Six Groups Collaborate to Publish a New Buffalo Newsletter.

Buffaloed on Jun 13th 2008

Filed in Brucellosis, Buffalo, Buffalo Hunt, Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT), National Park Service, Yellowstone Buffalo | 9 responses so far

9 Responses to “Six Groups Collaborate to Publish a New Buffalo Newsletter.”

1. Indamani Jun 13th 2008 at 03:05 pm 1

   This is a very good idea. We need to inform as many people as we possibly can about the plight of the American wild buffalo in Yellowstone. The buffalo that they see today may not be here the next time they visit. Since, many tourists from foreign countries visit Yellowstone, this information will be spread all over the world! I’m still new to being a friend of the buffalo, I’m wondering if something like this had been done before or is this the first time?

2. Buffaloed Jun 13th 2008 at 03:24 pm 2

   Indamani,

   Yes, BFC has spent the last 11 years informing people about the plight of Yellowstone buffalo by handing out newsletters in the Park. The newsletter BFC had for this year focused on the news from the previous season and was too out of date so this coalition was formed to produce the new one.

3. Indamani Jun 13th 2008 at 08:14 pm 3

   Has anyone read the governor’s letter to montana’s livestock industry? Is a ’split-state status’ a good idea for the buffalo and other park wildlife?

4. bob jackson Jun 14th 2008 at 11:16 pm 4

   In the Bison News article, “A history of Bison” it says “over time …the Lamar herd mingled with members of indigenous Pelican Valley herd. THEIR DESCENDENTS….” To me this sounds as if they are ONE herd or at least have substantial cohesion. There is nothing of this actually happening. The Pelican herd has kept its own identity…and distinct behavioral characteristics. I realize those wanting to save the bison of Yellowstone feel the need to lump, osmosis, and diffuse these two herds together as one …. as a link to uniqueness …but by doing so we are not giving due respect to this Pelican herd of thousands of years. Both herds can be justified on their own merits for preservation. Neither has to tag along with the other.

   I would suggest changing this misleading information (It sounds like this info was taken verbatim out of the NPS “science mill”). All they think is bison being population densities. You guys are ahead of Park biologists now that you are aware and print about “family groups”. Why regress or believe what the Park tells everyone about the Pelican and Lamar herds being one. The Park doesn’t have “the foggest”.

5. Jim Macdonald Jun 17th 2008 at 02:12 pm 5

   Hey, so I’m having a little trouble printing this - don’t seem to have enough memory on my printer for page 2 (should work on a bigger printer - though I have a laser, don’t remember how much RAM).

   The file itself isn’t that large - it’s the amount of memory it takes to render the images for printing. Any technical help on this - might be an issue for others as well.

6. Jim Macdonald Jun 17th 2008 at 10:38 pm 6

   Just a follow up note - while I still couldn’t print the newsletter, I did manage to obtain a lot of printed versions from the Gallatin Wildlife Association, which we handed out - among other things - at our table today (and will throughout the summer).

   So, my need is met, but I don’t know if others will be having a similar problem.

7. Buffaloed Jun 19th 2008 at 11:21 am 7

   Mr. Jackson,

   In context the passage states this:

   By 1902 approximately 23 wild bison were all that remained. Fearful that such a small herd would suffer from inbreeding, park managers acquired 18 cow bison from Montana’s Flathead Valley and three bulls from the Texas Panhandle and brought them to Yellowstone’s Lamar Valley. While the extent of interbreeding between the native and introduced herds is not fully understood, over time bison of the Lamar herd mingled with members of Yellowstone’s indigenous Pelican Valley herd. Their descendents, numbering fewer than 2,000, live today in and around Yellowstone National Park. Both behaviorally and genetically unique, the unfenced Yellowstone herd carries an intact genetic link to America’s original population.

   With all due respect there is nothing in the passage that states that the two herds have become one herd. We have always argued that the herds comprise the last wild population, and, yes, their descendants are the ones we’re fighting for.

   That being said, we have to defer to science and scientists who are working on this issue as we speak but they have not made the same determination that you have. Your determination that the Pelican herd is a unique population of “mountain buffalo” due to their behavior has no real science behind it and many of the biologists who are working and have worked on the issue don’t agree.

   In this News Release where you are listed as a contact, you are touted as a “30-year backcountry ranger at Yellowstone National Park and a recognized bison behavioral expert”. The press release makes the claim that:

   The Mountain Bison are thought to be the direct descendants of Yellowstone’s prehistoric buffalo. Unlike the Plains Bison, the Mountain Bison do not tolerate the presence of humans and stay deep within their forested haunts in the park’s rugged upper elevations.

