U.S. Government to Cull Hundreds of Yellowstone Bison This Winter

[WhiteTara]

As many as 900 wild bison at Yellowstone National Park will be killed or removed this winter as government agencies continue working to reduce the effects of their annual migration into Montana.

Park officials released their plans on Tuesday to cull the bison herd by 600 to 900 animals by either hunting or capturing the large creatures. It could potentially be the largest hunt in one winter since 2008, and could remove nearly 20 percent of the current population of about 4,900 bison that currently roam the park.

The bison migration occurs annually as the animals move to the lower elevations of Montana, where their historical winter grazing grounds are located. Since the 1980s, about 8,200 park bison have been killed due to fears over the spreading of the animal disease brucellosis.

snip

Park officials originally proposed killing or removing up to 1,000 of the animals, but they scaled back that goal in part because of opposition from American Indian tribes. Wildlife advocates said they were disappointed by but not surprised at the large number of bison being targeted.

"The brucellosis argument has been discredited so much that they're shifting their argument and saying there are surplus bison that need to be killed," said Dan Brister, executive director of the Buffalo Field Campaign. "You never hear anyone talking about surplus elk or other wildlife species. We really want to see bison treated like elk and other wildlife."

more at link with video http://www.weather.com/science/nature/news/yellowstone-bison-hunt

[jonno99]

1. Wow - 900? Even with wolves having returned to the park? You'd think there'd be more

of an equilibrium...

[NickB79]

2. Wolves don't have nearly the same predation on bison as they do on elk

A wolf pack stands a much better chance against a full-grown elk than it does against a bull bison. Elk, even with their large antlers, if a wolf hits the legs, down it goes. A bison is basically a wall of hair, muscle and rage.

The ironic thing is that people are upset about allowing the one predator that has hunted bison for 12,000 years in North America from hunting them in a controlled fashion. Funny that.

[jonno99]

3. Interesting, that makes sense - thx for the info! nt

[Bigmack]

4. A question and a rant....

Question first. Are those buffalo moving to range owned by US?... that is, onto BLM or NFS land, or are they moving to private land. If they are moving to OUR land, the ranchers can just get their fucking cattle off OUR land so OUR buffalo can use it.
The OP has it right...the brucellosis argument is total bullshit.

Rant: The ranchers get a helluva deal. $1.35 per head per day grazing rights on OUR land. That's about a 10th of what grazing would cost on private land. That difference has cost us taxpayers over $1 Billion in the last 10 years. And that a lot, considering that under 3% of livestock ranchers use public land. The rest graze their own or leased land. So they are getting government subsidies.. and then complaining that they have to follow the rules and not overgraze or cut fences that protect other species on OUR land. Ungrateful is putting it mildly.
Bundy owes over $1 million in back grazing fees. That's a lot of cows and a lot of days he's not paid for;. And he took a $530,000 loan from the Small Business Administration. I'm frustrated at armed deadbeats keeping me from using OUR land.
I'm frustrated that ranchers, miners, and loggers continue to do what they want on OUR land to the detriment of the other species on OUR land. The ranchers have overgrazed to the point where OUR lands are damaged...maybe irreversibly. "By the end of 1998, assessments found that 50% of its grazed land was in fair to poor condition, with about 33% in good to excellent condition, and the remainder unknown. Society for Range Management data indicate that about 15% of the BLM's land is improving in condition. However, about 14% is in declining condition as well. Percentages are similar for lands leased by the US Forest Service for grazing, with only about half of US Forest Service grazing land judged to be in satisfactory or better condition."
Western stockmen are being pinched by higher costs and lower prices for cattle... mostly because of foreign competition. Of course they are frustrated, but the BLM and NFS are supposed to manage the land so it will be preserved for the future... grazing, water, and the other species on that land.
This is not a "fuck you" to ranchers, it's a "fuck you" to deadbeats who - instead of being grateful for a handout - are demanding not only the handout, but want us to kiss their asses as we hand it to them.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2015/grazing-01-28-2015.html

[Xithras]

8. It would make a great jobs program.

The $1.35 per head thing is a little deceptive, because on private land the roughly $20 per head includes maintenance costs to the lands, government fees, etc. When people run cattle on BLM land, they are responsible for maintaining water wells, rebuilding fences, and paying the government fees themselves. If a cattle rancher leases some BLM land, and 15 miles of the lands fencing is shot, the rancher has to replace the fence himself, out of pocket. The BLM does no maintenance on their lands. The government has long cited this as the reason for the discrepancy, and most analysts generally agree that the overall costs are in the same ballpark after everything is factored in.

It seems to me that two problems could be solved here with a single action. Raise the rates to be roughly equal to the local private lease rates, and let the BLM use the money to take over the maintenance of the land themselves. This would create a lot of jobs AND eliminate the appearance of a subsidy AND block the ranchers from doing "maintenance" that might be beneficial to ranchers, but be harmful to the environment or to public access.

