Casper Star-Tribune Online

Advanced Search

Ranchers oppose Yellowstone bison relocation

Story Tools

Print this story

E-mail this story

Rate this story

Text Size

Share This Story:

trib.popular

By The Associated Press

Monday, January 5, 2009 7:03 PM MST

BILLINGS, Mont. -- Ranchers are voicing concern about plans to relocate some Yellowstone Park bison to Indian reservations in Montana and Wyoming.

The ranchers are worried about the animals' history of carrying brucellosis, a disease that causes domestic cows to miscarry.

"There isn't anyone up here who wants it. It's a cockamamie idea, and it's an experimental deal," said John Brenden, a Scobey, Mont., rancher and legislator. "I don't like anybody experimenting on us."

At issue is the relocation of more than 40 bison, kept under quarantine for three years as part of an experiment to keep alive at least some of the bison migrating from Yellowstone National Park.

Bison that have left the park and tested positive for brucellosis have been slaughtered in Montana to prevent the animals from coming in contact with livestock.

However, the quarantined bison have tested negative for brucellosis for three years, been allowed to reproduce in captivity and are now ready for relocation. Three Indian reservations, the Fort Belknap and Fort Peck reservations in Montana and Wind River in Wyoming, have submitted proposals for acquiring the bison.

The animals are sought after because of bloodline purity, said Robbie Magnum, who manages an existing herd of 117 bison on the Fort Peck Reservation. Park bison breed within their species, unlike their nonpark cousins that over the years have been crossbred with cattle.

Magnum said the park bison would not only improve the quality of the Fort Peck herd but also help tribal members return to a traditional diet low in carbohydrates and rich in bison meat. Diabetes is a serious problem on the reservation. Lowering carbohydrate consumption is considered key to managing blood sugar levels.

Representatives from state and federal government agencies will meet this month to review bison management proposals submitted by the reservations.

Ron Aasheim, spokesman for the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department, said it will be months before any bison are relocated.

The Fort Peck reservation's borders stretch within a few miles of Brenden's home.

Brenden and other ranchers worry about the bison straying off the reservation. Even if the animals tested negative for brucellosis, they carry the stigma of originating from a diseased population in Yellowstone National Park.

Ranchers say just having the bison near their operations could make it hard to market beef from the area.

But the Montana Department of Livestock isn't opposed to the plan since the bison have tested negative for brucellosis for three years.

"As far as the Department of Livestock is concerned, we're not going to let untested bison go anywhere," said Steve Merritt, the department's spokesman. "This has been part of the plan for quite some time. It's part of the interagency bison management plan. It's part of the plan of the quarantine facility. We have a high degree of confidence in the testing regime."


		Fremont Co. homicides rise

Article Rating

Reader Comments

There are 22 comment(s)

Comments to this story.

keith wrote on Jan 6, 2009 4:19 AM:

" You may as well let them transplant them we ( montana and wyoming) lost there burcellosis free status anyway.
let them reproduce in other parts of the state before we lose all the ones in the park to wolves. It is not like they are putting untested bison there they have been tested for three years, probably alot more then your cows have. "

joe wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:10 AM:

" said to say once they are on the reservation- they will be dead "

EcoSprite wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:27 AM:

" Ain't that just like someone with an 8th grade education to be against the relocation of animals that have been quarantined AND tested to be free of the disease? I'll just bet that if the land around Scobey had any value to a developer, this joneser would sell out in a minute and head for a swingin' singles community in Arizona. What's really sad though, this guy's inability to understand the the very basics of science is shared by so many ranchers in Wyoming. "

flounder wrote on Jan 6, 2009 6:56 AM:

" These ranchers need to just put a pie in it. The only reason any buffalo have brucellosis is because ranchers introduced it. So for the AP to insinuate that it is buffalo rather than cattle that have a "history" of carrying the disease is not only bias toward the ranching industry but makes them look really stupid. "

BornInTheUSA wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:35 AM:

" Ranchers don't like anything do they?