   While I am not saying that you are wrong, I do question your qualification to make this assertion. It is known that you were a backcountry ranger, but in an area of the Park without a herd of bison (the southeast portion of the Park), and that you ranch hybridized buffalo in the midwest but I don’t see how that makes you a “recognized bison behavioral expert”.

   It is known that feral cattle in certain circumstances actively avoid human contact but that does not mean that their existence is somehow threatened by that contact. We do know, however, that the management actions of the Park Service and the Montana Department of Livestock do threaten the existence and genetic integrity of all of the buffalo that reside in the Park and hopefully, in the near future, the surrounding area.

   That brings me to another disagreement that I have with your assessment of bison. It has to do with your recommendation to the Department of Livestock and to the general public in your op-ed which appeared on Counterpunch.

   From: http://www.counterpunch.org/jackson03012008.html
   “After determining family order, they also would realize each bison has a role within its family. Therein lies the solution to the brucellosis issue. For example, elimination [emphasis added] of scout bulls, the Jim Bridgers and Kit Carsons of the bison world, upon entering unoccupied (ranch) lands, would solve the problem of bison families expanding into areas of concern.”

   Using your advice as justification the MDoL killed several bulls which left the Park after they announced a moratorium on killing buffalo.
   Read about it here: Update: 9 Bulls Slaughtered by the State of Montana.

   The problem with this argument is that it is not true. The first group of buffalo to leave the Park was a mixed group of 300 cows and calves which preceded the bulls by 4-5 months. Those nine bulls were important to the herd in many ways besides acting as scout bulls. They held a genetic diversity in their y chromosomes that females don’t have.

   Each of these animals is important to existence of genetically pure buffalo in North America. Genetically pure buffalo ARE unique and whether there are two sub-species or just one with two distinct populations they should all be held in high regard and receive full protection inside and outside of Yellowstone National Park. I believe that buffalo need allies who aren’t bickering about semantics or making unsubstantiated claims.

8. LetBuffaloRoam Jun 19th 2008 at 12:07 pm 8

   Jim,

   Thanks for getting the newsletters out! I’m checking on the download issue; even if hard copies will suffice for you, it would behoove us (eh hem) to allow folks to download and help distribute them from wherever they are.

   Did you note the story in today’s Billing’s Gazette? Seems BFC and BAB have struck a nerve with the mention of Corriente cattle as the transmission vector.
   http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/06/18/news/state/14-mexico.txt

   But, The Missoulian had a fair op-ed in today’s paper about the over-hype of the “threat” of brucellosis:
   http://missoulian.com/articles/2008/06/19/opinion/guest/guest77.txt

9. bob jackson Jun 19th 2008 at 06:47 pm 9

   Buffaloed, With as you say, “all due respect” you need to do a bit more research…which includes where I patrolled and the credibility of scientists “working on buffalo”.
   Also there is a big difference between bulls as protectors and scout bulls. They can be the same animal but like any population with good infrastructue, roles are fine tuned and enhanced to distinguish roles for maximum herd utilization. Once a population is already established in an area the role of scout bulls is to go beyond that area. Thus, the word “scout”. If DOL or its agents used this justification I would think it was your duty as a bison protector to urgently call me so this elimination of bulls didn’t happen…if it was not past tense, ie. already happened. If it was a done deal I would have appreciated a call to clarify so this “justification” could not be used in the context it was. Since I didn’t get a call in either event I have to assume the intent of being a bison protector was more to use anger, either at me or a greater me (think the Dude in the Big Leboski) to isolate you or your group as the “chosen ones”. I hope I am wrong but folks who really have the conviction of really wanting to “save” something will approach from all angles. Turf wars don’t get in the way.

   As for the Park “scientists” and “deferring” to them as you state I have offered to talk with them many times. They are not interested. The same occurred with the grizzly - salting of elk mortality issue even though this issue was National news for several years (it made them look pretty bad and a number of administrative employees either were demoted, had to transfer to other agencies or had to take early retirement…all because status quo structure was more important than learning the facts). You see most all science has to do with buddies, networking and elitist status….not scientific findings.

   The fact the Buffalo field Campaign always quotes “we are the only ones who work in the field…” seems to categorize status and a “bickering” that you say we shouldn’t do. I also need to temper this by saying any group out in the forefront of activism is taking a lot of shots both internally and from afar. As an individual filling the same role I also have to be on guard against my emotional suseptibility to defensive and isolationist thinking.

