Disposal of Federal Lands

[BuzzH]

buzz...the elk in the breaks are a special case. These elk were "introduced" to the breaks from Yellowstone Park. The deal was set up between FWP and landowners as to a number that would be "tolerated" by landowners in the breaks. That number was set, and if memory serves me correct it was 2400 on the north side of the river/lake.

I will not argue that Eastern Mt. could support tens of thousands of elk, habitat is not the question, it is landowner tolerance of a re-introduced species.

What a crock of chit...the situation with elk is no different in the breaks than anywhere else in Montana. Social based management, socially based herd objectives, managed by a crap, socially acceptable EMP, and not a thing to do with wildlife management.

Yet, you have the nerve to harp on the FWP for not managing based on wildlife management and science...HOW do you recommend they do that with a social based management plan that they are required by law to follow?

There is something "special" all right, you.

BTW, didn't realize you were around for the meetings in 1951 when elk were reintroduced in the breaks. You have a good memory for a guy your age.

A copy of that "agreement between landowners and the FWP" complete with elk tolerance levels from 1951 would be neat to see as well.

 

[Nemont]

Okay, I get it now. You have evidence of what they make priorities in their private meetings. Gotcha. Howsabout you share that with the rest of us. How did you get that information? Did someone secretly tape their private meetings? You show me that and I will agree they are opaque. But they can't be opaque just because you say so. You must have some kind of reason to believe they are opaque. Facts are kind of like science. It's really helpful. Show me evidence of what goes on in their private meetings.

You say there is info out there but doubt I will spend the time to find it. I repeatedly went and found APR information for you. Won't you please at least give me a link showing me what goes on in their private meetings?

I asked for you to show me the science that says the Flat Creak allotment should have year round grazing, go to one of their meetings, see what is discussed.

Nemont

 

[James Riley]

Really? I asked for you to show me the science that says the Flat Creak allotment should have year round grazing. Get me the science I asked for first.

Yes, really: You said you didn't believe they had a written ultimate goal regarding bison. I told you to read their site. You didn't. I spoon fed it too you. You asked about wolves. I told you to read their site. You didn't. I spoon fed it to you. I told you the science is a matter of public record with BLM (by the way, you can also go read the science on their site too). But you still haven't gone and read their site. So, do I have to keep spoon feeding everything to you, doing your research for you, but you don't have to back up squat? I get it.

I ask you again, where is the evidence of what goes on in their private meetings? Crickets.

By the way, I don't speak for APR but personally, yes, I'd love to see wolves and grizzly everywhere they ever were. You see, you and I can have legitimate policy disagreements. That's cool. But don't try to make a boogie man out of your opposition unless you have something to back it up. You lose all credibility when you do that. Oh, and by the way, you were the one saying APR has to obey the law and can't change it. Now all of a sudden APR doesn't have to obey the law and they can change it because, in their private meetings, they decided to? I don't get it.

 

[Nemont]

Well I guess if I lose credibility with you then that means absolutely zero to me. I have read their website, I have talked to some of their people, I have gone to a meeting they hosted in Malta, I don't believe their website consists of their entire goals or their entire agenda, I have read enough about their goals for getting wolves and grizzlies back to know that is a priority. They don't lead with that because they know even today that both of those species would make their lives more complicated. Believe as you wish, they are opaque about their goals and what they want to do.

I didn't make a boogie man out of them, I said exactly what I thought of them, I don't have to trust anyone who has not earned my trust. The APR hasn't earned my trust. Their agenda is far broader than just 10,000 bison on the landscape, just because something is on a website doesn't make it fact, if that were true then my Enron Stocks would be worth more than toilet paper. Believe as you wish.

Nemont

 

[Eric Albus]

obviously I was not present... but I knew several of the landowners who used their own trucks to haul elk from Yellowstone to the breaks . The landowners played a key role in bringing elk back to the breaks, and I would bet that there is a copy somewhere of the agreement somewhere, or there will be someone else chime in on the forum that will remember this also.

 

[BuzzH]

Well I guess if I lose credibility with you then that means absolutely zero to me. I have read their website, I have talked to some of their people, I have gone to a meeting they hosted in Malta, I don't believe their website consists of their entire goals or their entire agenda, I have read enough about their goals for getting wolves and grizzlies back to know that is a priority. They don't lead with that because they know even today that both of those species would make their lives more complicated. Believe as you wish, they are opaque about their goals and what they want to do.

I didn't make a boogie man out of them, I said exactly what I thought of them, I don't have to trust anyone who has not earned my trust. The APR hasn't earned my trust. Their agenda is far broader than just 10,000 bison on the landscape, just because something is on a website doesn't make it fact, if that were true then my Enron Stocks would be worth more than toilet paper. Believe as you wish.

Nemont

Nemont,

Since APR obviously cant reintroduce either wolves or grizzlies, I don't see how their grand scheme of having grizzlies in the breaks will ever take shape. Sure, some could possibly move in there from the Front. But, the management of any wandering bears would not be any different and/or up to APR to decide. The feds are still in control of grizzlies, not APR.

