No one has a problem with landowners choosing to allow bison to graze on their property.
The problem is when people say it is the landowners responsibility to allow bison to graze on their land.
Armed Threats on Bison?
- Thread starter katqanna
- Start date
- Status
No one has a problem with landowners choosing to allow bison to graze on their property.
The problem is when people say it is the landowners responsibility to allow bison to graze on their land.
Do you think bison should be able to graze on private property?
I'm all for introducing bison to our public lands.
What 10 year old questions are you referring to?
You are the one not acting like an adult saying I am asking 10 year old questions.
No one is backing you up in your stance that landowners have the responsibility to let bison graze their land.
It's time for you to admit your opinion is not shared by most people.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Does it matter? Anyone that wants them should be able too. They are a native species.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
I believe most people share my stance that that landowners share a certain responsibility to the native wildlife. See Rathbone vs Montana decision.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
I believe most people share my stance that that landowners share a certain responsibility to the native wildlife. See Rathbone vs Montana decision.
You start answering questions or your on my ignore list.
With that argument I can no longer run any early Americans (Indian) off my land, or can I discriminate by which tribe they are from? Should i call my neighbor and see if he wants them? I don't see much difference in your comment.
After reading through this whole thread I see now why we got wolves reintroduced more clearly, why we have more cats, lions and just predators in general than I've seen in my life time. They are a native species and whoever's land they are on so be it, the courts have declared it is the law. What do we do when rights effect a land owners desires? If we say tough chit, so be it, let the party begin. I see no compromise possible in this mess - both sides are not going to budge and we as hunters are going to have less access to private land in the long run. I hope I'm wrong.
This next montana legislative session is going to make a cage fight seem tame. Being a land owner or a hunter, we might just as well take the gloves off and get right down to the bare knuckle portion from day one.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musket Man
Your private land or someone elses?
You took my statement out of context. I highlighted the important word there.Originally Posted by shoots-straight
Anyone that wants them should be able too. They are a native species.
Non native species in Montana are causing all types of problems with our native wildlife. Does that concern you?
So cowboy, are you saying the private property rights only exist as long as they have sideboards that you are willing to accept? If your neighbor wants cattle, that's OK, but Bison no? Please draw up a bill that specifically states what animals fall in as a private property right, and the ones that are not a right.
Last edited:
Musket Man
New member
No one is saying you cant have them on your own private land if you want them. You can buy some and put them on your private land any time you want.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Then why the uproar over The Fort Peck Indian Reservation getting Bison?
Why the threat from Cowboy about the legislation coming?
Why the screaming about APF putting Bison on their private lands?
Musket Man
New member
Im very concerned about the problems the non native wolves along with other predators are causing wildlife and ranchers.
Musket Man
New member
I dont think the issue is the reservations or APR having buffalo, the problem is keeping them in those areas. It sounds like there has been problems with them getting out from the reservations and doing damage.
Never meant my comment as a threat and if you/anyone took it as such, I stand corrected and apologize. Let's just call it a personal opinion that I hope doesn't come about.
It's actually a pretty spot-on opinion. When certain people don't get their way, they take it to the legislature and try to force a shallow vision on the rest of us.
If they want a fight, we'll be there.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Originally Posted by shoots-straight
Then why the uproar over The Fort Peck Indian Reservation getting Bison?
Why the threat from Cowboy about the legislation coming?
Why the screaming about APF putting Bison on their private lands?
]I think Buzz made some very good points in this post.
Do you have any response to his questions?
bigrack, Heres a question for you and musketballs...
Why all the pissing and moaning about Montana wanting bison on public lands when North Dakota and South Dakota both have wild herds that seem to cause very few problems?
I worked for about a month in the Badlands in N. Dakota, lots of bison there roaming around and I dont recall a single landowner whining about them.
Never hear much crying about the Bison in Custer State Park either.
Strange that those bison herds arent being discussed? Where are the brucellosis problems with those herds? Where are the thousand of miles of busted fences?
Also, the Missouri River breaks country in Eastern Montana would be a good place for bison, even better than the herds in N. and S. Dakota. Matter of fact, APR already has bison roaming around in the breaks. Funny too, that I've yet to hear one complaint from a landowner near the APR property where a herd of bison is already established. I see them every year I hunt the breaks and they seem pretty content just doing bison stuff.
