We catch up with Jay Bodner, MSGA Director of Natural Resources and Montana Public Lands Council Executive Secretary. He gives us an update on what the top issues are at the meeting and how they affect Montana and MSGA members.
Governor’s bison plan OK’d; will reduce hazing near Yellowstone
Source: Bozeman Daily Chronicle
WEST YELLOWSTONE — State, federal and tribal agencies agreed on Wednesday to adopt the governor’s plan to allow some bison to stay in Montana year-round, a move officials say will reduce bison hazing done each year near West Yellowstone.
The change will let a certain number of bison stay year-round on Horse Butte near West Yellowstone and north to the Buck Creek drainage, located just south of Big Sky, without being chased back into Yellowstone National Park. The decision also calls for year-round tolerance for male bison north of Gardiner into Yankee Jim Canyon.
At an Interagency Bison Management Plan meeting here, none of the tribal or federal agencies objected to the governor’s December decision, meaning the plan has essentially been approved.
“This a day to be celebrated,” said Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks regional supervisor Sam Sheppard.
The change comes as an amendment to the 2000 Interagency Bison Management Plan, which specifies procedures and population goals for the nearly 5,000 bison that live in the Yellowstone region.
Some tolerance for the animals had already existed outside of the park, but the governor’s decision adds significantly more land to the tolerance zone on the west side, where bison had been hazed back each year.
The decision sets seasonal limits on the number of bison allowed to remain west of the park — 450 from September through February, 600 from March through June, 250 in July and August. When bison numbers exceed that, the state could chase them back across into Yellowstone.
Those figures reflect the number of bison officials expect to see outside of the park in each season. They expect many of the bison that come out in the spring will migrate back into Yellowstone on their own before July, meaning they wouldn’t need to be hazed. Sheppard said the decision “allows bison to do the work for us.”
The decision doesn’t eliminate hazing. Bison still won’t be allowed near the South Fork of the Madison River, so after May 15 they will be chased to either the tolerance zone border or the park border, whichever is closer.
Hazing would still happen on the north side of Yellowstone each year, starting May 1. The decision only allows male bison to roam north to Yankee Jim Canyon year-round, not females.
Female bison raise concerns for livestock producers during the spring calving season because of the disease brucellosis, which can cause cattle to miscarry. The disease is transmitted through afterbirth, and more than half of Yellowstone’s female bison are believed to have been exposed to it. No case of bison transmitting the disease in the wild has been documented.
Still, hazing is one way the IBMP tries to eliminate the risk of disease transmission.
Montana Department of Livestock state veterinarian Marty Zaluski said if there is a mixed group of male and female bison that are in that area, officials won’t attempt to sort the male bison out.
“If there’s a mixed group, then that group will go back,” Zaluski said.
“We’re not in the business of sorting bison,” added Rob Tierney, bison program manager for the Department of Livestock.
Sheppard said that by that time, most bison have usually left the Gardiner Basin for lands inside the park anyway.
Tom MacDonald, fish and wildlife division manager of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, said the plan to expand tolerance was a “logical step forward in managing bison.”
Environmental groups and buffalo advocates were pleased with the partner agencies giving the plan a thumbs up Wednesday. During the public comment portion of the meeting, representatives of a few groups thanked the IBMP partner agencies. But it isn’t the end of the fight for them.
“We hope this decision drives further advancements for Yellowstone bison, which unfortunately continue to be shipped to slaughter when they leave the park in search of food in the winter,” Stephanie Adams of the National Parks Conservation Association said in a statement.
On the other side, Jay Bodner, natural resource director for the Montana Stockgrowers Association, said his group still opposes the governor’s decision. He said they worry that budgets for FWP and the Department of Livestock will be stressed by increasing how much land bison can use since it might require more on-the-ground work. He is also concerned that government officials will ask for even more tolerance in Montana, rather than reducing the number of bison in the region.
“I don’t think our concerns have been addressed,” Bodner said in an interview.
The agencies involved are currently working on a new Interagency Bison Management Plan, and a draft is expected out sometime this year.
