Editor's note: More than 200 Yellowstone National Park bison have been killed so far this winter. Why? Ostensibly to prevent the spread of brucellosis, a disease that can cause livestock to spontaneously abort fetuses. This past weekend the Buffalo Field Campaign, a group organized to oppose the killings, held a protest in West Yellowstone, Montana, to draw attention to the killings. Jim Macdonald attended the protest and files this story.
This Saturday, in West Yellowstone, Montana, members of Buffalo Field Campaign rallied outside of Yellowstone National Park's West Entrance to call attention to and protest the ongoing hazing and killing of Yellowstone bison by the National Park Service and Montana's Department of Livestock.
As part of a week of action, Buffalo Field Campaign rallied, marched, and performed street theater. As snowmobiles and snowcoaches entered and left the park, they were greeted by a puppet dressed as the grim reaper pinned with an identifying sign that simply said "Park Service."
In the past week, at least 127 bison have been shipped to slaughter by the Park Service, which captured the bison at the Stephens Creek facility near Yellowstone's North Entrance. Another 17 were to have been shipped to slaughter Saturday. The numbers of bison shipped to slaughter have surpassed the numbers (112) killed in Montana's bison hunt, which ended Saturday.
According to a Park Service press release, the bison herd had moved "toward or across the park boundary, where cattle graze on private land. Under the (Interagency Bison Management Plan]), the park works with other agencies to conserve a viable, wild bison population while cooperating to protect Montana’s brucellosis-free status."
However, the Buffalo Field Campaign claims that there "has never been a documented case of a wild, free-roaming buffalo infecting domestic cattle with brucellosis." Instead, the group argues that "public lands currently designated for livestock grazing should be reclassified to give priority to native wildlife species, including wild buffalo."
At the rally, there was some interaction with Yellowstone visitors and Buffalo Field Campaign volunteers. Some posed for pictures with Buffalo Field Campaign while some questioned what the rally was about. One man on a snowmobile inquired about the buffalo masks. He asked if the volunteers put them on whether he'd be permitted to shoot one of them. In retort, a volunteer quipped, "Do you work for the government?"
It's not clear how many Yellowstone visitors are aware that the National Park Service is engaged in hazing and slaughtering buffalo inside of Yellowstone.
As the bison hunt ends, Buffalo Field Campaign volunteers are beginning to transition into the next phase in the season, where the Montana Department of Livestock hazes and slaughters buffalo, usually west of the park at its Horse Butte facility. According to a volunteer, the Department of Livestock had not yet prepared the facility.
Bison numbers were estimated this past fall at 4,700. To date, this winter, 239-256 have been killed by hunts and by slaughter. The total killed already surpasses the 69 killed last winter and is on its way toward approaching the 2005-06 total of 1,016 and the 1996-97 total of 1,084, which still ranks as the highest number of bison killed during a single season.
Since 1985, more than 5,200 bison have been killed.
Comments
Randy O.,
You'll probably need to do more than brushing my arguments aside with ad hominem attacks to speak to what I wrote. It's easy enough to brush me aside, however many years I have spent actually caring about and learning about Yellowstone (and even living and working there seasonally over five summers in the 1990s). It's much harder to brush aside the force of argument.
When you and others can give arguments that actually justify the policy (besides that they've been working on it a long time, and the perennial favorite vacuous common sense claim - "compromise is needed" (you should probably work for Gov. Schweitzer), then we can have a discussion.
And, FYI, I do not support Obama in part because he doesn't really believe in the power and necessity of grassroots activism. If he did, I don't know how anyone like that would ever consider running for President. He can have the white horse. What we need is a serious discussion of the absurdities of policy. And, yes, they've been absurd for a long time, long before 1872, long before John Bozeman came riding into town and started an Indian war, one that in part has brought us to talking about Yellowstone bison. We cannot remake the world as it was in 1872 (why would we want to - the 19th century was no dreamworld), but we can begin to undo the rationale that uses 1872 as a reason for doing stupid things in 2008.
