Disposal of Federal Lands

[The Hedgehog]

Eric, the investment is small... http://www.ezylift.com/

 

[The Hedgehog]

You could have a new page on your website showing happy guys that have just given you $6,000. http://www.montanahuntingcompany.com/galleryBuff

You could even offer mixed bag combo hunts that would be high success, low effort, and maximize the amount of beer in the cooler.

 

[James Riley]

Show me the science that says year round grazing on the Flat Creek allotment is the right thing to do for that land. Show me where filling all the water holes and taking out tens of thousands of dollars worth of cross fencing is the best use available for this landscape.

That is the APR proposal and it seems like a legitimate question to ask and to demand that they prove it is viable prior to doing it.

If it were cowboys making such a proposal everyone on here would be demanding to see the science. I get that bison are different. I want to see the science that says this allotment is big enough and the APR plan is viable before we tear up taxpayer paid for fencing and water holes.

Not many bison ranches compare to what is at stake next door on the CMR. Before anyone gets to screw with the area they need to show us the actual, on the ground, studies. The APR is no different.

Nemont

I'm sure APR doesn't have a problem with showing anyone the science. But, more importantly, I know the BLM will be calling upon science, as they would for any rancher. I don't have the science myself but it is, or will be part of the public record. If you want the science, ask those who are in charge of producing it.

And if you have a problem with the science, contest it through the same administrative procedures that the environmentalist use against the cattle ranchers/BLM when they are doing their Programmatic and Site-Specific EISs and allotment policies/decisions. Are there any such procedures? If not, why not? Why should APR be held to any standards that the ranchers have not been held to? If ranchers and the BLM have stacked the deck against the public then their chickens may be coming home to roost.

Since we don't have the science here, and since everyone likes to talk about hypotheticals and parades of horribles, let's talk. If Rancher Bob ran 100 head on X land for 100 days per year, I don't think it would be beyond the pale for that same land to be able to support 10 bison for 365 days. It's just an analogy. Pick your ratio: 100 to 10, 100 to 5, 100 to 1, whatever. You get my point. The science will show it. Or it won't. Or it will be subject to experimentation and trial, like cattle ranchers get all the time. And remember, that land used to support bison year round; just ask any rancher who has used that argument to support whatever proposal they had. And remember, that land supports other game year round.

Elk of North America had one cow displacing 2 1/2 elk. Imagine.

As to fences and stock ponds, etc., those were welfare subsidies provided to cattle ranchers, often under the guise of wildlife habitat enhancement and protection of the resource *from* cattle. But, often as not, they actually served to babysit, protect and enhance carrying capacity for cattle (just like federal predator control). If APR and the BLM think a stock pond is good for the area, or a drift fence will help, then they can leave it in. But since Rancher Bob won't be there with his cattle, who cares? After all, he didn't give two hoots about what the environmentalist wanted. It's remote and isolated, so no one should worry about it, right? Some of those things may be beneficial since, even at 3 million acres, it will never be large enough to account for human impact to migration corridors and other impacts of man. But making the range safe and easy for cattle is not in the public interest.

 

[BuzzH]

Show me the science that says year round grazing on the Flat Creek allotment is the right thing to do for that land. Show me where filling all the water holes and taking out tens of thousands of dollars worth of cross fencing is the best use available for this landscape.

That is the APR proposal and it seems like a legitimate question to ask and to demand that they prove it is viable prior to doing it.

If it were cowboys making such a proposal everyone on here would be demanding to see the science. I get that bison are different. I want to see the science that says this allotment is big enough and the APR plan is viable before we tear up taxpayer paid for fencing and water holes.

Not many bison ranches compare to what is at stake next door on the CMR. Before anyone gets to screw with the area they need to show us the actual, on the ground, studies. The APR is no different.

Nemont

Nemont,

While I may not have peer reviewed science, I do have the experience of spending the better part of 3 years on bison only TEI ranches that had both federal and state grazing leases as part of the over-all management plan.

Matter of fact, I wrote management plans for riparian management on 2 large properties that included bison and their impacts on riparian health.