Over the next few days, the current plan will be amended to include the governor’s proposals. Each agency involved is expected to formally sign off on the changes later this month, after which the document will be posted online.
© Copyright 2016 Bozeman Daily Chronicle, 2820 West College Bozeman, MT
Livestock and agricultural groups including the Montana Stockgrowers Association, R- CALF and the Montana Farm Bureau have filed written protests to a Bureau of Land Management proposal to change the land-use provision on the Flat Creek Allotment in Phillips County, MT. At issue is a change in the class of livestock from cattle to bison, removal of interior fencing and allowing bison to graze year around.
Currently the grazing permit for the allotment designates cattle as the approved species.
The American Prairie Reserve (APR), a Bozeman, MT-based wildlife group, submitted the change request. APR has been purchasing private ranch land and acquiring BLM grazing permits for several years in an effort to create a private wildlife reserve for bison. The stated mission of APR on its website is “to create and manage a prairie-based wildlife reserve that, when combined with public lands already devoted to wildlife, will protect a unique natural habitat, provide lasting economic benefits, and improve public access to and enjoyment of the prairie landscape.”
The notice of proposed change was issued in late December by BLM Field Office Manager Vinita Shea. The notice provided for a “right of protest and appeal” whereby any applicant, permittee, lease holder or other affected person could file a written protest. The protest period closed Jan. 20.
In the notice, Shea wrote, “In the absence of a protest, this proposed decision will become my final decision without further notice.”
Jonathon Moor, Public Affairs Specialist with the BLM in Lewiston, MT, told WLJ the office received 125 protests. He noted that those letters were required to state a clear reason why the proposed decision is in error so the BLM could address the protest points.
A number of state and national agricultural organizations expressed opposition when the proposal was announced in 2015, and several issued formal letters of protest to the latest proposed decision.
Montana Stockgrowers Association (MSGA) Natural Resources Director Jay Bodner told WLJ his organization was submitting a formal protest. He noted some of the concerns included removing interior fencing to allow a common pasture that would include private and BLM land. In addition, MSGA voiced concern over bison getting out of the remaining exterior fences and infringing on private land or other BLM permittee allotments.
Montana Farm Bureau (MFB) submitted a letter to Shea noting the organization voiced opposition in April 2015 when the initial application for changes was made. MFB President Bob Hanson wrote, “Our members are very concerned with the idea of and movement toward establishing a ‘wild’ bison herd in Montana. We think this decision symbolizes the BLM’s endorsement of doing just that.”
The letter from MFB, the state’s largest agricultural organization, noted it is especially concerned with the term “indigenous” bison in indicating the class of livestock. The group said that under Montana law, bison are considered “a species in need of management,” citing Montana Code Annotated 87-1-216, and thereby is under the authority of the Department of Livestock and the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
“For all intents and purposes, we believe they should be classified and referred to strictly as ‘bison’ to avoid any confusion or ambiguity regarding Montana state law,” Hanson said. “Nowhere in state law are bison classified or referred to as ‘indigenous bison.’” Further, Hanson said, “It appears APR and BLM freely manipulate the term considering bison are not listed as a class or kind of livestock in the BLM Hi-Line RMP [Resource Management Plan] Appendix.”
Hanson went on to say the approval of year-round grazing to foster economic development for the community and private ranchers is wrong. “This decision does the exact opposite,” he said. “It ensures, for the foreseeable future, these allotments are merely an extension of APR’s boundaries and serves no economic benefit to any rancher or citizen of Phillips County or the State of Montana.”
R-CALF also submitted a formal protest asserting the BLM overstepped its authority saying, “R-CALF USA believes the BLM’s proposed decision is contrary to the BLM’s stated objective of promoting the improvement of rangeland ecosystems for the purpose of sustaining the western livestock industry.”
Citing information from APR’s website, R-CALF said the conservation group states its purpose is to “maintain a fully-functioning prairie-based wildlife reserve.” In its protest points, R-CALF—like MFB—says BLM regulations exclude bison from animals eligible to be included as livestock on BLM grazing permits. Only cattle, sheep, horses, burros and goats are listed as species considered livestock.