   To get back to the Park “science” I don’t believe they even know how to isolate and identify a core herd location for Mt. Bison. This was applicable for the Woods Bison in Canada also. Plains bison trails crossed the territories of the indigenous herds. It would be like aliens seeing White folks in China Town for dim sum in popular eateries on Sunday morning. Who is who?
   I know of no Federal or State bison biologist who understands the workings of bison. And without this basic understanding how can they understand things like scout bulls or even where in Yellowstone to take blood samples for genetic testing. All this is evident with the 28 bison collared this winter to “understand” bison movements. They will only get symptom science results no different than one would get from radio collaring refugees on their way to Red Cross camps in the Sudan. I repeat THE PARK DOES NOT UNDERSTAND BISON and if you believe they do then it means you do not either.

   As for my “credibility” it appears there might be a bit of threatened regarding “expert” in your words. To not find out where I travelled in Yellowstone for my years of patrolling before you said I wasn’t in buffalo country could mean you are trying to discredit more than truly wanting knowledge. Just a thought.

   Before questioning my employment credentals you should have done some research first (the first rule of lawyerdom is know the answer first). As a ranger with a duty station out of Lake (which includes many bison areas) a lot of trips were made in the Hayden and Pelican Valley before the waters receded enough to get across the streams to the SE corner. Most years travel to Thorofare didn’t happen till after the Fourth of July. The same applied at the end of the Fall. Out of Thorofare and to Fern - Pelican and East boundary hunting patrol. Also in 1972-73 I was a Fire guard who spent every week packing supplies to the Look out on Pelican Cone. Other years when budget was tight I was the ONLY backcountry ranger who patrolled the Lake District. This meant I travelled the South boundary to within 13 miles of South entrance and North past the East entrance road, all the way past Pelican Valley to looking down on the Lamar Valley. Still in other years I filled in the summer for Pelican, Mirror Plateau, and Fern Lake areas….for months at a time. Yes, I was in Buffalo Country quite a bit, especially Mt. Bison country…and I was also about the only one who ever got off the trails. Others never got off the trail because they were SCARED. No radio reception to save ones sorry ass and scared of the “woolies”.

   As for “biologists’ it was the same as scared “backcountry” rangers. That is why one reads all those studies on Lamar Valley animals. Mary Meagher was the only one to travel any area off trail and her position meant very limited amount of time to see what was going on. … and 90% of any time she could muster for back country meant loading and trailering a horse (no pack animal) out of Black Tail and day tripping with the time left available. Every day was a backcountry day for me and that included all days off since I lived the backcountry, the only back country in Yellowstone to actually live the job.
   Call it bragging if you are of deflective nature but the facts are the facts and no one in Yellowstone past or present travelled the miles and country I did. Plus I had a F&Wildlife research oriented degree from college. And yes, my “study area” goes beyond the time of half of each year in Yellowstone.
   My Iowa bison herd is the only one managed with social order in the world and the results in the field “study” area matches up with what I see in Yellowstone. Yes, I do have credentals …oops you got me on speling this word in the paragraphs above also didn’t you ….there goes my intellect credentials.

   If you want to know more of what buffalo do why don’t or didn’t you attend one of the presentations I did and do in Montana. A lot of folks from the professional community have been invited by others but none show up…Park Service, State biologists, GYC, Turner Enterprises etc. So until they do I guess any and all can discredit in the guise and excuse of being part of the ignorant. Should you be included? Why don’t you ask for some of the papers I’ve written. Ask for the historical writings showing the same as what I say. No it appears although activist by name there is a lot of conventional establishment structure some people live by.

   I would suggest you search “where no man has gone before” a bit more instead of using conventional networking for support. I used this “technique” to catch more poachers than all the rangers combined for the 40 years before and during my rangering ..and it was done in only half of each year.

   Most “science” is ineffective because it’s dysfunctional bull group formation trumps the need for legitimate science. It is the same for corporate board rooms and why they as a group promote their bull group executives when every person in the company outside this bull group says, “this guy is a real dud”. But that is another story..but still very applicable to this discussion. ta da ta da
   P.S. The Montana BOL did ask what the difference was between scout bulls and other bulls. In fact they asked questions about buffalo of my partner and I at their evening May meeting for 3 hours. That is more than I can say for others. The next day at the regular meeting there was a lot of mention by them of family groups, where bison home was and things like this. Do you think Susanne Lewis will be want to briefed on what the BOL now knows and asked? Hardly. In fact the Park Biologists, when they were told by BOL I was invited, asked only one thing …that I wouldn’t be there when Suzanne is to meet with them at their July meeting. Wouldn’t one think this biologist entourage would want me around to refute the info and logic I have if they were so sure of their “science”? Again ta da, ta da, ta da.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply