Bison Hunt in Montana what do you guys think?

[Big Billy]

I have been applying for a Bison tag for years and years here in Montana with no luck. I read an article today in the Gazette (front page) 500 Bison killed so far this year and if you read on only 27 of those were killed by sportsman that applied for the tags? 27 what a tease I don't know how many applicants (money) they have received this year but something is wrong with this picture! They go to say officials hope to reduce the population by 900 so does that mean maybe 21 or 22 extremely lucky hunters might get a tag? The FWP complains that their budget is under funded so why don't sportsmen get more tags (more money)? So I was wondering what other sportsmen thought about this subject? It really lowers my expectations of ever drawing a tag.

 

[katqanna]

In 2008 APHIS and MT DOL complained that bison were not being eradicated fast enough in the IBMP process, so they brought in the Native American tribes, according to their minutes, to increase the bison kills - they didnt care about hunting, they just wanted more bison removed from the landscape. So they began the Treaty Hunts and still it was not enough, so they increased the Tribes putting in for Treaty Hunts. Last year there were about 250 taken in the Gardinier area in a few mile radius. The year before it was about 150. In that small of an area it is not a hunt, it is shooting fish in a barrel.

APHIS and DOL wanted more bison killed this year so the MT hunters permits were doubled to 88 for Gardiner and the west side and the Tribes increased their tags tremendously. The IBMP does not have the Tribal information in their Nov. meeting minutes of what each Tribe was stating they had issued in hunting permits. I wrote down what each group hunted last year, but did not note how many permits they issued. I am going over the audio now I took of the meeting in Nov. to quote to y'all the high numbers of tags the Tribes issued and what the breakdown was.

 

[Big Fin]

This is one of the problems that is going to hinder any future bison hunting in Montana. Tribes are given the super majority of the hunting opportunity, yet resident hunters are the ones who always get the sharp stick in the eye. If this is part of their treaty rights, then such is how it is.

I have observed the tribes hunting bison on the West Yellowstone area on many occasions and I was not impressed. I understand that I see their hunting through my eyes as a non-tribal member with a different approach to hunting and that can result in me overlaying my value system on actions by tribal hunters that I might not understand. Yet, I can assure you that if some of things I have observed were done by a resident hunter with a state issued permit, it would be all over YouTube, the newspapers, and many other media sources with calls to eliminate the state portion of bison hunting.

So long as the field is titled in favor of tribes to the huge degree as it is currently titled, I don't expect many/any resident hunters to engage in the political debates of bison hunting or bison expansion.

Enough of the topic for me. I was lucky to have the chance to hunt bison in Montana and it was truly a special experience. I doubt I will ever get another chance.

 

[FAIR CHASE]

If you have seen this then no reason not to post under an anonymous/different user name on youtube. Am I wong?.

 

[katqanna]

Here are the current stats in a news article that just came on my feed for the YNP bison.

Figures released this week show over 333 bison have been captured and transferred to American Indian tribes for slaughter. Another 166 have been killed by hunters, most of them members of four Indian tribes with treaty hunting rights. Seven animals were captured for research. Three died while being held inside the park's bison holding pens near Gardiner.

If the CSKT have not done so yet, they will be quitting the hunting as they do not pass a certain date due to biology. The Umatilla from WA and the Nez Perce hunt late, with most of the late hunting being done by Nez Perce. The breakdown last year was 153 Nez Perce, CSKT 58, Umatilla 63 and I couldnt grab the number fast enough for the Shoshone-Bannock. Last year, between the Tribal "hunts" and the capture/ship to slaughter to the Tribes, there were 640 bison removed from the population.

At the IBMP meeting, since there was so much discussion of making bison available to treaty hunters, at the break I asked FWP Sam Shepherd how many Montana hunters were successful of the 40+ tags issued last year. He called the office and got the number, which I sadly wrote on my hand, not my notebook. It was a very small percentage when you compare it to the number of applications, 10,132. Now that I am reminded, I will have to call and get the current info cause I see FWP does not have that on the website clearly defined, because they mix it in with the Treaty Hunters data so that you cant tell what the Montana hunt data is and they dont even have 2013 up.