In the case of the TEI properties, most all of the cross fencing on the private lands were removed.

IME, even in the summer, bison spent essentially no time in riparian habitat at all. They would wander down from upland ridges just long enough to get a drink, then head back up the hill to lay in the sun and graze. That is a significant difference from cattle, that tend to park their lazy asses in the nearest riparian area and never leave unless forced to leave.

Upland grazing is very different from grazing in riparian area, essentially, the chance of range damage is much less likely to happen and much less significant on dry open slopes. The upside to bison is they PREFER to be on those open slopes. In the case of the TEI property south of Dillon, where I spent half my time, the only bison you ever saw on that ranch, were usually small black dots on the highest ridges on the eastern mix of private, federal and state lands. Without binoculars, you couldn't even tell they were even there.

That's not to say that riparian habitat cant be grazed, but its best done in the winter with bison (and I would guess cattle as well). The upside to grazing bison in the winter in riparian areas, you don't need to provide open water for them, so they don't tear the banks up seeking it. They also don't do much damage as the ground is frozen hard as rock.

Even though bison had full access to much of the TEI riparian areas, those riparian areas were in good-excellent condition. A stark contrast to what those areas looked like prior to TEI purchasing them where domestic livestock dominated the landscape. The response to that improved riparian health was apparent with the abundance/diversity of terrestrial as well as aquatic wildlife, water temperature, turbidity, riffle-pool-run ratio's, deep binding root mass, plant diversity, and the list goes on and on.

I will be the first to admit that I was skeptical of bison, that an animal of that size, would not be having a huge impact on the land. I was wrong, and if I were in a position land wise to have either bison or cattle, it would be an absolute no-brainer for me. They just are not as "needy" as domestic livestock, and the difference in how they use their habitat is so much different.

I understand that not every landowner is in the position to choose bison over cattle, but from a purely ecological standpoint, bison make a whole lot more sense.

Also, in the 3 years I spent working for TEI, I heard of only one case of a bull bison causing any trouble. There are trace minerals that bison will seek if they don't have access to them. From discussions with the Snowcrest Ranch Manager, once those trace minerals were provided, the bison were content and wouldn't leave the ranch boundaries. There is a learning curve with bison management, but once the wrinkles were ironed out, IMO, they were one whole hell of a lot easier to "care" for. As in, you didn't have to do anything, even during calving season. Predator control is not needed, providing water in the winter isn't necessary, etc.

Would that apply to the breaks??? I don't know, but it wouldn't take much effort to seek the advice of TEI staff that I'm sure would be willing to provide insight.

My gut tells me that bison management wouldn't be much different in the breaks than what I saw at TEI ranches, perhaps even easier and a better fit.

But, my work there was never peer-reviewed, but I spent a significant part of my time writing the management plans, collecting data, inventory of stream reach segments, plant diversity, over-all assessments, etc. etc. I regret not pushing harder to have that work peer reviewed and published, I just didn't have the time.

 

[James Riley]

Digression:

Windswept, summer-time high ground always had fewer bugs, was cooler, and you could see something coming from further away. That's why I always like it. I'm thinking that spreading out might make for fewer bugs too; that and not shitting all over yourself.

I remember checking "exclosures" with a BLM cowboy once, south of the Wind Rivers. The exclosures were about five or ten acres in size, with a little high ground, but mostly low, with "water" running through the bottom-center. He told me the one's we were checking were designed to show what grazed areas looked like compared to non-grazed areas where cattle were excluded (the exclosures).

I told him that it seemed to me the cattle were good for the range because, even though outside the exclusures was beat pretty bad, there was still some vegetation; but inside the exclosures, the land was bare, beat to death and a mud pot. He said, "Oh, that's because the ranchers use the exclosures to pen their cattle during round up."

So I asked what we were doing out there. The science was shot. He told me to go look for my bison skulls. I did. Ironically, I found some; primarily because the cattle had eroded, straightened and exposed the banks to where a man might actually see bones sticking out. Other than tasting good, I guess cattle are good for something.

