[belly-deep]

I do not know what you do for a living, but were someone attempting to destroy a way of life for you that were generations old, you would perhaps be a bit resentful as well.

So you must understand how the Indians feel....

 

[katqanna]

Eric, wildlife are not a trespassing entity on our Public Lands like someone turning out cattle on another's grazing lease.

State V. C. R. Rathbone decision,

"Montana is one of the few areas in the nation where wild game abounds. It is regarded as one of the greatest of the state's natural resources, as well as the chief attraction for visitors. Wild game existed here long before the coming of man. One who acquires property in Montana does so with notice and knowledge of the presence of wild game and presumably is cognizant of its natural habits. Wild game does not possess the power to distinguish between fructus naturales and fructus industriales, and cannot like domestic animals be controlled through an owner. Accordingly a property owner in this state must recognize the fact that there may be some injury to property or inconvenience from wild game for which there is no recourse."

C.R. Rathbone was convicted for shooting an elk, out of season, for eating the grass at his ranch. This case is about wildlife on the landscape, naturally here in Montana, involving private land. Are you saying our wildlife do not have a right to consume grass on our Public Lands?

I recognize, that the wild bison are being treated differently than other wildlife here in Montana (much to my concern). Ag passed a law requiring some measure of containment. Conservation groups purchased grazing leases so that issue is not involved in the areas being discussed for bison restoration.

So if there are no grazing leases there or a conservation group already purchased the grazing leases - what exactly are you complaining about?

Now, to address your statement, "even though you own that land equally w/ the permitee, the permitee has a claim to the surface(grass)" - no, you do not, as a permittee, own that land.

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, Chapter 43, Section 315b states,

Grazing permits; fees; vested water rights; permits not to create right in land:
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to issue or cause to be issued permits to graze livestock on such grazing districts to such bona fide settlers, residents, and other stock owners as under his rules and regulations are entitled to participate in the use of the range, upon the payment annually of reasonable fees in each case to be fixed or determined from time to time in accordance with governing law... So far as consistent with the purposes and provisions of this subchapter, grazing privileges recognized and acknowledged shall be adequately safeguarded, but the creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a permit pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands.

This principle was rolled into the more modern Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

Title 1 Declaration of Policy and Definitions
Sec. 102 (8) the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use;...

Sec. 402 (PDF pg. 40) (h) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as modifying in any way law existing on the date of approval of this Act with respect to the creation of right, title, interest or estate in or to public lands or lands in National Forests by issuance of grazing permits and leases.

 

[1_pointer]

Are there still active grazing districts, as established by the Taylor Grazing Act, in the re-introduction areas? If so, that makes some of the gray area more gray. IIRC very few of them still are active/exist. If they do, the reason for them is that the area for which they were established were deemed to be chiefly valuable for livestock grazing. Not a deal breaker, but something that has to be considered when allocating forage IMO.

 

[Eric Albus]

kat, as citizen of the United States I do own that land, equally with the rest of the good folks of the USA. The Gov't is supposed to be working for us, however I see much evidence to the contrary most days. I also understand about the wildlife, but do not understand why someone would want to force bison us....

mtmiller, if you read what the APR wants, 3.1 million acres of land for their preserve, it puts me smack in the middle, the corridor they want extends from the Canandian Border to the Missouri River...putting me right in the middle....rumor has it that APR is looking at a ranch north of highway 2 right now....way north.

1pter, yes there are still grazing districts.

bellydeep.... yes, becoming more and more clear daily....perhaps the Gov't will start a reservation for disenfranchised ranchers one day.

 

[mtmiller]

mtmiller, if you read what the APR wants, 3.1 million acres of land for their preserve, it puts me smack in the middle, the corridor they want extends from the Canandian Border to the Missouri River...putting me right in the middle....rumor has it that APR is looking at a ranch north of highway 2 right now....way north.

Understood. Different than "Buffalo Commons".

https://www.facebook.com/americanpr...?comment_id=5435230&offset=0&total_comments=6

 

[katqanna]

kat, as citizen of the United States I do own that land, equally with the rest of the good folks of the USA.

Eric, I said as a permitee, not a citizen, to address the specifics of your statement, "even though you own that land equally w/ the permitee, the permitee has a claim to the surface(grass). " Permitees do not own the land. As a US citizen you share in ownership, but not as a permitee as you stated. Nor do you have first right of surface use over the wildlife there, such as water and forage.

As an irony, today I was speaking with FWP concerning a Marias River WMA (WMA as in WILDLIFE Management Area) situation of a nearby landowner, Wanken, who does not have a grazing lease on the WMA. There is no fence on the eastern portion that borders his land. FWP has tried to put up a fence using the prescriptive easement. The owner has claimed that FWP would be trespassing to do so, hence a lawsuit. Now this ranchers cattle and domestic bison have routinely trespassed on our Public Lands for years. Why would someone want to force their domestic livestock on our Public Lands without a proper grazing lease?

Is that not stealing from the Public? Where are the landowners who yell about good fences making good neighbors? Where are the landowners who yell about the possibility of wild bison breaking through fences and potentially trespassing and eating their grass?

There is another case of a woman who owns domestic bison south of the CMR (Charles M. Russell National WILDLIFE Refuge). These domestic bison routinely get out of her fences and end up on the CMR (ironically), according to the CMR and FWP. Again no grazing lease, again trespassing.

I agree, the government is supposed to be working for us. I would like to see the government working from us to keep trespassing livestock without legal grazing permits off our public lands.

 

[bigskyblueman]

Sharing forage on public land between wildlife and livestock is most of what this is about. Brucella and fences, as well. Difficult, but not impossible, so I haven't thrown the towel in, just yet.