I did hear a landowner complain of elk doing 15K in damage to fences in the breaks, but not a mention of the bison wondering off the APR property and doing a lick of damage.
There is room for a herd of bison in the Breaks, mainly because a vast majority of the best habiat is public, the area is huge, and any damages could be mitigated.
Its funny that ranchers will tolerate elk trashing their fences, because they sell trespass fees or outfit it, but then balk at bison, that I dont believe do as much damage to fences as elk.
Funny thing to on the whining I listened to in the breaks when I had my last bull permit...the rancher that was claiming elk did 15K in damage to their fences wouldnt let me shoot a cow on my bull tag to help out. Said there was NO WAY I could hunt there and kill a cow elk, as they had paying clients. The rancher did encourage me to kill a cow on public land though to help reduce the herd. I would have killed a cow on the private to help the problem, but NO WAY was I going to kill one on public. I killed a 5 point on the public and hope the hundreds of cow elk I passed are knocking over that ranchers fences.
Apparently they werent really too concerned about killing the elk causing them the 15K in damages.
I say get a collaboration of parties together, have the discussion, and give it a whirl...as there is NO question that bison have a place in the breaks.
Saw this guy a few times while hunting elk there last year...at home, where they belong.
Bills were introduced that would have specifically targeted tribes & APR. One bill would have made it illegal to have any land if you are a non-profit (wholly unconstitutional), another would have made it impossible to relocate any wildlife let alone bison while another would have given management authority of wildlife to County Commissions.
The people who are against bison want them all dead & gone. 14 bills were introduced in 2013 to eliminate bison from ever being considered as wildlife, none of them survived thanks to hunters, tribes & conservationists banding together, as well as the Governor's veto pen.
Last edited:
Already under way near the refuge is an effort by a non-profit organization called the American Prairie Reserve to buy up private ranch land adjoining the CMR and the BLM grazing leases that go with them. The group’s eventual goal is to work with the federal government to put bison put back on the land. The organization is staffed with several NWF activists, including NWF Regional Executive Director Tom France.
The American Prairie Reserve also has direct ties to left-wing billionaire George Soros: one of the group’s board members is Soros Fund Management Chief Investment Officer Keith T. Anderson, who the Wall Street Journal called “Soros’s money man.” Anderson is listed also listed as a “private investor.”
Currently, nearly all Montana bison herds outside the areas around Yellowstone National Park are privately owned. As a result, they are classified as livestock rather than wildlife and are managed as such.
Environmental groups are pushing for the “free-roaming” classification of re-introduced bison because that classification offers state and federal protections as “wildlife” and leaves landowners with little recourse when their private property is harmed. Earlier this month, a Montana District Judge ruled that bison being relocated from Yellowstone to other parts of the state for “bison restoration efforts” could not be reclassified as “livestock.”
Last month, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that landowners in Park County — just north of Yellowstone Park — had no legal recourse when the state decided over the winter to expand the “free-range” territory for Yellowstone Bison.
http://mediatrackers.org/montana/2014/04/24/nwf-says-time-pull-stops-bison-introduction-montana
The American Prairie Reserve also has direct ties to left-wing billionaire George Soros: one of the group’s board members is Soros Fund Management Chief Investment Officer Keith T. Anderson, who the Wall Street Journal called “Soros’s money man.” Anderson is listed also listed as a “private investor.”
Currently, nearly all Montana bison herds outside the areas around Yellowstone National Park are privately owned. As a result, they are classified as livestock rather than wildlife and are managed as such.
Environmental groups are pushing for the “free-roaming” classification of re-introduced bison because that classification offers state and federal protections as “wildlife” and leaves landowners with little recourse when their private property is harmed. Earlier this month, a Montana District Judge ruled that bison being relocated from Yellowstone to other parts of the state for “bison restoration efforts” could not be reclassified as “livestock.”
Last month, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that landowners in Park County — just north of Yellowstone Park — had no legal recourse when the state decided over the winter to expand the “free-range” territory for Yellowstone Bison.
http://mediatrackers.org/montana/2014/04/24/nwf-says-time-pull-stops-bison-introduction-montana
- Status
