More Games From the USFWS at the Bison Range

[BigHornRam]

CSKT leaders: Feds removing most bison from refuge
By VINCE DEVLIN of the Missoulian



Two-thirds of the bison at the National Bison Range will be removed and placed in other national wildlife refuges around the country, Confederated Salish and Kootenai tribal authorities have been told.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced last week it was reducing staffing at the Moiese range from 17 full-time equivalent positions to 6.3.


Late last year, it abruptly canceled an annual funding agreement that allowed tribal employees to perform about half the jobs at the Bison Range.

In announcing the staffing changes, Dean Rundles, supervisor of national refuges in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming and Montana, told the tribes the herd would be reduced from its traditional population of 300-plus animals to “about 100,” according to Clayton Matt.

Matt, head of the CSKT Natural Resources Department, on Friday questioned the Fish and Wildlife Service's commitment to the Bison Range in light of the reductions.

“They've called it the crown jewel of their system and said it's got to be protected,” Matt said during a meeting with the Missoulian's editorial board. “Then with the flip of a switch they do this with no public input, and blame it all on budget constraints.”

The timing, he said, “seems awful suspect.” And he wondered how taking responsibility for the Swan River and Lost Trail national wildlife refuges away from the Bison Range Complex and transferring them to the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, located farther away in Great Falls, made sense.

“They're telling us they're going to reduce the bison to 100, and have a drop-box instead of a visitors center,” Matt said. “Is this the kind of place the public wants it to be? Is this the crown jewel of the national wildlife refuge system?”

Rundles said the reductions, not an option when the annual funding agreement was in place, would bring the Bison Range in line with the budget realities all other refuges have been dealing with in recent years.

Transferring some of the Bison Range animals - said to have the best genetic quality of any in the country - to other refuges would improve the quality of all the public's herd, he added.

But at the time, he declined to speculate how much the herd would be reduced.

The tribes were attempting to negotiate with the FWS to re-establish an annual funding agreement that would put tribal employees back to work on the range when the cuts were announced.

The old agreement was canceled - by the FWS, without warning - on Dec. 29. The Department of Interior, which oversees the FWS, quickly overturned that action.

At the time, an Interior spokesperson said tribal workers could be back as quickly as the end of January, but more than two months later no agreement was in place when the Service made the decision to severely reduce the Bison Range's staffing and herd.

FWS employees have alleged that the tribes did unacceptable work and created a hostile work environment for them while the annual funding agreement was in place. The tribes have charged FWS personnel with sabotaging their work in an effort to protect federal jobs.

Matt also wondered why opponents of tribal involvement at the National Bison Range - most noticeably Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility - aren't raising a racket now that the Fish and Wildlife Service is moving to slash the staffing and herd.

“The justification they gave the public (for opposing tribal involvement) was ‘poor performance,' ” Matt said. “Yet you look at the decisions the Fish and Wildlife Service is making for the Bison Range now, and they are strangely silent.”

 

[Nemont]

Raid on the National Bison Range

By Susan Campbell Reneau

406-251-5116 or [email protected]

Date of this Article: March 21, 2007

Those of us living in Montana think of the National Bison Range just north of Missoula as “ours” and “local.” It is anything but ours and local. It belongs to ALL Americans as one of America’s first national wildlife refuges.

The National Bison Range Complex was established in 1908 by Act of Congress and signed by President Theodore Roosevelt. It is one of the first 52 original refuges begun by this dynamic “conservation” president. It is the first ever purchased by act of Congress. The taxpayers of America and private donors paid the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) TWICE for the land at fair market value that became this national wildlife refuge; once in 1909 and again in 1971 for a total exceeding $3 million for about 18,900 acres. The 34 original wild bison were paid for after $10,000 was raised through private donation and given to a rancher in Kalispell who had purchased the bison from a CSKT rancher at fair market value.

The CSKT was then paid many times again throughout the years by sportsmen’s dollars when they bought federal duck stamps. Money from duck stamps was spent buying conservation easements that established Ninepipe and Pablo NWRs for waterfowl production areas at fair market value so, thanks to hunters, the CSKT were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars more. Hunters have the most to lose in this deal with the CSKT if it goes through.