So, I'd urge you to speak to argument rather than about me and my circumstance. I can assure you I have a lot more skeletons in my closet than being an Eastern carpetbagger, and there's a lot more fun to be had at my expense. But, the beauty is that you and I can have serious discussion no matter who we are if we take the time to look seriously at the root of what we are saying.
Cheers,
Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World
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
Randy O. wrote "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..."
Will you describe your efforts, or, at least, can you share what you think would have to happen in order to obtain some sort of rational solution?
I've maintained, for years, that it will take some sharp legal minds(s) to get the IBMP back into court and substantially modified.
Jim, I support Buffalo Field Campaign in most of their efforts - except for one: because Yellowstone is bound by the IBMP, it is grossly unfair to paint the involved rangers and others in the manner BFC has done. Those men and women do NOT like what they're doing, I assure you. The subject of the photograph at the top of this page is despicable.
--
Mack P. Bray
My opinions are my own
[email protected]
http://wildlifewatchers.jottit.com/
Mack,
At what point do we hold people culpable who do what they do even though they hate it? Isn't it a horribly cynical world where we will have to depend on lawyers to make things right? And, then, will it? What's really changed? I think all it does is change the playing field, but it's still the same game.
Randy O.,
When I said that the "need for compromise" is vacuous what I was getting at is that it doesn't really say anything about the situation at hand. If you are a serial rapist, and I am the person you wish to rape, is there any way to compromise in that situation? Not from my point of view. If you are a person lacking civil rights, and a society says you must get that civil rights inch by inch compromise by compromise, is there really room for compromise if you are wrongly being treated as less than equal? On the other hand, if you want to go to the lake today, but I'd rather go to the movies, we probably can work something out. The point is that the call for compromise on the bison situation says nothing to the principles involved, whether something is right, or whether compromise really is an option.
Secondly, on bison, no doubt it's not enough to stop managing buffalo while people keep on with the pretenses that they can manage everything else. I agree with you entirely on that. And, yet, that's exactly the human vanity that must be resisted. And, maybe you find yourself on the bright side of the world's management decisions, but others - whether they be bison, those suffering on homeless benches, dying of AIDS in Africa, dying in wars overseas, people of color, people with different sexual orientations, different genders, they are not necessarily doing so well in a world where everything is controlled and managed arbitrarily. And, as a lover of compromise, someone who wants to work with other people, it should be frustrating for you that the world has these unnecessary barriers that actually keep people from working together.
Thanks for your concern for me getting by in Bozeman. I have had little trouble making friends here. I have no interest in telling people how they should live their lives, but being an anarchist, I'm not a relativist or a libertarian. There are some behavior that none of us should tolerate, not because it's the rule of law, but because it's the rule of reason. One of those things is the purposeless slaughter of Yellowstone bison no matter who is doing it. There are many things - in fact most things - where reason doesn't give us a guide one way or the other. One reason people aren't living as freely as they ought to be is because we have made too many compromises to those would enforce their will (call it the rule of law if you will) over others. It's hard to find actual compromise in a world so divided when it should be relatively easy. However, since we often decide to enforce intolerable boundaries, we make actual compromise and plurality and self expression impossible.
I have no doubt that most people in the world aren't looking to break down all the hierarchies (that is, anarchy) in the world, certainly not in Bozeman. That's hardly an excuse for me not to look for those here who are willing to stand together, work together, speak together, and take action. If most of the people are okay with the barriers that separate people, that still doesn't mean it's okay.