 

[Dane]

My Dad was fortunate enough to draw a tag this year. Luckily the bison came out of the park during the last week of the season. He harvested this bull. Like Randy said we observed the tribes practicing some pretty questionable hunting ethics. This is the second West Yellowstone bison my dad has harvested, he is the luckiest guy I know.

 

[katqanna]

Just saw another news report that gave the stat on the Montana hunters success this season as 27.

Only 27 state-licensed hunters killed a bison during a season that closed Feb. 15.

Thats from the Washington Times. The previous quote was from a Montana news site. I wonder why they didnt list the Montana hunter numbers?

80 tags issued and only 27 success out of over 10,000 applicants.

Dane, congratulations on your dad getting a bison.

 

[RobertR]

This is the biggest slap in the face by FWP and the DOL. There are hunters who would give their left one for a tag and they just give them away to the tribes.
It's time to get the DOL out of the business of controlling how wildlife is managed. FWP seems to have no say.

 

[Dane]

Check out the Buffalo Field Campaign website. http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/
In their "Updates from the Field" they have a by the numbers at the bottom that is the best resource I have found. The antis can be a lot of help sometimes haha.

 

[OriginalOscar]

Tribes are the ultimate PC hypocrisy.

"So your ancestors drove an entire herd of buffalo over a cliff in July. How much did you use before it rotted?".

Doesn't MT management get hijacked by the Park Service input? In Utah the state has given the Utes seed stock for transplant but the state manages the herd. I've never heard WY has the problem with native tag allocation.

 

[katqanna]

I finally got to the point in the IBMP audio where they were talking Tribal tag numbers. After having stated that each Tribe manages their own subsistence harvest of bison, issuing either sex permits, there are 5 different Sovereigns that hunt different ways and manage in different ways. One example of that is the CSKT stopping at the end of Jan for biologic reasons while the Nez Perce continues through the end of March I believe.

When asked about what their Tribe bison needs were, the CSKT said that for this season they had issued 609 tags. The Nez Perce representative did not have the numbers but said it was alot.

 

[Big Billy]

A lot of good information thank you.. It sounds like if I ever want to hunt Bison I should plan a hunt in south Dakota.

 

[katqanna]

Repeatedly, I keep advocating at these meetings, the need for wild bison on a greater landscape for hunting opportunities here in Montana. I keep a post it note of Schopenhauers statement, "All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as being self-evident," on my monitor. When I was looking something up on a google earth image last week, had panned out and saw the curvature of the earth, it reminded me of the flat earthers adamance, even to imprisoning and killing those that believed the earth was round. Now, it is accepted as being self-evident. Reminded me of the bison slaughters that have been going on - so I made a conservation postcard out of it.

Bison should be in Montana as a huntable, fair chase population.

 

[Big Billy]

I like it!!!!!

 

[phutch30]

Been here 20 yrs and I still cant fathom HOW/WHY bison are managed as livestock in MT???? This is the stupidest thing ive ever heard. I cant believe no one has sued over this. The state cant manage them as wildlife due to thier classification but they cant give them away because they are a public wildlife resource. Just so stupid

 

[bigskyblueman]

State statute gives the DOL total control over bison once they cross into Montana, making the lawsuit option problematic.

 

[phutch30]

I understand the situation and thats my point. WHY should DOL have any say in bison management. Its completly silly the justifications that are used.

 

[katqanna]

Its strategic to prevent a large forage competing ungulate from the landscape, using brucellosis as the excuse. MT State Vet, Dr. Marty Zaluski was part of a paper that stated that bison posed a 0.0-0.3% chance of infecting cattle. The 0.3% was listed simply as an academic safety net because no one wants to say zero, then have something pop up. There has never been a wild bison brucellosis infection to cattle in the wild or in a study.

