Elk & Bison Mtg Agenda DOL

[katqanna]

Tomorrow is the Dol's Board of Livestock meeting in Helena, May 20th. Animal Health, presented by MT St. Vet. Dr. Marty Zaluski begins around 10:30. On the agenda is the DSA change (Designated Surveillance Area) which they created for the elk brucellosis issue. They did more capture tests this winter and found some in HD 311, so the DSA is expanding and with it their jurisdiction over our wildlife.

Also being discussed is the Bison EA, which DOL wants the YNP bison numbers managed to APHIS objectives of 3300. This was discussed at last Thursdays EQC meeting. FWP Dir. Hagener agreed with DOL on slaughtering over a 1000 bison to get the numbers down. They hope by doing this bison will forget they are migratory wildlife and not want to come into Montana anymore. Additionally, APHIS and DoL keep bringing up the elk, wanting to change the Interagency Bison Management Plan to the Interagency Brucellosis Management Plan to give them the same jurisdiction. How many elk will they want slaughtered?

Livestock board to take up bison issue by Brett French

Hence my Montana Puppet Theater

 

[bigskyblueman]

It won't surprise me to see the Legislature move to give complete statutory authority to the DOL over elk, as is the case with bison, and push FWP out altogether. The votes may be there to do it, given the rogues gallery currently residing in Helena.

 

[katqanna]

I think it will be made worse by Pat Flowers, our Region 3 Supervisor, retiring this summer. As Region 3, with the IBMP and other brucellosis activities centered down here, I am worried that they will get a brucellosis yes man in this key position. Pat has always stated Montana law and wildlife biology at meetings. I am very concerned about this position.

 

[bigskyblueman]

Agreed. Pat Flowers leaving does not bode well for we hunters here in Region 3.

 

[Jwill]

FWP will also soldier on in its development of a Montana bison management plan with a draft environmental impact statement possible by this fall and a decision by spring of 2015, Hagener told the EQC.

“We expect to get a tremendous amount of comments,” he said.

EQC chairman Sen. John Brenden, R-Scobey, said out of state comments should be ignored.

“They have no skin in the game,” he said.

Since we're talking about wildlife held in the public trust, living primarily on public land the comment at the end is pretty damn offensive to me.

 

[shoots-straight]

Since we're talking about wildlife held in the public trust, living primarily on public land the comment at the end is pretty damn offensive to me.

Mr. Jwill, meet Senator Brenden.

 

[Eric Albus]

Offensive or not, they do not have as much skin in the game. They do not live here 365 days a year, nor do they feel the impact of "re-introduction" of wolves(or bison/elk) on their livelihoods.
I personally do not feel that I should have the right to inject my opinion on someone from Wy/Ut/Id, ect, on how they manage their wildlife on public land.

 

[jryoung]

I've made three trips to Montana in the last 8 months and spent $1000's with FWP, and probably at least a $1000 more with local economies. Trip #4 comes in July and that tab is approaching a $1000 again.

I come to Montana to recreate and utilize their public lands, I am a user of the resource, why shouldn't my voice be heard?

 

[shoots-straight]

I've made three trips to Montana in the last 8 months and spent $1000's with FWP, and probably at least a $1000 more with local economies. Trip #4 comes in July and that tab is approaching a $1000 again.

I come to Montana to recreate and utilize their public lands, I am a user of the resource, why shouldn't my voice be heard?

Most of the public lands are just as much yours as they are mine, and Eric's. State lands are different.

You've earned the ear of the policy makers, just don't be to offended when the DOL won't listen. They don't listen to us the regular tax payer here. We have skin in the game, but there's no voice other than the ranchers that they listen too.

 

[katqanna]

Got back from the meeting. Short answer, DOL did not approve this bloody thing thankfully. DoL slipped in additional slaughter numbers to be reached before they would approve any expanded habitat, but there is a catch.

1. The public commented on a different EA. You cant take an already closed public process, change each alternative, tacking on population objective numbers and submit it. A new EA would need to be done, which one of their members, a rancher/attorney, John Scully, thankfully pointed out to them as part of his objections, otherwise, as he also pointed out, they could be sued for MEPA violation.

2. They dropped the Alternative B objective to 3000 or lower, but stated in the population section that "Removals through capture, slaughter, vaccination, and hunting will be managed as needed to maintain a minimum (think they have a typo here from copying YNP population information, should be max, per their conversation) overall seasonal population of 2500 within the boundaries of Yellowstone Park" Heres part of the catch. YNP's science states that with populations that low, they probably wont be exiting the Park, which is what APHIS and DOL want anyway, but if anyone thinks this would be advantageous to hunters, you more than likely wont have anything exiting the Park to hunt.

3. Their Lethal Removal section states, "When bison migrate outside any of the tolerance areas described above, removals may be made by agents of MDOL, MWFP (another typo, should be MFWP) or private hunters (?). When agents of MDOL or MWFP make a lethal removal, carcasses will be handled in accordance with 81-2-120 (2) MCA. The final decision for lethal removal will be made by the state veterinarian." This does not guarantee MT public hunters any access to hunt bison. In fact, in IBMP documents, they complained that MT hunters were not killing enough bison fast enough, so they brought in the Native American hunters to kill more, which was still not enough so the created the capture, ship to slaughter programs with the Native Americans to ship hundred to their processing facilities. The Native America bison meat groups hold 3 seats on the IBMP. And hunting in bison in MT is under DOL jurisdiction and again, the MT St. Vet's authority, not FWP's.

4. John Scully, the attorney/rancher board member also mentioned something about Bullock representing the MT position on the IBMP shortly. I need to look into this. Currently we have DOL executive Director, MT St. Vet as two seats with one FWP seat, which is our Region 3 Supervisor Pat Flowers. ONE sportsmens agency rep and no hunting organizations, but we have commercialized bison meat cooperative?. If this is correct what Scully stated and there will be one MT rep, I can guess it will not be FWP, but a DOL rep or state rep that will do APHIS/DOL Brucellosis Management Plan bidding, so again, the MT hunters will be screwed.

While MWF's Nick Gevock agreed with the altered EA, saying they support it, I dont think they really understand the pieces, nor the science that backs up YNP, not APHIS DOL. We dont need YNP bison slaughtered to barely surviving genetic numbers of 2500 just so MT doesnt have to deal with bison migrating back into Montana. This plan was not good for Montana or out of state hunters coming to hunt in Montana, and especially not for the bison as wildlife.

Editing audio file for upload.

Forgot to mention, concerning the elk and the DSA, they voted to expand the DSA, so they are drafting a statement which will then have a public comment period. The map will be available shortly.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Offensive or not, they do not have as much skin in the game. They do not live here 365 days a year

The rhetoric of those Montanans who are not realistic about funding for public lands, failing to realize that our large, relatively sparsely taxpayer populated state is essentially a "welfare state" critically dependent on those taxpayers from elsewhere. And how much of the Pitman-Robertson money do we as Montanans really contribute?

Think about it, fellow Montanan, and respectfully request that we get more of a voice in decisions about management of public lands and wildlife in Montana. Arrogantly demand it and they may lead the cash cow to other pastures. It's like one of those out-of-state guys "with no skin in the game" once responded to my Montana arrogance, "Why is it always your big mouth ... and my money?!"

 

[katqanna]

Think about it, fellow Montanan, and respectfully request that we get more of a voice in decisions about management of public lands and wildlife in Montana.

SA, I have to keep taking breaks from the editing, it just upsets me to hear this again, but I was just at the point that the Montana Farm Bureau was making comments and he brought up the elk brucellosis management lawsuit, pointing out that sportsmens groups were suing about brucellosis disease management, then went on to say, "Bison are a species in need of management because they emanate from a disease herd - these will not be wildlife - they will be species in need of management." Then he questioned if like the elk lawsuit, they would get sued over this.

Now some of the elk have brucellosis and they would very much like to include them as a species in need of management - removing their wildlife classification from them, as well as the FWP jurisdiction, not like that really means much these days with what is coming out of Helena, but just to give you an idea of what is coming down the line and how these ag/ranchers are speaking. Back to editing (procrastinating)

BOL member and rancher/attorney just stated, "Governor has already decided, as announced to this board, the IBMP is something he is going to control next time and I think thats very appropriate. So therefore the Board of Livestock and Fish, Wildlife & Parks wont have their independent say."

 

[bigskyblueman]

Sen. Brenden would like nothing better than alienating non- resident hunters and further defunding and crippling FWP . Non- resident hunters deserve a say in these issues as their dollars fund much of them. Brenden may come across as Boris Karloff in a cheap suit, but he is a purposeful, calculating, opponent of hunters to be reckoned with.