 

[Nemont]

Buzz,

I respect your opinions and knowledge. I don't really even need "peer reviewed" science to make the case. I do have many reservations about allowing any grazing year round on these public lands. I also believe that since white people have been on this landscape for 100 plus years that it is pie in the sky to believe that we can turn back the clock to 1850.

Was The TEI limited to 16,000 acres and doesn't the TEI raise bison for slaughter? Does the scale of the property of the TEI translate to this one allotment? Also whether or not these bison are in the riparian areas the issue for me is why should bison be allowed year round on these allotments? If winter grazing is perfered then turn them loose in the winter months when the ground is froze, take them off in the spring and summer then graze fall and winter. What makes year round grazing on public lands something we want to allow whether it is bison or cattle?

The grazing on those allotments is supposed to leave forage for wildlife, bison aren't wildlife. So how much more forage is consumed by bison in a year round grazing regime vs cattle grazing May to Nov? Why don't they do this year round grazing on their own deeded 86,000 acres? Seems to be that they have enough land of their own to graze their herd on year round without impacting public lands.

Nemont

 

[James Riley]

So how much more forage is consumed by bison in a year round grazing regime vs cattle grazing May to Nov? Why don't they do this year round grazing on their own deeded 86,000 acres? Seems to be that they have enough land of their own to graze their herd on year round without impacting public lands.

Nemont

I know you didn't ask me, but it's an open forum.

It seems incongruous, to me, for ranchers to treat bison as a special case when it's suits them (fight any AUMs because, well, bison are different), and then turn around and treat them the same as cattle when it doesn't suit them (bison would displace deer and antelope).

Again, pick your ratio. *IF* APR was going one-for-one, then you might have a case. But they aren't. Ranchers run several metric shit tons more cattle out there in the summer than the APR is proposing to do year round. Second, APR *IS* running bison on their own land 365.

As to having enough of their own land, that argument could be made to every cattle rancher in the U.S. Their own land can support X cattle 365. Their own land with BLM land can support X+ cattle 365. But in ANY analysis, APR will be running a tiny fraction of bison compared to cattle and that is why the 365 can come into play.

I submit that the ONLY reason cattle ranchers are not allowed 365 is because of the numbers. Who cares if a few stupid cows are wandering around out there freezing and feeding the coyotes all winter? No one. It's 6,000 head beating the country to death that is the problem. The summer might handle it, but the year round won't.

In short, APR is not proposing anything that cattle ranchers could not propose, if only the cattle ranchers would scale back their enormous herds to what the land can support year round. But then they'd have to be out there babysitting something that can't handle it and losing money hand over fist.

If we want to talk wildlife displacement, let's talk about cattle in summer-only grazing. That's a good place to start. We won't even get to the legal/political displacement of what used to be wildlife but is now, for convenience of some, called livestock. Countless cattle are out there vacuuming up the resource all summer and carting it off to the waste water treatment plants of the world. The land can only take so much. A few bison living out there year round leave everything the way they found it, and make it better. Again, it's the ratios that make it plausible.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz,

I respect your opinions and knowledge. I don't really even need "peer reviewed" science to make the case. I do have many reservations about allowing any grazing year round on these public lands. I also believe that since white people have been on this landscape for 100 plus years that it is pie in the sky to believe that we can turn back the clock to 1850.

Was The TEI limited to 16,000 acres and doesn't the TEI raise bison for slaughter? Does the scale of the property of the TEI translate to this one allotment? Also whether or not these bison are in the riparian areas the issue for me is why should bison be allowed year round on these allotments? If winter grazing is perfered then turn them loose in the winter months when the ground is froze, take them off in the spring and summer then graze fall and winter. What makes year round grazing on public lands something we want to allow whether it is bison or cattle?

The grazing on those allotments is supposed to leave forage for wildlife, bison aren't wildlife. So how much more forage is consumed by bison in a year round grazing regime vs cattle grazing May to Nov? Why don't they do this year round grazing on their own deeded 86,000 acres? Seems to be that they have enough land of their own to graze their herd on year round without impacting public lands.

Nemont

Nemont,

I'll try to answer your questions.