The non-competitive contract with the CSKT takes “inherently federal” jobs and tasks away from trained scientists and professionals of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that have done the work there since 1908. These are jobs and tasks with specific qualifications and duties assigned to a particular title and people who apply for these jobs must have the education, training and experience to be hired for them. Most people who work at national refuges take lesser jobs than their experience and education level just to “get their foot in the door.” Most of the USFWS employees have been stationed at this national refuge complex for more than 20 years. Many are ranchers in the Mission Valley or spouses of ranchers. One of the longest and finest employees is a CSKT member who lost a chance at promotion because of the contract with the CSKT, government of the Flathead Indian Reservation.

When the CSKT government demanded control of the entire National Bison Range Complex in March of 2006 after poorly performing in their first contract for 2005, the USFWS said no and informed them they could negotiate for the same type of contract as 2005 but nothing more since the first contract went before Congress and the public for comment and debate, as required by law. The CSKT government refused to listen to the USFWS and went to Jim Cason and Lynn Scarlett of the U.S. Dept. of Interior (DOI), thus bypassing Congress and the public. The USFWS also told the CSKT that what they proposed broke many federal laws that protect national refuges from contractors that do a poor job or try to take away “inherently federal” jobs and tasks. Again, the CSKT bypassed the USFWS and negotiated with the DOI using their highly paid lobbyist, lawyer, and others in the CSKT leadership. The CSKT, you see, have at least $378 million in the bank and CSKT members that talk to me tell me the bank assets off shore total in the BILLIONS, with a “B.”

Added to all of this is the fact that DOI’s Jim Cason advertises in the current Federal Register, shopping book for contractors wishing to work for any federal agency, that he wants to see various Indian governments to receive similar contracts at 53 national parks, including Glacier, Redwood, Mt. Rainier, Olympic, Cape Cod Seashore, most of the national parks in Alaska, and Carlsbad Cavern . . . for starters. Additionally, Mr. Cason wants Indian governments to receive contracts like the one at the National Bison Range for at least 30 more national wildlife refuges beyond the National Bison Range Complex, including all the national wildlife refuges in Alaska, representing 75% of all the land that is in the National Wildlife Refuge System . . . for starters.

You see, the National Bison Range contract with the CSKT is the FIRST contract Mr. Cason and officials from the DOI want to apply to ALL national parks and national wildlife refuges. DOI picked the CSKT because they thought they would do the best job to showcase this program of turnover, but, unfortunately for the DOI, the CSKT has proven itself a poor contractor as evidenced by their evaluations in 2005 and 2006. Media have reported on just how badly the CSKT have done in their first two contracts. The complete 2006 evaluation of the CSKT is posted on the KPAX-T.V. website right now.

President George W. Bush nominated and Congress approved USFWS Director Dale Hall two years ago, and in December, Mr. Hall told the CSKT to permanently leave the National Bison Range and stop negotiating with the USFWS because of violent and verbal threats to USFWS employees and poor care of wild bison, as well as their overall poor work performance. The project leader of the National Bison Range Complex, Steve Kallin, was physically and verbally attacked as he tried to discuss mistreatment of wild bison by the CSKT.

The CSKT flew to Washington, D.C. and complained directly to Mr. Cason who, with Lynn Scarlett, overturned Mr. Hall’s termination and ordered the USFWS to begin negotiating with the CSKT for total take over of the National Bison Range in late December. Mr. Cason has never been Senate confirmed for his position, and he has been a DOI official for more than 20 years, working behind the scenes until I called his actions to light. He functions as number 3 in command at the Department of Interior.

The CSKT contract and negotiation process that bypasses a President Bush-appointed/Senate confirmed USFWS Director Hall breaks the following federal laws, according to sportsmen and conservation groups and the USFWS: 1966 National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, its 1976 amendment known as the Game Range Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Civil Service Commission, the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Montana) and Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan) have demanded investigations and a GAO audit. The DOI Inspector General continues a formal investigation right now and an EEOC investigator concluded that the behavior and poor work ethics of the CSKT contractors was the worse he had ever seen in his 30 years of doing such investigations.

The jury is still out as to what will happen next but you can make a difference by speaking up.

 

[BigHornRam]

Susan is more than a little biased on this issue, Jeff.

USFWS claims that they are cutting jobs and moving bison off the range because of budget constraints. Yet they are moving them to other federal facilities that will require additional jobs at those places. Let's be honest. The USFWS isn't really looking to save money here, are they.

 

[Nemont]

I never said I agreed with either article posted. I was just pointing out that there are two sides to the story and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

What is your take on it? Why do you think the USFWS doesn't want to work with the CSKT? There appears to be more to the story then just what the tribes are saying.

Personally I don't think the tribe should run the National Bison Range. Tribes, historically, are a place federal funds go to be embezzled. I don't know the specifics of why the USFWS yanked the first contract but I can guess at them.

Just curious why you care?

Nemont

 

[shoots-straight]

I think they should take them and release em on Charlie Russell Wildlife Refuge.... then maybe someday they could be hunted.... It sure is good Buffalo habitat....... I believe that these Bison don't have Bruselosiss.

If that's true I love to here why we shouldn't have them roaming over there.

 

[BigHornRam]

Nemont,

It's pretty obvious that a lot of game playing is going on within the federal government......this issue it's just more transparent. Just putting it out there to see where the discussion goes. Here's an editorial from this mornings paper that is on the mark (other than the "Montana Treasure"/ "natural jewel" hyperbole).

Ugly feud now threatens Bison Range - Wednesday, April 25, 2007

SUMMARYon't sacrifice the National Bison Range in an unnecessary turf battle.

It's time for Montana's congressional delegation to wade into the fracas involving the National Bison Range near Moiese on the Flathead Indian Reservation. The future of this important western Montana wildlife refuge and tourist attraction is at stake amid a drawn-out dispute over the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes' desire to manage the range. Montanans' congressman and senators are uniquely positioned to intervene with hearings and, if necessary, legislation to resolve the dispute and save a Montana treasure.

Just recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced plans to truck away most of the bison from the century-old refuge first established to help save the species from extinction. Along with that move, the agency said it plans to dramatically reduce staffing at the Bison Range to levels that can't help but affect the public and diminish a refuge that provides some of the country's best wildlife viewing opportunities.

The agency's downsizing plans seemingly came out of nowhere. The public explanations of the reasoning behind the decision to diminish the Bison Range don't entirely make sense. Nothing exactly links these plans to the agency's clash with the tribes over management of the facility, but it doesn't look good.

The tribes petitioned to manage the Bison Range under a 1994 federal law encouraging tribal governments to assume management of certain federal programs on Indian reservations. That led to a shared management agreement - and, unfortunately, increasing conflict between a heel-dragging Fish and Wildlife Service and the tribes. The federal agency this winter abruptly terminated the shared management agreement, but the U.S. Department of Interior, which supposedly controls the Fish and Wildlife Service, immediately overruled the agency, calling for a new agreement.

Those of us who've been sitting on the sidelines aghast at the unnecessary conflict must be forgiven if we now view plans to gut the Bison Range as part of a burn-the-village-to-save-it strategy. That is, make it less desirable for the tribes to manage, even if it means making it less useful for wildlife and the public.

That could be an overly cynical view. To be honest, it's hard to make any sense of the proposal to degrade one of the nation's finest wildlife refuges. At the very least, it's safe to say the conflict over management of the Bison Range reduces the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service and tribes to work together to effectively defend the refuge from ill-advised retrenchment. The sometimes vitriolic conflict also has pushed many western Montanans to the sidelines, neutralizing what could be a powerful voice of reason. This hasn't been a fight most people want to join. We suspect most Montanans and visitors to the state couldn't care less who manages the Bison Range, so long as it's well-managed.

It's safe to say that it won't be managed well if the Fish and Wildlife Service carries out its new plans - at least it won't meet the public's expectations.

It's time to resolve the conflict at the Bison Range and rally in defense of this natural jewel. It just can't be all that hard to come up with a workable management agreement in which the tribes play a legitimate role. Montana's Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester and Rep. Denny Rehberg need to call a meeting. They have the power to bring all the players to the table and get some clear answers. And if they can't coax the Fish and Wildlife Service to respect Montana's significant interest in the Bison Range, they can introduce legislation that will.

 

[Nemont]

I think they should take them and release em on Charlie Russell Wildlife Refuge.... then maybe someday they could be hunted.... It sure is good Buffalo habitat....... I believe that these Bison don't have Bruselosiss.

If that's true I love to here why we shouldn't have them roaming over there.

I can't even imagine the battle that would start. I don't think that is going to happen any time soon. Reason too many cattle grazing the surrounding BLM lands and the elk hunters would lose ther minds if such a move was suggested.

Nemont

 

[shoots-straight]

I can't even imagine the battle that would start. I don't think that is going to happen any time soon. Reason too many cattle grazing the surrounding BLM lands and the elk hunters would lose ther minds if such a move was suggested.

I know the obvious reason that ranchers would oppose such idea, compition for the available browse,(although I could argue we could raise 10 Bison over there were it takes 1 beef). But do tell, and enlighten me why elk hunters would be against such a plan? One study suggested that the Bison were the one that changed his diet to accomadate compition with elk in Yellowstone during the 1966 to 1980 trippling of the elk population.

I know I'm not the first to come up with this idea.

 

[BigHornRam]

"(although I could argue we could raise 10 Bison over there were it takes 1 beef)."

Of all your dumb comments Shoot's Straight, that one is the dumbest! I want documentation to back that crap up, please.

Are cattle ranchers able to graze the CMRNWR?

 

[Nemont]

Have you met the average elk hunter that hunts the Breaks? They are opposed to everything whether it makes sense or not. Why don't you go on Bowsite.com and just drop a post in saying you think NBR bison should be transplanted to the CMR. I am not saying they have a legitmate gripe just saying they will oppose it because it is change.

I don't oppose such a move. There is going come a time when cattle grazing is either ended or at least severely curtailed on the CMR itself. The challenge will be with the surrounding deeded and BLM lands. Bison generally don't pay much attention to fences.

Nemont

 

[shoots-straight]

Of all your dumb comments Shoot's Straight, that one is the dumbest! I want documentation to back that crap up, please.

I forgot your not only are an expert on Forestry, mining, biology,ect, ect, ect, your also a expert on Ranching and range management... Ask Nemont, he's the closest thing we have here, by the way Kull, Bison are indigenous to
Montana, Beef arent', you don't have to put up hay for Bison unless their captive to a small range, they feed themselves... The native grassess and seges are enough for them.



HIstory • Present Trends • Raising Bison • Bison Products • FAQ






Raising Bison



The following questions and answers may be of interest, if you have ever considered making bison a part of your farm or ranch business. More detailed production information is available through the Canadian Bison Association.

What are the advantages of raising bison?

BISON VS GRAIN FARMING - Nearly all the nutritional needs of bison can be met through grazing perennial grasses that are readily grown in the agricultural regions of Canada. As a result, raising bison involves considerably lower input costs than growing annual grain, oil seed and pulse crops. Managing grazing for bison of course requires grassland, a water source and good fences, but it doesn't’t require the expensive machinery and energy gobbling operations like seeding, summer fallowing, and combining. While supplemental hay and grain are often fed to bison in winter, the bulk of their annual diet comes from grasses that grow naturally on the prairies. In addition to preserving huge tracts of native prairie, Canada’s bison producers have returned hundreds of thousands of acres of formerly cultivated land to permanent forage cover. This is good news for the prairie ecology: soil erosion is checked; fossil fuel consumption formerly required to operate crop production machinery is virtually eliminated, and habitat for wildlife and natural plants is increased.



BISON VS OTHER MEAT SPECIES - Bison are naturally hardy, requiring less intensive management than other domestic meat animals such as cattle. By virtue of their evolution on the plains of North America, bison are well adapted to the extremes of weather and forage quality that nature produces on the Canadian prairies. Bison readily tolerate the extremes of winter. Their thick hair coat and ability to slow their metabolism during winter, enables bison to thrive on a much less energy-rich diet than cattle require. Bison are also well adapted to obtaining their daily water requirements from snow, whereas cattle generally require liquid water in their winter diet. Obviously, bison don’t need to be kept in the barn for the winter. Because of events like prairie fires and droughts, nature didn't’t always provide an abundance of the choicest grasses for bison to eat. Bison adapted to this challenge by developing a slower digestive system than domestic cattle. The grass a bison eats stays in its system longer than it does in cattle, enabling the bison to capture optimal nutritional benefit from the forage it eats. In effect, bison are thriftier than domestic cattle and are less expensive to maintain through winter.
Bison evolved to become one of the most successful mammal species in North America without the benefit of veterinary care. Today, bison producers continue to benefit from the bison cow’s natural ability to calve without human assistance. The bison cow’s instinct to protect her calf and the calves of her herd mates eliminates most worries a producer might have about predators or rustlers.

SUSTAINABILITY – Raising bison is a highly sustainable form of agricultural production because: a) It requires fewer inputs than nearly any other form of agriculture and leaves a minimal footprint on the natural environment; and, b) The nutritional benefits of bison have resulted in a growing consumer demand for bison meat at prices which ensure the economic viability of bison farms and ranches.

How similar are bison to cattle?

Like cattle, bison are grazing ruminants with split hooves. Both bison and cattle have multiple stomachs and chew their cud. Both male and female bison have horns, while not all breeds of cattle grow horns. As with cattle, the bison cow typically raises one calf per year (twins are rare but possible). While beef or dairy cows often have their first calf at two years of age, bison cows typically don’t have a calf until they are three years old. The gestation (pregnancy) period is typically around nine months for both bison and cattle. Bison calves are naturally weaned by their mothers around a month prior to the arrival of a new calf. Calving and breeding seasons for bison closely follow the patterns in nature, with calves arriving in May and June and the breeding season running from shortly after the start of calving through August. Males of both species are capable of impregnating females between one and two years of age. However, in practice, bison bulls do not become dominant active breeders in the herd until they are at least four years old. Calving and breeding seasons for dairy and beef cattle can potentially occur at almost any time of year. Bison have retained their natural instincts to a greater degree than domestic cattle and require some specialized handling techniques. Of course the two species differ greatly in appearance, the bison has a distinctive hump and impressive shaggy hair coat over the front quarters and head. The tails of bison are less than half the length of the tails on cattle.

Are bison dangerous?

Bison can be dangerous to humans; especially for people unfamiliar with bison behavior. Bison have stronger natural instincts than cattle and their “wild” nature requires specialized handling methods and skills to ensure the safety of the bison and their handlers. By taking the interest and time to learn about bison behavior and proper handling techniques and by constructing safe bison handling facilities, raising bison can be as safe as raising domestic cattle. Canada’s bison producer associations (the CBA and its provincial affiliates) provide information such as codes of practice and advice to new producers as well as new techniques for safe handling that can benefit even the most experienced bison ranchers.

Are bison prone to escaping their pastures?

Bison can be safely contained by fences that are only modestly more substantial than typical beef cattle range fences. The solution for preventing escapes is simple – if the bison are comfortable, have adequate feed, water, and space and aren’t unduly disturbed they will stay inside their fences. An old saying in the industry goes, “You can chase a buffalo anywhere he wants to go and keep him anywhere he wants to stay.” Canada’s bison producer associations can provide prospective producers with information on constructing effective bison fences.









About Bison l The CBA l News & Events l Programs & Services l Classifieds l Resources l Members l National Bison Association l Links l Site Map
Privacy Statement l Site Credits


http://www.canadianbison.ca/producer/About_Bison/raising_bison.htm

Now shut your mouth and go play with yourself.

The real ratio, for Ramituphisass, for your exact pleasure is 9 bison to 6 beef and the six beef will die with out supplimental feeding, the bison will survive. so it could be 10 to 1

 

[BigHornRam]

Thanks for the infomercial on bison S. S.. Can you link to one on alpaca's for me next?

 

[shoots-straight]

Interdisciplinary Minor in Global Sustainability
Senior Seminar
University of California, Irvine June 1997


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bringing back the bison, bringing back an entire way of life

Issue Guide for the Minor in Global Sustainability Biological Conservation, Bio. 65, University of California Irvine

prepared by: Mari Ohara



Great Plains history


The Great Plains offer a familiar story of overexploitation and the emergence of the need to fix the damage. Today rural areas are showing the decline of traditional agriculture and extractive land uses that have left the area barren and unproductive. Restoration projects, in particular those involving the reintroduction of the bison, give an example of bringing the native ecosystem of an area back to life.


Grasslands once covered 40% of our nation, the bison once ranged over 48 of our states. Pre-settlement bison population estimates range from 30 to 70 million, after the extensive overexploitation of these animals their numbers dwindled to less than two dozen (Walters, 1996). The grasslands were a highly productive ecosystem even when the bison numbered in the millions because the two coevolved with each other adapting to conditions as well as each other. Today's cattle from the old world have replaced the bison's place in the plains degrading them while collecting the majority of the grains produced by American agriculture. Given the natural intact environment, bison thrive on their own without outside help. They are adapted to the harsh plains, "burned into the genes of bison is the speed and agility needed to outrun a prairie fire or track the greenup path of a summer thunderstorm. This is an animal shaped by millennia of natural selective pressures in the Great Plains environment," Fox and biologist Craig Knowles wrote (Defenders).


The Great Plains have suffered cycles of booms and busts since its early white settlement. The first began in 1862 with the Homestead Act. The Act gave pioneer families 160 acres of free federal land to be farmed for five years. This was the start of federally subsidized settlement that caused soil erosion and the lowering of the water table eventually leading to heavy depopulation. The next cycle began in the early 1900s with new homestead laws and larger free land incentives. This second cycle ended with the Great Depression, drought, the Dust Bowl, the abolition of homesteading, and was illustrated to us in John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath. The third cycle beginning in the 1940s reached its peak in the 1970s when the Department of Agriculture encouraged fence-post to fence-post cultivation. By the mid 1980s the bust phase set in and is still continuing (Popper, 1994).


The Buffalo Commons


The Buffalo Commons is a phrase that was coined by Deborah E. Popper and Frank J. Popper in 1987. It is essentially "an appeal for rethinking Plains possibilities" says Popper. Over the years the Buffalo Commons idea has evolved becoming a description of the long-range, open-ended series of landuse changes that are occurring on the plains (Popper, 1994). Central to the changes is the reintroduction of the bison and the replanting of shortgrass.


There have already been many examples of the Buffalo Commons land uses in practice. In 1990 the InterTribal Bison Cooperative was formed to foster bison reintroduction as an alternative to raising cattle on tribal lands (Defenders). The Cooperative has grown to 37 member tribes collectively owning 7,000 bison. Dubray, a Sioux and president of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative regards his reservation's herd of 500 as a key to restoring his people's culture, health, and pride (Nikiforuk, 1993).


Another successful illustration of the Buffalo Commons can be seen in Ted Turner's five ranches collectively home to some 7,500 bison. The first and largest of these is the Flying D in Montana with a herd of 3,500 free-running bison. His permanent conservation plan bars subdivision on the Flying D and limits agricultural grazing so that enough forage is left for wildlife.


Alternatives to buffalo


With many examples of successful Buffalo Commons areas, these days there are not many who are adamantly opposed to the idea. Since the notion of restoring the bison to the plains began, the biggest opposition has come from cattle ranchers who stand by cattle raising and do not want to see the bison return. These objections also hold in the Indian community among those tribal members who run cows (Defenders). But, with the continuing decline of the plains, and as more people move out of the area, the return of the bison has become much more accepted.

There are other alternative land uses that some great plains communities are introducing. Forerunners are casinos and landfills for the eastern and western states which offer quick economic development for many of these dying counties. Casinos could employ almost everyone in many of the small counties, attract people, and bring in tourists greatly lifting the economy. Landfill sites are becoming more and more in demand as the populations boom in states such as California and New York; they could possibly bring in more money and provide more jobs than the casinos. These are two industries that could boast at least the economies of these great plains areas.


Bison and the plains


There are many advantages to raising bison over cattle. Bison have a tremendous evolutionary advantage of being adapted to the harsh plains environment. On average it costs about half as much to raise a bison instead of a cow while bison meat can bring in almost twice the money. Bison can sustain themselves on an intact ecosystem without grain or medicinal supplements.
In the reintroduction of bison to areas of the Great Plains there also lies the restoration of an entire ecosystem. These animals need the whole ecosystem to be successful and also form a keystone species within it. Bringing back the bison entails the restoration of all the plains animals and plants which means a sustainable ecosystem. "The Buffalo Commons attempts to develop stable deep-rural plains land uses that respect the region's genius turning space, sky and the past into resources" (Popper, April 1994).


Resources:

The Buffalo Commons and its National Restoration Implications.

http://nabalu.flas.ufl.edu/ser/Rutgers/Buffalo.html


Manning, Richard. The Buffalo is Coming Back. Defenders On Line.

http://www.defenders.org/magf-196.html


Nikiforuk, Andrew. 1993. Where the Buffalo Roam. Harrowsmith

Country Life, July/August 1993.


Popper, Deborah E. and Popper, Frank J. 1994. The Buffalo

Commons: A Bioregional Vision of the Great Plains. Landscape

Architecture, 1994, Apr, v84 n4: 144.