 

[brownbear932008]

Since we're talking about wildlife held in the public trust, living primarily on public land the comment at the end is pretty damn offensive to me.

It's simple as this right here JWill he don't give two s##ts about me or you simply because you or I cannot cast a ballot in the state so it's a politic thing. Even though we have all spent thousands each year in MT. on trips to hunt,fish, or sight see. Even though our dollars fund tons of the programs in one way or another it don't matter. We should be able to get tax breaks from donations right?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Offensive or not, they do not have as much skin in the game. They do not live here 365 days a year, nor do they feel the impact of "re-introduction" of wolves(or bison/elk) on their livelihoods.
I personally do not feel that I should have the right to inject my opinion on someone from Wy/Ut/Id, ect, on how they manage their wildlife on public land.

I hate form letters. I think they're a waste of everyone's time. If you care enough to write to a far away government, then you should take the 5 minutes necessary to draft a short message in your own words.

I also think that the voice of the resident should be louder than the voice of the NR when it comes to wildlife management. So, I appreciate your comment Eric.

I also look forward to this sentiment being expressed during the next legislature when MOGA, et al, stand up and claim to speak for the non-resident or having your help pushing back on giving the non-resident more opportunity to the detriment of the resident hunter.

Good on ya, Eric.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I hate form letters

Relevance to this thread?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Relevance to this thread?

That's a large part of the context that Brenden is referring too. When dealing with Bison, the comments are overwhelmingly form letters from people across the globe.

Whether Montanans like it or not, bison are a multi-national concern. Montana's tourism economy is tied to the perception of bison management. That means that people in many different countries want to have a voice in how bison are managed by the state.

For some reason, Germans are particularly fond of the American Bison.

 

[shoots-straight]

I hate form letters. I think they're a waste of everyone's time. If you care enough to write to a far away government, then you should take the 5 minutes necessary to draft a short message in your own words.

I also think that the voice of the resident should be louder than the voice of the NR when it comes to wildlife management. So, I appreciate your comment Eric.

I also look forward to this sentiment being expressed during the next legislature when MOGA, et al, stand up and claim to speak for the non-resident or having your help pushing back on giving the non-resident more opportunity to the detriment of the resident hunter.

Good on ya, Eric.

Touche' that one had to hurt. Oh the hypocrisy of it all.:hump:

 

[Topgun 30-06]

^^^Yeppers from a NR!!!

 

[katqanna]

Audio and time stamps from yesterdays BOL meeting.

I think it is significant that John Scully, with his legal background, would state that not only is the fact that a lawsuit has been filed concerning the elk brucellosis management plan in regards to a MEPA applicable in this case, but that this Bison EA has been expanded or changed from its original purpose, therefore requires a MEPA.

This is indicative of the bigger brucellosis issue here - why is scientific wildlife management not being applied to our wild bison and elk by our wildlife agency?

I have been tracking the cattle infection cases (even though DOL will not supply my information requests). That 2007 Corriente case I brought up earlier, not only had aborted 2x in the DOL report, but the rancher sold her to a sale barn in Baker, MT, which then sold her to Iowa. I called the Iowa St. Veterinarian and thankfully he was the same vet when the 2007 infection occurred. A MT vet signed the Certificate of Veterinary Inspection before the brucellosis results came back and the cattle were shipped to Iowa, spreading the problem to another state.

WHY has FWP not researched any of this? If I can find this BS out, then all the agency authority, manpower and finances at FWP's disposal certainly could.

Before the Elk DSA and Bison EA portion of the animal health segment of the BOL meeting yesterday, they were discussing Adult Cattle brucellosis vaccination import requirements. This involved imports from Canada. They didnt want to hold things up with quarantines or require vaccinations, they felt that a simple brucellosis test would suffice. They dont want other states or countries to require more of us. In the explanation, Dr. Marty Zaluski our MT St. Vet explained that if we require them to adult vaccinate RB51 prior to shipping, it could cause abortions in any pregnant cows, that RB51 is highly unpredictable, that those abortions shedding bacteria could spread brucellosis to other cattle. Vaccine blooms do occur in cattle and domestic bison.

Not all brucellosis infections in MT and the GYA are from elk. Without an independent scientific assessment of this issue, our wildlife are not safe from the political overreaching of the ag/livestock industry.