I think that the acreage on the State and Federal leases that TEI held were probably around 20K on the Red Rock, I just cant remember for sure. Their deeded land was only about 5K, and IRRC, they had about 100ish bison or so. I also don't remember the terms of the state and federal leases, just been too long ago. IMO, I would think that if the leases that APR held were directly adjacent to their 86K of deeded ground, the chances of over-grazing by bison would be slim, assuming numbers were managed at a reasonable number. That is the one wildcard that I see as needing to be addressed even with seasonal use on the BLM leases. I also have concerns about how many bison APR is intending to have. That would be a significant part of whether I would consider year round grazing or seasonal grazing. We cant speculate, because we just don't know what the population levels will be.

The Snowcrest, IIRC, was about 14k of deeded ground, but I again cant remember the extent of the state and federal leases or the terms. Wish I could provide more details on that, but its been 16 years.

Yes, TEI raised bison for meat, hunts, etc.

The reason that the riparian areas matter to me, is that, even in the breaks, the bottoms are pretty crucial for wildlife, specifically mule deer. Lots of species rely on the riparian habitat during the winter months. Again, IMO, if bison don't beat down the riparian habitat like cattle almost always do, that really translates into a huge win for wildlife. Most of the species diversity of all kinds, is pretty reliant on riparian health.

There's just so much to consider, that I don't think its fair for either of us to automatically assume whether or not year round grazing could/should happen on those leases. But, from what I have seen personally, again, my gut tells me (assuming reasonable bison numbers), that there is the potential for year round grazing while still providing for elk, deer, pronghorn , etc. In a best case scenario, I would think that in the case of mule deer and pronghorn, bison grazing, combined with their lack of using riparian areas, the habitat for those species could be greatly enhanced. There is no doubt that elk would have the most direct chance of being negatively impacted as they would compete directly with bison for forage.

But, since the MTFWP, along with people like Eric, want to wipe out the elk via shoulder seasons in the breaks, having bison there shouldn't be a problem. They would replace the "over populated" elk that are soon to be drastically reduced.

What I am 100% in agreement with you on, is that there is a need for science and proof that it can work before we start rolling up the wire. Its only fair to expect concerns and questions to be answered with the best available knowledge we have, in particular with our public lands.

I appreciate the constructive dialogue, I really do.

 

[Nemont]

Buzz,

I am trying not to have a knee jerk response to the APR and what they propose. This is allotment is adjacent to their deeded lands and the request is for 385 bison year round, the allotment currently has 1,240 AUM's. According to the BLM the allotment range land health was considered "good" prior to the request for change to bison grazing. I get the deal with stocking rates, carrying capacity, different land uses of bison vs. cattle. To boil it down my issues: does the science say this is the better or correct use of these lands and as an American taxpayer why do I want to allow any privately owned herd year round use of these lands? I don't necessarily care if it if bison or cattle. I am unsure I want to see bison year round where I recreate and hunt, Bison shit is just as big and obtrusive as the cow flop I step around now.

I will say that from my observations and couple of short interactions with the APR folks, they are trying to be good neighbors. I don't think most of the transplants they bring in appreciate what being part of a community means out here and I still get the impression that many of the people working out there with letters behind their names view the locals as a bunch of uncouth bumpkins who don't know shit from low grade peanut butter but perhaps that will change. That is more a social problem than anything to do with science.


Nemont

 

[Eric Albus]

Nemont is right, it is more of a social/perception problem for most folks.

Buzz....I do not want to wipe the elk out of the breaks, but I would like them brought back to tolerable numbers....and if it takes a December hunt to gain access to them so be it.

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

I don't disagree with you on any of that. I also think as a taxpayer that we all should be demanding accountability and proof of the impacts ANY grazing is having on our public lands. I think that in many cases, though, tradition dies hard in spite of science and proof. I get it, I hate change as much as anyone, but over the years I've become much more open to changes like the BLM entertaining or trying the year round grazing. We cant learn a thing without trying. Plus, like many have said, nothing should ever be chiseled in stone with regard to changing science, grazing, game management, etc.