Popper, Deborah E. and Popper, Frank J. 1994. Great Plains: Checkered

Past, Hopeful Future. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy,

Winter 1994.


Walters, Mark Jerome. 1996. Can Bison Claim the Range? Animals,

May-June 1996.

Back to Senior Seminar

http://www.dbc.uci.edu/~sustain/global/sensem/ohara97.htm

The bold part is for you to focus on with your condition I didn't know if you could find it. Now if it costs half as much to feed would it not be a ration of of raising buffs to cattle of 1:2 or 5 : 10, also stated cattle need supplimental feeding to survive.....

Thanks for the infomercial on bison S. S.. Can you link to one on alpaca's for me next?

Why did you run out of sheep? Maybe your trying somting new.

 

[BigHornRam]

S. S.,

My 45 year old brother with a PHD in enviromental studies and still lives at home with mom and dad, thinks the the buffalo commons is a great idea.

Never mind S. S., I found a link on alpaca's at alpacaspamcom

Alpaca's are cute and cuddly, and have very nice hair. Alpaca's are frisky and nice, and lot's of fun. Alpaca's are very afectionate and can be easily stump broke. Alpaca's are good for the enviroment. They poop very little and it isn't all nasty smelling like cow and pig poop is. They have dainty hooves that cause little errosion to the soil. Alpaca's do not emit green house gases like other animals do because they don't fart. Just think of all the carbon credits you could save by raising alpacas. Alpaca meat is tasty, but what kind of monster would even think of eating such an adorable creature.

Invest in alpacas NOW, while you can still get in on the ground floor of this amazing business opportunity!

 

[shoots-straight]

Alpaca's are cute and cuddly, and have very nice hair. Alpaca's are frisky and nice, and lot's of fun. Alpaca's are very afectionate and can be easily stump broke.

Oh boy, do your covents up there allow you to have Alpaca's,,, that would give you somthing to do while your wifes off at work, during the course of day.

 

[Nemont]

SS,
Do you believe in the Buffalo Commons goal? Do you believe in private property rights? Just curious.

Nemont

 

[BigHornRam]

S. S.,

Covenent's disallow only pigs and goats, so alpaca's are OK. After reading your exciting literature on Bison, I think I'll get a couple of those though. I'd like to start my own Western Montana Buffalo Commons. Neighbors will love that! Maybe the USFWS will give me a couple while they are liquidating the Bison Range?

But I could get a couple alpaca's for you, if you would like.

 

[shoots-straight]

Do you believe in the Buffalo Commons goal? Do you believe in private property rights?

Just thought it would be neat to have buffalo. Kind of Hypocritical to bring back only politically correct species. I believe in private property rights so far as they don't intrude upon my rights just as the constitution states... If you want a nucular waste dumped on your land and I live close by that would infringe on my right for a clean and healthfull envirnment. If you live close to public lands and wildlife infringe on your land you should have rights to protect your lands as long as they don't infringe on my rights to have wildlife on the public lands.... Just fence them out.... what is sad is we have a big game animal that was almost wiped out at the turn of the century and sportsman have never united to bring it back to range that could hold them. We have more of these animals on private Ranches than in the wild.....

 

[shoots-straight]

Neighbors will love that! Maybe the USFWS will give me a couple while they are liquidating the Bison Range?

I've considered the Bison Range Just a big Game farm it's fence all the way around no migration in or out for the wildlife, hence a zoo type situation. It's on the reservation, and was set up to propagate the Bison who's numbers where in serious trouble.... we need Bison restored to area's that they could populate without the roundup type of management each year...

If they don't carry Brucelosis, then lets get them out in area's of public lands and get on with it.

The Feds stated they'd put them in other lands that were under USFWS control, where would that be? Wouldn't they need to complete some EIS or other type of report/paperwork senerio?

Ramitupyrass, you bore me.

 

[BigHornRam]

"Just thought it would be neat to have buffalo. Kind of Hypocritical to bring back only politically correct species."

Looks like you got yourself a project, Shoots Like Jose. If you could get 1 million like minded Americans to kick in a modest $100 on average, you would have $100,000,000 to buy some Eastern Montana property, kick off the cattle, properly perimeter fence it, stock it with bison, and then deed it over to the state or feds. Good luck with it.