As for your dichotomy between dialogue and solutions, that's a false distinction. There is no solution that doesn't involve the process of discussion and interaction - the roaming around and within a topic and between people. If the solution actually is to get people on some sort of the same page, to reach consensus, that consensus is dialogue par excellence. And, dialogue and respect then is the solution. Those things that tend to break that down - those borders again - ruin dialogue and any solution to the problem. What's happening with bison in national parks - the inherent contradiction in the policy, the inherent contradiction that exists between the different groups feuding on the issue is irresolvable unless certain barriers are broken. That's a principle that goes far beyond the buffalo. And, you're right, it cannot be broken down simply by telling people it needs to be this way; in the case of the bison, it's broken down in part by making it happen, by forcing a change in behavior - i.e., direct action. But, ultimately, it's only broken down by a sincere commitment to dialogue and all that dialogue actually entails. That really is the solution, but without context, dialogue is no doubt just as vacuous as compromise.
I'm under no delusions of having a commonplace point of view. However, your point of view ultimately is self contradictory, and I cannot go down that route.
If we met in person, we no doubt would like each other. Trust me; this is not how I talk. I'm quite sincere and waxing a bit poetic - because it's my own perverse sense of humor - but I fit in here a lot better than you think. That's not to say that I agree with you or that what I have said isn't sincere, but it has a whiff of a bison chip to it. But, that's part of the point - we should allow that kind of world. And, we have to recognize that even the most open, pluralistic society is built on certain principles of which there cannot rationally be compromise - since compromise depends first on them being true. I honestly believe that the plight of our friends, the buffalo, are indicative of all of that.
the vulgar talker.
Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World
Sorry for the delay Jim in responding to your well versed response to my comments, my head was spinning for several days. I just have to revisit my original thoughts about the beef industry being responsible and the park service being caught in the middle of it all. I'd like to ask you a few questions. In your opinion why did the park service begin killing bison? Why exactly in your opinion, did they decide this was to be their new mandate? What reason did they give for changing their management practice concerning shipping bison to harvest. I can't help but wonder why it's up to the park service to stop their practices but you say it's ok for the USDA to not change theirs just because their principles have been set in stone for decades, and therefore are resistant to pressure from outside sources pushing for change. I'm a bit confused. You let the USDA and Livestock Dept. off the hook when they are the ones I think putting pressure on the park to keep beef brucelosis free. I admit you lost me in your poetic, epic responses, but after all the words the basic questions remain. Who started it? Did the park service suddenly start worrying that wandering bison were going to taint the beef herds? Did they make the first move? Or did someone somewhere else start making noise about their beef herds being tainted by sick bison. Ok so I'm being slightly sarcastic and simple here but I think you get my drift. It all had to start somewhere and I doubt it STARTED in the back offices of YNP or NPS. So the source of the beginning of it all is responsible. Period. I think I can remember back when this all started and the first thing I saw were articles in the paper about the beef industry complaining about sick bison, and "what is the park service going to do to keep their wildlife away from our beef so we won't lose millions of dollars worth of livestock..." No that's not a direct quote, more like a summary in my own words of the general theme of all those articles. Why can't we just hold responsible parties accountable...period? I have to admit, I looked at the BFC with humor when I saw them parked in front of tower falls many years ago, sitting with their posters and speeches and props. I wondered what they thought they would accomplish that day, and wondered if they were getting tired of people walking by them and not paying them any attention. What do they accomplish by holding court in the park they are attacking, trying to talk to a public that just wants to see an elk or moose or bear or waterfall? What do these transient tourists have to offer the BFC in terms of any power to change anything? This is why I think BFC will have greater success camping out in the halls of beefdom. I have to agree with some of our other responders who think it'll take legal wrangling with the likes of our retired judge to get anything done on this front. If what you say is true, and there is no way for change to occur on its own, then we need someone to step in and make the change, to make the "new law" in town. To tell the beef industry to find it's own answer for brucelosis, and tell the park service to close down the likes of the Stevens Facility and let bison be bison. Am I missing some thing? I'm sure you'll let me know if I am, and that's exactly why I love this site....
Jim MacDonald wrote: "At what point do we hold people culpable who do what they do even though they hate it? Isn't it a horribly cynical world where we will have to depend on lawyers to make things right? And, then, will it? What's really changed? I think all it does is change the playing field, but it's still the same game."
It seems to me, Jim, that we do not hold culpable the Yellowstone personnel in the field; rather we hold culpable their superiors that signed onto the IBMP.
Again, the subject of the photograph at the top of this page is despicable.
I don't think it's a "horribly cynical world where we will have to depend on lawyers to make things right." Our court system is not perfect, but it's among the best in the world. You can be cynical or you can be realistic or you can be realistically cynical.
--
Mack P. Bray
My opinions are my own
[email protected]
http://wildlifewatchers.jottit.com/
First of all, eric, you asked:
I assume you mean, why did the Park Service begin killing bison under the current management plan? The reason I have to clarify that is that bison were killed by the Park Service for awhile in the 20th century based on the size of the herds until the so called natural regulation policy at the end of the 1960s.
Since a settlement of a lawsuit involving Montana in the 1990s and the subsequent IBMP, the National Park Service has been a partner in the management plan for bison in the Greater Yellowstone region. The goal of the IBMP is the prevention of the spread of brucellosis from bison to cattle populations. As I understand it, the Montana Department of Livestock is the lead manager of the program.
This winter, I've personally witnessed the negligent hazing of buffalo by snow plows well inside the park boundaries - between Mammoth Hot Springs and Tower. I could not tell you the reason why the snow plows forced the bison off the roads. According to the National Park Service, bison were first captured and then sent to slaughter because they had either approached or had crossed the park boundary near private grazing allotments. All bison captured (now 290) were shipped to slaughter, including some calves originally intended for quarantine (who were shipped to slaughter because NPS had failed to get a permit for the quarantine facility).
But, why bison were shipped to slaughter from the capture facility inside the park is not at all clear. The bison were not tested for exposure to brucellosis (which itself is not a positive test for having brucellosis) - under management plans, testing is not required for the herd if it is over 3,000. It's not clear why bison were not re-released inside the park.
And, yet, even then, it's not clear why the National Park Service is a partner in the IBMP since it goes squarely against the mission of the National Park Service.
Application of the IBMP is arbitrary and hard to understand. Some winters, few bison are killed. Other winters, many are. Why this happens is not something I can opine about? I can opine, though, on the notion of the mandate. I suspect that when any regulatory body comes to an agreement, they believe it is their mandate because they are after all part of the executive branch of the United States government. Whether this actually constitutes a rational mandate - whether it ever did - is something I would strongly dispute. Bureaucracies often govern on the expediency of the moment rather than based on any consistency with principles of justice - or much less demanding than that - consistency with their own mission.
This winter they said nothing except that bison were either approaching or had moved across the park boundary near private allotments. Each winter, it's different.
No one should be let off the hook. The partners of the IBMP are the United States Forest Service (Gallatin National Forest) - USDA -, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service - USDA -, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Montana Department of Livestock, and the National Park Service (Yellowstone National Park) - DOI -. All of these agencies have been the target of protest. The question of protesting the National Park Service and singling it out in a specific protest is no doubt one arising from the greatest bewilderment since its membership in the partnership is the most obviously contradictory. In actuality, most of the direct protest - and what you'll see in coming months because of the Horse Butte facility - is action aimed against Montana, especially the Department of Livestock. During the hunting season, there would have been more directed at Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, who manages the bison "hunts" (the vast majority of bison get gunned down very close to the Yellowstone boundary). And, you see a lot of complaints directed at Gov. Schweitzer (and before him, Governor Martz and Governor Racicot).
Yet, if the National Park Service is going to be a partner in this, they are making it that much easier. If wildlife advocates are supposed to have one friend, it's supposed to be the Park Service. However, it has not happened that way. And, it's really not a surprise. Personally, I never would have bothered. All of these bureaucracies, whatever their competing interests, are still bound to the state or federal government. Their levers are only controlled by the most powerful forces in the country; and unless you have the money and connections to put your hands on one of those levers, nothing happens. It really is up to grassroots activists to hold all of these groups accountable and to pressure them to change policy.