[Chuuku Davis]

13. No

Can you imagine the .gov waste and graft
Think DOD waste to repair 10 miles of fence

[Bigmack]

16. Sounds lak Commonism to me! Too sensible, too. nt

[Xolodno]

5. Utterly rediculous, government bending over backwards for cattle ranchers.

Here's an idea, how about capturing and selling/giving to people willing to become Bison Ranchers.

And, put them in other National Parks, Wildlife Refuge's etc they are native to.

[pipoman]

11. They are already there...

No, these are 2,000 lb wild, angry creatures....they will not be moving 600 of them anywhere. Each requires around 10 acres of land to graze. In the livestock community they are not desirable...cost of production is very high without just perfect conditions. Then there is the obvious..if you are going to give them to ranchers, what do you think they will do with them?

[Xolodno]

19. Well, they seem to be doing ok on Catalina Island and managed well.

Ranchers will probably domesticate the offspring. And given Bison tastes better (in my opinion) and a better option than beef....

[pipoman]

20. How many can Catalina Island support?

What does "managed well" mean?

The point is that without a lot of ground with the right kind of grass bison are far too expensive to raise for meat animals.

They don't have any fat and are difficult to eat any way except ground, and then some beef fat is usually ground in. Steaks and roasts are always from 2 year old animals. They never took off as meat animals because of this and the increased cost of production making the meat more expensive than beef. Even beefaol never took off because as much as people say they want lean meat, meat without some fat isn't delicious.

So you are OK with ranchers butchering the animals but aren't ok with this cull? Odd.

[Xolodno]

22. I understand the irony.

But disagree with you. Cows are "massed produced", government subsidized and contribute to green house gasses. And I also find Bison, Elk, etc. delicious and better than beef (granted wild meat is "tougher" and "gamey"...domesticated, probably won't have this problem). Plus, you should probably acknowledge the irony in your statement....grass fed beef is more expensive than corn fed. Remove the government subsidies and the price would even be higher....none of us pay for the real cost of meat.

Bison used to roam much of the plains and did alright long before we got here. They are only a "problem" because they compete against corporate and government subsidized cattle on government owned grazing lands.

I'm not "ok" with the cull because they are only branching out to their natural habitat. And I'm "ok" if they are raised by ranchers for food in a humane way. We've been encroaching on them, much like building a home development near mountain lions habitat...and are shocked when they appear in the development when they've been to reduced to land that barely supports them. Only the mountain lion takes the bullet.

[pipoman]

23. All animals contribute to greenhouse gas...

Some people eat bison....the public only eat it a a novelty . Because they are even more expensive per pound in production than cattle, people prefer beef (without fat beef would sick too), and their nasty and dangerous disposition, they will never be mainstream.

It isn't the old west and as with everywhere in the US, there is finite number of 10 acre tracts needed to raise a bison. Cull is part of reality in states like mine. The cull finances the upkeep and care, maintains healthy populations, protects habitat, and is as much a part of the bison's history as the annual migration.

Those most outspoken are outsiders with no skin in the game, nor will they ever give a cent to the maintenance...

[TransitJohn]

21. The Yellowstone herd isn't really Bison

It's beefalo.

[CajunBlazer]

6. It sounds like the the major push for the annual slaughter comes from....

... Montana ranchers who don't want the bison competing with their cattle since both graze on public land outside of the park when the bison migrate looking for better food sources in the winter. Of course the bison don't know any better because they have been participating in similar migrations for ten of thousands of years.

The brucellosis argument is just an excuse to cover the real reason for the slaughter.

When wildlife competes with money making, you know which one always wins in states run by Republicans.

[librechik]

7. yup!

Republicans run the range.

[joeybee12]

9. Exactly...brucellosis actually has been shown to be transferred from the

cattle to the bison, not the other way around...this is sickening.

[Odin2005]

12. Basically the same fucknuts as the idiots in Oregon.

Ranchers are some of the worst people when it comes to environmental issues, it seems like. They are mostly simple-minded morons who don't comprehend how what they do is destructive and when people try to make them stop they throw a temper-tantrum and accuse "The Government" and "Big City Liberal elites" of wanting to "destroy their way of life".

[CajunBlazer]

14. We may be painting with too broad a brush

I doubt seriously whether all ranchers are like that.

I also don't think that those ranchers who endanger the environment are simple minded or non comprehending. They they are like the business people that polluted our water and land with their poisons for generations. They they don't care about anything that comes between them and their profits.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Bison have always been very good to me so I oppose this culling. Bison are amazing and

huge and I'm fond of them.

[CajunBlazer]

15. How have they been good to you?

Sounds like an interesting story.

[philosslayer]

18. Garrett Morris???

Is that you???

[icymist]

17. Does the government have permission from the Bundys Militias to do this? nt