Same with wolves. When/if wolves repopulate the breaks, APR will not have any more control over management of wolves than any other landowner.

The wolf/grizzly issue is just a non-starter for me as it relates to APR.

 

[Nemont]

Fair enough.


Nemont

 

[Straight Arrow]

The landowners played a key role in bringing elk back to the breaks ....

Eric, you are privileged to have known some of those landowners and ranchers. If any are still around, I encourage you to listen to their story firsthand. They were described and applauded in the documentary and book BACK FROM THE BRINK as true wildlife conservationists. It saddens me to realize that one short generation away from them, many landowners and ranchers, some of whom are likely progeny of those generous conservationists, now view the elk as either vermin or just another cash crop.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Should be required viewing for hunter's ed or receiving an outfitting license.

http://www.amazon.com/Montanas-Wildlife-Legacy-Decimation-Restoration/dp/0615188494

 

[James Riley]

Well I guess if I lose credibility with you then that means absolutely zero to me. I have read their website, I have talked to some of their people, I have gone to a meeting they hosted in Malta, I don't believe their website consists of their entire goals or their entire agenda, I have read enough about their goals for getting wolves and grizzlies back to know that is a priority. They don't lead with that because they know even today that both of those species would make their lives more complicated. Believe as you wish, they are opaque about their goals and what they want to do.

I didn't make a boogie man out of them, I said exactly what I thought of them, I don't have to trust anyone who has not earned my trust. The APR hasn't earned my trust. Their agenda is far broader than just 10,000 bison on the landscape, just because something is on a website doesn't make it fact, if that were true then my Enron Stocks would be worth more than toilet paper. Believe as you wish.

Nemont

Logic will not allow an outfit to be deemed untrustworthy simply because they fail to lead with something that is not their lead. This is especially true when the purported lead is an impossibility. Would APR object to the return of wolves and grizzly? Probably not. But it is no reflection on their integrity for failure to lead with that fact every time they open their yap. It's not their call. The Chief of Police doesn't have to open every speech with a hope that people quit committing crimes. Nor does he need to deny efforts to imprison the population. His lead is what he's doing and hoping to do. There is nothing opaque about that. If something else is up, it will take more than mere suspicion or paranoia or policy disagreements to call him out as untrustworthy. Well, maybe not. Maybe "feelings" will suffice in some circles. But that won't fly in the law or science or logic.

If anyone doesn't want to trust APR, they should find a better peg upon which to hang their hat. With that, I cede the floor.

 

[3wisemen]

APR has a right like anyone to do what they do, preserve they countryside and raise Buffalo. My gripe is that they are TAX EXEPMT, which gives them an unfair advantage over the Farmer and Rancher here in Montana, they can afford to pay a high price for land, when a family that makes a living on farming and ranching can't and are pushed out. I guess this is life, but hard to swallow if you have ties to this life all your life.

 

[jryoung]

APR has a right like anyone to do what they do, preserve they countryside and raise Buffalo. My gripe is that they are TAX EXEPMT, which gives them an unfair advantage over the Farmer and Rancher here in Montana, they can afford to pay a high price for land, when a family that makes a living on farming and ranching can't and are pushed out. I guess this is life, but hard to swallow if you have ties to this life all your life.

Is it any different for the Wilks, Siebels, or Cox Kennedys of the world? Willing buyer and willing seller sounds like capitalisms to me.

 

[James Riley]

APR has a right like anyone to do what they do, preserve they countryside and raise Buffalo. My gripe is that they are TAX EXEPMT, which gives them an unfair advantage over the Farmer and Rancher here in Montana, they can afford to pay a high price for land, when a family that makes a living on farming and ranching can't and are pushed out. I guess this is life, but hard to swallow if you have ties to this life all your life.

I don't know all the ins and outs of ag law, and I have no evidence to back this up, but I thought people in ag were the beneficiaries of some of America's largest subsidies. This may not help them when it comes to capital gains tax on sale, but to avoid that they can always stay and work the land (not sell), using the subsidies, or they can encumber with conservation easements.

APR, on the other hand, being non-profit, get's their donations from members and they compete with private-for-profit billionaires when trying to buy ranches. A little guy rancher who wants to buy more land is in the same boat with the rest of us. I can't go up there and buy up ranch land. But it's not because I pay taxes. I just don't have that kind of money; taxes or no.

As one who donates to APR, I see myself as one who is investing in land I could not otherwise afford to buy, and for a use I like. It's similar to Yellowstone; it's mine, it's where I store my bison skulls and elk sheds, etc. Only I want plains country. And more bison. I suppose APR could flip on me, and I'm taking a risk investing in a non-governmental entity when trying to invest in a park, but nobody else is doing it. I could be a fool, but I trust them. I hope it pays off for my son and his progeny. Maybe not. But I'm feeling like the rest of America's public lands are tapped out.

 

[Eric Albus]

straight, you are right, I am fortunate to have known some of those old timers. A lot of history is gone with their passing. Don't think that for one minute that they were pleased with the outcome of the transplanted elk and how high the numbers were/are. A couple of them told me they never would have agreed to haul an elk into the country if they had known how out of hand the population would get, or how tough elk are on fences and crops.