Except of course their government handouts? "

WestWyo wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:33 AM:

" Worried about the Bisons' history? They have been tested brucellosis free for three years. Before long this bunch of the oversubsidised will be demanding free cheese with their whine. "

Dewd wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:22 AM:

" regarding the inference of the headline, it might be time to strongly consider relocating the Ranchers.... "

whatthe wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:04 PM:

" Do you people have any education at all? How could you be so ingnorant as to say relocate ranchers, are you stupid and think that meat you eat, clothes you wear and many of the things you use everyday don't come from cattle? brucellois is a big issue for ranchers and alot of planning and thought needs to be done before transplanting any animal. There are environmental impacts, like brucellosis, to be be aware of and many others like carrying capacity, which is to say will there be enough food to maintain a healthy herd, will poaching be an issue, will other wildlife be displaced and so on... "

LaramieResident wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:13 PM:

" God I get sick of the ranchers whining. Don't they get enough handouts already? It's time the people of Wyoming and Montana step up and kick these idiots out of our representation. They are a small minority in both of these states, yet they seem to have control over both state's legislatures. This is the #1 reason I didn't vote for Lummis. "

wyotextile wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:52 PM:

" Where do people get the idea that all RANCHERS receive enormous subsidies??? (Farmers receive the greatest about of subsidies and for those of you who don't know,farming and ranching are different) Educate yourself before you blab your opinions. Ranchers get tired of people "telling" them what they can (or should) do with their land. Ranchers are only trying to protect what they have worked VERY hard for.

They may be a small minority in both States, but they own a lot more land than you do!!! "

WestWyo wrote on Jan 7, 2009 2:28 PM:

" Wyotextile, agreed, they do own more land. Most of it was inherited or they were able to buy it because they received hugh amounts of monies from the taxpayers "

Moo wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:05 PM:

" I believe LaramieResident is referring to ranchers that graze allotmentts on public land, and if that's the case, he/she is right - it is nothing more than a subsidy that allows said ranchers to despoil semi-arid grasslands and forests that cannot sustain cattle, at the expense of wildlife, and that are the property of every US citizen. And if you read the article above, nobody is telling ranchers how to manage their own deeded lands - this proposal is to allow Native Americans to run bison on tribal lands. And finally, if you think brucellosis is a serious concern here, you're nuts. The greatest threat of brucellosis would be coming FROM cattle and being transmitted TO the bison. So stop babbling about things you do not know. "

Cybelle wrote on Jan 8, 2009 7:46 AM:

" If public lands are "the property of EVERY U.S. citizen," then ranchers with grazing allotments are landowners rightfully using their lands.....it's not a government subsidy. And before anyone quotes me the dollar amount per AUM charged for grazing fees, I'll assure you that I already know it. I also know, from having discussed the matter with a government Range Specialist, that said dollars per AUM is but one part of the equation used in determining grazing fees.

This is just another situation that doesn't have to be adversarial unless people on BOTH sides choose to make it so. "

Well wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:07 AM:

" Hey Moo! Since livestock (on DEEDED land) are vaccinated for brucellosis then how are they going to transmitt brucellosis TO the bison? Maybe you need to stop babbling about things your not educated about! "

LaramieResident2 wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:56 AM:

" Maybe it's time to relocate you Dewd! You blood leeching attorney liberal! "

EcoSprite wrote on Jan 8, 2009 1:34 PM:

" Wow Dewd, LaramieResident2 sure smells a lot like Tguide. Makes about as much sense too. I say make the prices for the government AUMs fair market value. Then open these leases up to competitive bid. Republican conservatives shouldn't have any problem with letting the free market decide who gets what. That extra money would also help retire some of the debt that got racked up over the last 8 years by the compassionate conservative administration. "

Indian Rancher wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:21 PM:

" To make one point clear, there is a big difference in subsidies for ranchers compared to farmers. The farm bill gives most of the subsidies to farmers who cultivate corn for fuel. We are not part of the corn belt, so our local ranchers receive little to none of these so called subsidies.
The pink meat that is under the clear plastic celophane, in the local grocery store for which you but to eat your cheeseburgers, must come from somewhere. It just don't appear out of thin air, nor is it shipped in from some fantasy land.
So, I am not really in favor of relocating the bison, until we look at all of the consequences and solutions of the relocation process.
One of the main concerns is the brucellosis desease, which causes cows to miscarry. This disease, if contracted, could be devistating to any local rancher's herd. Most ranchers are barely keeping their heads above water with the eight year drought and economy the way it is.
One of the other concerns is the range or grazing land. Land can only provide for so much animals. This will just put more strain on vegetation within the range lands. With all the wild horses, the rest of the animals, then adding bison, what will there be left to graze on? The wild game would be affected, along with the cattle.
Maybe we should start eating horse burgers. "

wyotextile wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:48 AM:

" WestWyo, I am a rancher. I do not know of a single rancher that received enough (or even close to enough) money from taxpayers that would begin to pay for a ranch. My grandfather worked hard for his ranch and did not live an extravagant life style. My family also worked hard on that ranch and yes, my family inherited the ranch. Trust me, the only taxpayers that PAID for that ranch were the family members that WORKED on our ranch.
Back to the issue...there are many organizations and groups wanting to make decisions affecting the livelihood of ranchers. Two of these concerns were the re-introduction of wolves and now the relocation of buffalo with the concern for brucellosis. Here's a scenario to help correlate the impact these issues can have for a ranch. Let a rancher drive a huge a truck through the middle of your home and lets see how you respond to that action (and no, you will not be able to take legal action, you have to just live with the "decision" and absorb the cost of the "incident"). The non-rancher may not be able to understand the correlation just given, hence, you wouldn't begin to understand why the ranchers have the concern for the relocation of the buffalo.

For the grazing comments...true ranchers are stewards of the land. "

ElkFan wrote on Jan 10, 2009 12:22 AM:

" To ranchers who exploit public lands, I'll quote from the conservationist and writer Edward Abbey: Keep your cows out of my elk pasture. "

Dismayed wrote on Jan 10, 2009 10:27 AM:

" The only thing enviros complain louder about than grazing on leased land at a fee they think is too low if when they find out they have to pay anything themselves to use the land.
I'm sure those who want the buffalo transplanted to those areas are willing to put up a bond of a few million to pay for any losses to brucellosis since they KNOW it will be safe. "

Hmmm wrote on Jan 11, 2009 1:10 PM:

" Agree with Elkfan so Ecosprite stay away. "

get with the program wrote on Jan 12, 2009 6:59 AM:

" While I am not an econut i do not agree with some things. I am familiar with farms being raised on a large one with crop, cattle and hog production and am not speaking from the econut/city background. I do believe ANYONE using public lands should pay a fee and be required to purchase a conservation stamp like the hunters and fishermen do. However,

1. There were no cows here until they were introduced from Europe. The North American Bison (actual name) were here in great numbers (4 great herds and the woodland). These Bison were and are better suited for the Americas.

2. Bison meat is better for you health wise and has helped with the diabetes problems among the original indigenous people, Would probably be better for anyone else also. The hides make good robes/blankets much more preferable than a cow hide one. Some people do raise the Bison so replacing the cow with them is not an issue except control. But if you can not control the Bison enough to utilize them perhaps you should find another profession.

3. Bison stand a better chance against the pestilence called a wolf, the climate and will not die of thirst standing chest deep in snow like a stupid cow.

4. Rid the land of the cow, replace them with the Bison and ranch them. Nature through natural selection decided Bison belonged here. The European last i checked were not nature and introduction of the cow was not by natures process of natural selection. Not one ship that brought the cow was named "Natures Natural Selection".

On a side note horse makes a fine meal and should make the plate. After all it was weeded out in this hemisphere by natural selection and again introduced/reintroduced by man who thinks he knows more than nature and natures process thus mucking up the works. "

Submit a Comment

We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.

Please note: We provide our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.