As to taking on the beef industry, which was the actual gist of what you were suggesting, I think that's a fine idea. It doesn't make the NPS any less culpable, but it's an interesting strategic move. But, at that point, we aren't arguing whether the beef industry or the NPS is to blame; we are arguing about the best means to make change.
In my case, I found the action effective not because tourists had their eyes opened but because those who participated were able to connect, network, and begin planning anew. In fact, that's exactly what happened to me. I went down there not really knowing anyone; now some of us who met only on account of this action are planning and organizing.
But, strategically, the beef industry itself is an inviting target. If one takes away the incentive of the industry to control the levers of policy, then you take away one part of the problem. There are many ways to go after the industry. Do you go after those who are propping up the support of the industry? Do you go directly after the industry? Do you use a multi-pronged approach? These are all very interesting questions. I think all approaches can work toward the same ends, and criticizing the Park Service - one of the unwitting partners of the beef industry - is part of the process. For people local to Yellowstone National Park and Gallatin National Forest, it's probably easier to go after the governmental pillars of support and yet show solidarity with the many groups going directly after the industry. Can't that all be part of the same struggle?
***
Finally, Mack,
I know people aren't supposed to bring things up like this, but what is your opinion of the Nuremberg trials? There, the main defense for doing nothing in the face of gross injustice was that they were merely trying to survive and that their superiors were really to blame for all the crimes they carried out. The same has been said by soldiers who participated in the torture at Abu Ghraib. In each case, courts found even those who carried out crimes called for by their superiors to hold part of the blame. Do you think this was right? Is this analogous to criticizing Park Service personnel?
If Park Service personnel are not able to act against their superiors - surely, few signed up for bison hazing and killing duty and are no doubt revolted to be caught up in and associated with it - they should definitely have our sympathy. They are as much victims as everyone else and getting out is easier said than done. But, if there were a way out, if there were something they could be doing, should they be doing it? If there isn't a way out, one way that activists can help is by providing that way out - much as activists in the anti-war movement help soldiers who wish to be conscientious objectors or who otherwise want to escape the evils of war.
And, as for the photograph of the puppet, I take it you think it's despicable because it depicts the Park Service as an executioner. Unfortunately, when it comes to Yellowstone's buffalo, the despicable image is the truth - whoever is culpable - because whoever in the Park Service is to blame - wherever that buck stops - then it's they who personify the Park Service and it is they who are accurately if still despicably pictured in the photograph.
Cheers,
Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World
Jim, bringing up the Nuremberg trials and the torture at Abu Ghraib is *not* analogous to criticizing Park Service personnel. Why? Because, besides the fact that you're attempting to compare the murder and torture of humans to the killing of bison, the Nazi committed crimes against humanity and the torture at Abu Ghraib was illegal. What YNP personnel is doing is legal and authorized by the IBMP - this is tragic, but true.
I think your issue should be with the IBMP and not YNP or the personnel thereof.
I hate this situation as much as anybody; I've worked with BFC; I've been up Duck and Cougar Creeks and the Madison. I've insisted for years that we need a sharp legal mind or minds to get this thing back into court.
And no, I don't think the picture at the top of this page is despicable because it "depicts the Park Service as an executioner." And you claim "...the despicable image is the truth..." The image is NOT the truth; it doesn't convey the whole truth nor the whole story of this insane situation brought about by a totally political and absolutely unscientific agreement between Montana, Department of Interior, YNP, etc. In other words, it's a one-sided slur of YNP and it's rangers in the field and that's why I think it's despicable and unfair.
--
Mack P. Bray
My opinions are my own
[email protected]
http://wildlifewatchers.jottit.com/