As far as the social end of it, there are ALWAYS 3 sides to that. APR's side, the Locals side, and then the truth/reality. I have seen some pretty outrageous signage regarding APR and heard more than a bit of local bad-mouthing. I also believe/agree with you, that there are some pretty numb-skulled, self righteous, PhD's out there as well. IME, with many educated folks, particularly those in the science fields, they many times have, what I heard described recently as, "the social graces of a wet fart".

But, there is also an equal amount of hostility by the locals as well, some of it founded, some of it complete BS. Its not hard for a reasonable person to know when "facts" are more hear-say than reality in both cases.

Its also fair to note, that again IMO, the social aspect of these types of things is a big part of whether or not there will be a successful outcome.

I'm encouraged by the amount of local input, collaboration, etc. that I have seen recently in Wyoming in regard to wildlife issues, its just a great thing when it happens. Wyoming is far from perfect, but in comparison with Montana and the attitudes there, its a night and day difference. I've never seen the entrenched, entitled, out-of-control mindset here that I see in Montana. Collaboration isn't even on the radar...let alone happening.

I'm hopeful that all involved in this, and other issues in Montana, can realize that if they just sit down at the table, they may be able to come up with viable and reasonable solutions. Perhaps, at this point, that's more pie in the sky than going back to 1850???

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont is right, it is more of a social/perception problem for most folks.

Buzz....I do not want to wipe the elk out of the breaks, but I would like them brought back to tolerable numbers....and if it takes a December hunt to gain access to them so be it.

Tolerable numbers based on wildlife science or based on social science???

Doesn't really matter to me, I wont be hunting there again and taking part in destroying what's left of the elk herd in Montana. Wyoming has way less elk habitat and will soon have more elk than Montana.

But, at least you'll get to claim victory via your "social science" experiment managing wildlife....and APR's bison will have plenty of grass.

What a joke.

 

[Nemont]

Buzz,

I agree with you that the locals have not rolled out the welcome mat either. Change is difficult for everyone, trust me I have seen my business change dramatically and it came with some real growing pains and heartburn.

Any issue has three sides, I just am not there yet to trust the APR and their ultimate goal because i don't believe they have put their ultimate goal in writing. They also don't have horns and tails. Like I said the couple of times I have had a chance to visit with some of them they seemed nice enough and truly believe in what they are doing. That doesn't mean I am going to agree with all of the stuff they say and do.

Anyway none of this solves anything and in the end they will likely get their way to graze year round. Still doesn't mean they are right in my mind or even what is best. Maybe I will have to look at stocking bison on the in laws place and getting year round use on that land too. It would be any interesting experiment to see if we would be treated the same way as the APR gets treated.

Nemont

 

[James Riley]

. . . I just am not there yet to trust the APR and their ultimate goal because i don't believe they have put their ultimate goal in writing.

"Our short-term goal is to reach 1,000 animals by 2018, with the ultimate goal of having a herd of at least 10,000 bison on American Prairie Reserve, making it the largest conservation herd in North America." https://www.americanprairie.org/project/bison-management [Emphasis added; they even used your exact terminology, in writing.]

A little research will show that APR is not hiding anything. Anyone who wants to learn can go to their web site. There are a ton of links *within* their site (i.e. to other portions of their web site, without having to go outside of it) about bison alone. Forget all the stuff about other aspects of APR.

If anyone is worried they might be lying, I recommend taking screen shots of their web site, just in case they want to someday deny they ever said: "Our short-term goal is to reach 1,000 animals by 2018, with the ultimate goal of having a herd of at least 10,000 bison on American Prairie Reserve, making it the largest conservation herd in North America."

 

[Nemont]

If you believe everything on the internet then fine, I don't

Nemont

 

[James Riley]

If you believe everything on the internet then fine, I don't

Nemont

Look, you said you didn't believe they ever put their ultimate goal it in writing. I showed you they put their ultimate goal in writing. Then you said you don't believe everything on the internet. You don't believe your own eyes. What can I do? Sorry. Just trying to help.