When he testified down in Texas to their Animal Health Commission on brucellosis, he didnt even address bison, just elk.

I have been to Board of Livestock meetings for about a year and a half prior to the concussion and they routinely discuss what is a brucellosis threat there, making waivers for other states cattle coming into Montana. Now recently there was a news article that stated that Montana lifted a requirement of cows imported into the state to be vaccinated for brucellosis, except for cattle from states that have brucellosis infections (WY, ID, TX).

APHIS hijacked the new brucellosis in wildlife in the GYA study. I had created the petition last spring for the NPS to request from the National Academy of Science. This was arranged with NPS. They dropped the ball and didnt get to it for a bit and APHIS came in Sept. and put the request in to the NAS. The benefit is that the requesting agency gets to submit the questions that become the statement of task for the study, basically direct the scope of the study. I just got the Statement of Task this week and have been trying to get my concussed head into editing the NAS webpage so that I can get this info out.

So here is what APHIS wants them to look at for our elk and bison...

In an update of the National Research Council (NRC) report Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area (1998), an NRC-appointed committee will comprehensively review and evaluate the available scientific literature and other information on the prevalence and spread of Brucella abortus in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) in wild and domestic animals and examine the feasibility, time-frame, and cost-effectiveness of options to contain or suppress brucellosis across the region.

The study will examine factors associated with the increased occurrence of brucellosis transmission from wildlife to livestock and the recent expansion of brucellosis in non-feedground elk, including whether evidence suggests that brucellosis is self-sustaining in elk or if reinfection through emigration from feeding grounds is occurring. The study also will explore the role of feeding grounds, predators, population size and other factors in facilitating brucellosis infection.

The study committee will examine disease management activities and vaccination strategies being undertaken or considered at the state, regional, and federal level, and evaluate the biological, animal-health, and public-health effects of those activities. The committee also will examine the current state of brucellosis vaccines, vaccine delivery systems, and vaccines under development for bison, cattle, and elk, as well as the effectiveness of currently available vaccination protocols. In the course of its review, the committee will explore the likelihood of developing more effective vaccines, delivery systems, and diagnostic protocols for cattle, bison and elk.

Throughout the study, the committee will meet with wildlife managers, animal health officials, land managers, native peoples, and other stakeholders , including the members of the public, to understand the implications of brucellosis control efforts on other goals and activities in the region and nationally. The committee will examine the societal and economic costs and benefits of implementing various measures to reduce or eliminate the risk of brucellosis transmission to cattle and within wildlife relative to the costs and benefits of allowing the persistence of brucellosis in the GYA. In a consensus report, the committee will summarize the findings and conclusions of its analysis and based on the scientific evidence, describe the likely effectiveness and trade-offs of options that could be used to address brucellosis in the GYA.

In addition, the report will describe and prioritize further research needed to reduce uncertainties and advance the knowledge base on brucellosis vaccines, vaccine delivery mechanisms, and diagnostics.

I spoke with the director of the NAS for this division, she had been referred to me for information in Montana. She was not aware of the Cost Benefit Analysis study already done that said it is not even close to being cost effective to pursue test and slaughter or vaccination in elk. She was not aware that bison had never transmitted (different Brucella abortus genetics). She was not aware of the vaccine infections, accidental human transmission to herds, and cattle infection transmissions in the GYA. She was not aware of the biolab breech in LA that infected a near by cattle herd. There is a hell of a lot that APHIS and DOL dont want the public to know about this disease, but they do want control of our wildlife to control the grass for their livestock.

 

[phutch30]

Its strategic to prevent a large forage competing ungulate from the landscape, using brucellosis as the excuse

and theres 99.9999% of the reason, which is stupid since elk likly eat more forage AND have just as high a rate of brucellosis.....which came from domestic livestock and was transmitted to wild ungulates....