Jim-

Your reply is much appreciated, and quite expected from one who espouses the beliefs that you've articulated in the past. You yourself have identified yourself indeed as an "anarchy activist", and I am not the only one who has commented upon the sensationalistic approach that you and others (perhaps most notably the BFC) have used in describing the plight of the bison. Call those ad hominem attacks if you will (very nice use of vocabulary by the way), however as you say, looking at the "root of what we're saying", that descriptor might not be true.

My argument with your commentary is perhaps most specifically based upon your position which you articulated on the 18th in this thread -

Your argument is simply specious to suggest that the wild bison are somehow to be carved out of a very complex regional ecosystem and left "unmanaged" at this point in time. Every aspect of our lives in our regional ecosystem is "managed" in one way or another. The rule of law of in civilized society is a form of "management"; I would suppose that with your "anarchy activism" background you probably don't accept that concept; if that be the case, you'll be eternally frustrated in this world. I'll readily admit my bias, I'm a retired federal judge (30 years), and though I lean to the progressive / liberal side of the current politcal spectrum, I do firmly believe in the rule of law as the glue that binds a society together. Is American society perfect - absolutely not; however, there are societies around the world that are in states of true anarchy - and it breeds savage, inhuman, lawless behavior that is nothing but reprehensible and an unmitigated disaster for those unfortunate souls living in the tumult.

Here's the crux of my critical commentary - If you frame your entire argument upon the premise that the bison cannot indeed be managed in any way, shape, or form, there could / will never be a solution to the issue.

I'm particulary intrigued by your assignment of the descriptor "vacuous" to my call for working toward solutions to the issue; btw in doing so you seem to have articulated an "ad hominem" attack yourself. My abridged dictionary defines "vacuous" as "without content; empty; expressing or characterized by lack of intelligence; inane; stupid". (By the way, I'm not a Schweitzer supporter, I truly find his commentary and behavior vacuous).

Jim, a call for working together to craft a solution is not "vacuous" - and for a guy that seems reasonably bright by your writings, you critically damage and cheapen your credibility by making such a charge. I'm well aware that there are those in the "anarchy movement" who find that anything short of the total destruction of our democracy and the rule of law is "unacceptable compromise", and if that be your position, so be it, though with that approach you'll never find an acceptable solution to the issue of the bison, much less live a purposeful, contented life. I would certainly hope that not be the case for your sake. You seem to be particularly contemptuous of the word "compromise" - I use the term quite honestly and hopefully, defined as such - "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands." Rational compromise is not an inappropriate or unobtainable objective.

Finally, my comments to you about life in Bozeman were sincerely proffered. The bulk of the fine residents of Bozeman, and of Montana and the region, are hard working folk who treasure their ability to live in this area. They are most often vehemently opposed to being told there is only way to do things, or only one solution to an issue, or in fact as you might be saying, there is no solution to an issue (back to your quote above). We don't really need a serious discussion about the absurdities of policy as you've called for, we need rational solutions. For the record, I find the current bison management policies antiquated and irrational, and am putting my time and resources toward finding some sort of rational solution (opps - there's that implication for compromise again). Bottom line - the overwhelming majority of us in Bozeman and the region are not looking for anarchy, we're looking for living the best life we can in this day and age, and the overwhelming majority of us want to live in optimal harmony with our environment. Those of us who are long time "westerners" view with great caution those who spout constant criticism of our way of life, even though admittedly that way of life might be grossly flawed in many ways. You don't have to be an "eastern carpetbagger" (your term); it's in fact entirely up to you.

I realize you'll probably find my comments to be a bucket of horsesh*t; that's fine, and you certainly have every right in our great nation to do so. I've been called every name in the book, had my life threatened by strip mining and ranching companies over the years - though I've never been called vacuous - that's a first, and has engendered quite a laugh among family and friends; a genuine thanks for the chuckle. I'm just finishing a book about my judicial experiences in Montana that's scheduled for publication early this summer, and I've sent an email to my editor suggesting we include your descriptor of my "vacuous commentary" - she thinks it's a great idea.

There seems to be a spark of intelligence and potential in you (per your writings) that is so often absent in the venimous, partison inhabitants of these online boards. Best of luck to you, and may you shift your energies toward finding solutions to issues at hand. There is good in the world out there.

Warmly,
Randy O., The Vacuous Judge