 

[1_pointer]

James, another thing that TEI found out real quick...you don't "cowboy" or "push" bison.

They tried that and it was a miserable failure that thankfully didn't result in a funeral.

They "moved" the bison via the trace minerals they were deficient on.

That last sentence can work, provided adequate water is available. Water is a bigger deal than mineral. The link to the proposed decision nor does the EA mention the removal of any stock water. The amount of stock dams and 'live' water on the allotment leads me to believe that access to H2O won't be an issue. It'd be easy to surmise that most of the allotment is within 1mi of water, which should be good enough. Still might need more than just mineral to get them to move, but sounds doable to me.

Some interesting math going on as well with this permit/EA. The number of livestock on the allotment will approximately double when it goes to year round. All due to a change in the percent federal land (mostly how it's billed). So, not only will the permitted livestock be on the allotment longer, there will be more than 2X the amount. This is likely on the up and up as the EA nor proposed decision make any mention of any Exchange of Use agreements, which they shouldn't IMO. As a permittee, I'd probably have tried to keep the EOU agreements in place... More fun math in the AUMs tables. 12K+ acres of federal ground provide 1247 (or 1243 ) AUMs. 8K+ acres of private ground provide 3300 AUMs... I can follow their assumptions and logic, but the manner in which the two were calculated are different. Kinda surprised to see the private land AUMs info...

Some of the Sage Grouse terms and conditions crack me up! Especially ones that give a specific height above the snow. Guess on a heavy snow year, if 10"+ of sagebrush is not above the snow they have to take the bison somewhere else?

PS- I miss doing that kind of work. Badly.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Don't think that for one minute that they were pleased with the outcome of the transplanted elk ...

I'm sure some of the more naive ones became alarmed at the unintended consequences ... just as I'm sure others merely continued to fix fences, enclose stacks, chase wildlife off fields, grow crops, raise and sell cattle, enjoy Montana pride as wildlife conservationists ... and enjoy an elk roast for supper.

 

[mtmiller]

First elk went on CMR Game Range 65 years ago.

 

[James Riley]

Moving bison. No science, just anecdote.

I've found that bison that are used to people being around (ranches that feed and work them) are not *too* intimidated by vehicles and people on horse back. However, they tend to be more wary of people on foot, especially groups spread out and walking upright toward them. I've approached many on foot, alone, and they usually watch until I'm about 200 meters or so. Then they stand up. Another few steps and they usually canter off to the side like an antelope, keeping an eye on me. Of course, being afootback is a lot more dangerous in the event they call the bluff. But it's never happened to me. This is all open country experience, not corrals, etc.

Now, in Yellowstone, by the roads, they aren't afraid of you in a car or on foot. I figure they are the most dangerous. But when I've gotten into the back country they act like someone has been hunting them. And this was even before wolves. They see me coming and they run away. Especially the bulls. I patrol at night a lot, with no flashlights, etc. If they smell or hear me, they are gone.

I think the upshot of this, on the grazing issue, is not so much to move them from one pasture to another as it is to harass them. Not 24/7 but at least enough to keep their edge. I think they have a right to be treated as a prey species. It helps them do their job. I have not read this specifically on APRs site or elsewhere, but I "feel" like their goal is to have a genetically pure bison herd acting as close to normal as possible, given the limitations imposed on them by law, etc. Nobody is trying to fatten these animals up for slaughter. Getting through the winter, maybe, but price per pound is not an issue.

 

[BuzzH]

straight, you are right, I am fortunate to have known some of those old timers. A lot of history is gone with their passing. Don't think that for one minute that they were pleased with the outcome of the transplanted elk and how high the numbers were/are. A couple of them told me they never would have agreed to haul an elk into the country if they had known how out of hand the population would get, or how tough elk are on fences and crops.

Hey eric,

How do you explain this:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/feat...430c706e8.html


Quote:
For example, Stivers found a document signed by landowners between Dec. 21 and Dec. 28, 1950, in what must have been one of the Sand Creek transplants.

It stated: "The undersigned agree to reasonable use of forage by the elk and further agree, in the event of damage to their property, not to file claims against the state of Montana, Fish and Game Commission, but to cooperate with the Fish and Game Department, interested agencies and sportsmen to work out a solution to any unforeseen problems. It is further agreed that the Department of fish and Game will attempt to maintain the transplanted and their increase in numbers, which, in its opinion, the area is capable of supporting."

The landowners who signed were Olaf Rindal, Carl Hedman, Henry Hedman, William Hedman, Frank McArthur, Andrew Tresch, Arthur Larson, Lynn Phillips, Terry E. Kalal, Vernett A. Norsleag, Anthony Weingart and Ray F. McNulty.

 

[Eric Albus]

Sand Creek, all those names are on the other side of the lake, actually those names sound like on south side of river, west of Fred Robinson Bridge...

All I have ever known or been told is that on the north side of the lake the agreement was 2400 head of elk.