 

[1_pointer]

Yeah, I get to put my range hat on for a second. The number of AUMs authorized for cattle can be converted to AUMs for bison. The NRCS National Pasture and Range handbook has that conversion. That's the easy part. The year round and removal of water and cross fences is concerning. IMO, two more important factors in grazing are the time and timing of it vs. the total amount of herbage removed. Those are two things that pretty much go out the window with year round and no physical barriers to the bison. Dropping numbers can compensate for that, but not completely. As Buzz mentioned, there are some behavioral differences between bison and cattle that work in APRs favor for this conversion, but I get the reason for Nemont's skepticism. Generally, lack of time and timing control leads to overuse of areas and or plants and can lead one to the same result as too many grazers over time. The science is out there for that.

As with most things of this nature, the devil's in the details and all too often not the ones being argued about...

 

[Nemont]

Are you sure that just the bison herd is their ultimate goal or just the goal for how many head of bison they would like to run?

Do you suppose they have bigger goals like restoring wolves to the CMR? Or to make this area a "Yellowstone Park" of the 21st Century? To link Yellowstone, Glacier and the APR? Regardless and in spite of the people living on private deeded lands inside that triangle?

Mr. Pete Geddes spelled out a vision that doesn't appear on the APR's website.

Hint: 10,000 bison is just their goal for numbers not their ultimate goal.

Nemomt

 

[James Riley]

Are you sure that just the bison herd is their ultimate goal or just the goal for how many head of bison they would like to run?

Do you suppose they have bigger goals like restoring wolves to the CMR? Or to make this area a "Yellowstone Park" of the 21st Century? To link Yellowstone, Glacier and the APR? Regardless and in spite of the people living on private deeded lands inside that triangle?

Mr. Pete Geddes spelled out a vision that doesn't appear on the APR's website.

Hint: 10,000 bison is just their goal for numbers not their ultimate goal.

Nemomt

Ask them yourself. https://www.americanprairie.org/ And, like I said before, the BLM end should be public record. Let us know what you find out. Of course, you might not believe them. I know how you feel. I never believed much of what the cattle ranchers and BLM were telling me, either. Especially when they were hanging their hat on all the bison we used to have as an excuse for putting more cattle out there.

 

[BuzzH]

Yeah, I get to put my range hat on for a second. The number of AUMs authorized for cattle can be converted to AUMs for bison. The NRCS National Pasture and Range handbook has that conversion. That's the easy part. The year round and removal of water and cross fences is concerning. IMO, two more important factors in grazing are the time and timing of it vs. the total amount of herbage removed. Those are two things that pretty much go out the window with year round and no physical barriers to the bison. Dropping numbers can compensate for that, but not completely. As Buzz mentioned, there are some behavioral differences between bison and cattle that work in APRs favor for this conversion, but I get the reason for Nemont's skepticism. Generally, lack of time and timing control leads to overuse of areas and or plants and can lead one to the same result as too many grazers over time. The science is out there for that.

As with most things of this nature, the devil's in the details and all too often not the ones being argued about...

Why would it be necessary to remove ALL the cross fencing? I would think that, bison, like elk, deer, and pronghorn, would do fine if you left openings/gates in the fences every so often. There is no way to reach a compromise on that issue?

Also, by keeping the fences mostly in place, if the science is fleshed out and its proven that the bison are doing damage via year round grazing, you aren't paying to rebuild a fence.

Just sort of thinking out loud, but I just fail to see why things cant work out. I also wonder if MTFWP is in any kind of discussions with APR to ensure long term access for hunting and recreation on both the deeded and public lands? How about some of the hunting organizations in Montana? Are they reaching out to APR? I know if I lived in Montana, and belonged to a sportsmen's organization there, I would be asking these questions of the leadership. It is in Montana Sportsmen's best interest to be having that discussion, IMO. But, I'm sure, in true form, the FWP, Landowners, Outfitters, and Montana Sporting groups will wait until the chit hits the fan and go straight into "reactionary mode".

It just seems like, once again, that both sides have bunkered up and nobody is taking a leadership role to work on the "devil in the details".

Step one is just getting some dialogue started and dropping the baggage.