APR’s Communications and Outreach Manager, Hilary Parker, defended the organization’s request to remove interior fences on the leased land saying it is a way to accommodate the way bison graze, saying bison roam farther from their water source than cattle.
She said the changes to the Flat Creek Allotment are not a step toward freeroaming bison and the animals are managed as livestock. However, she told WLJ that doesn’t mean the group wouldn’t consider a free-roaming bison plan in the future if the state proposed one. Montana has considered establishing a free-roaming bison herd, but hasn’t taken any action. “If the state decides it wants wild bison in that area, we would consider taking the fences down and would consider allowing those bison to go under state management,” Parker said.
The bison are currently contained by exterior wildlife friendly fences. These have a bottom wire high enough above the ground to allow antelope to go under it and an electric “hot” wire across the top that is supposed to contain buffalo.
In the proposed decision notice, Shea said the rationale for her opinion in part was APR’s proven positive record on the Box Elder and Telegraph Creek Allotments which have been amended to accommodate the group’s bison. She wrote, “Removal of interior fencing will likely be a benefit to wildlife species by removing manmade barriers and reducing habitat fragmentation, especially when combined with the addition of 6,130 acres of private lands not previously part of the allotment which will be returned to rangeland habitat.”
APR shares some of the same concerns as ranchers when it comes to maintaining a healthy rangeland, according to Parker. However, the organization doesn’t believe in the Savoy rotational grazing system followed by many ranchers. She acknowledged this is one of the areas where APR and livestock producers have a different mindset. “Bison just interact with the land differently,” she said.
The conservation group has radio collar data that, according to Parker, shows the animals’ movement. In addition she said they invite people to come see the condition of the rangeland where bison graze.
The APR bison herd started with just 16 head and now includes about 620 animals. Parker said the group continues to expand its land and BLM lease holdings in anticipation of continued herd growth. The proposed decision would not change the recommended animal unit months, according to Moor, who said the permitted number is 1,247.
APR makes no apologies for being well-funded, and from small one-time gifts to large contributions it has raised in the neighborhood of $75 million. That money has helped the group complete about 23 transactions so far.
Parker said the purchases have been from willing sellers, who for a variety of reasons have decided to get out of the ranching business. She acknowledged the project is viewed as controversial by some, and noted that is because it is changing the scope of how the land is being used.
“We may be benefiting from that change, but we didn’t start the change,” Parker told WLJ. “We’re not trying to run people off or bullying in any way.” That said, she noted APR is benefiting from people not coming back to the farms and ranches in the area. “We recognize we have different uses for the land, different ideas about use of the land, but we are in no way antirancher.”
And while APR wants to be rancher-friendly, there are conflicts. Peggy Bergsagel, whose family has the Billie Lou Arnott Ranch that borders APR land south of the Flat Creek Allotment, said they have had problems with a bull buffalo “standing off” with Hereford bulls. Bergsagel said they tried to contact APR but received no response and finally called the county sheriff who shot the buffalo.
Parker said they have met with surrounding landowners and told them if bison are on private land or leases to shoot first and ask questions later. “If they feel they or their animals are being threatened, shoot.” Bergsagel, however says although shooting the animal was the result, she wasn’t aware taking that action was approved by APR.
Moor told WLJ Shea will take a hard look at the protest points, and to ensure all protests are adequately considered, there is no set time frame for a decision. He said after reviewing the protests, Shea will have three options: issue a final decision, which would be open to a public appeal period; issue a revised proposed decision, which again would be subject to protest by qualified interested parties; or a new Environmental Assessment could be prepared, which would be subject to the normal public engagement opportunities afforded under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Bodner said the protest period is an administrative process and typically, based on previous actions, agencies don’t deviate very much from their original decision, either in the protest or appeal processes. He said at that point, the individuals or groups opposed to the decision will make a decision of whether or not to take legal action. — Rae Price, WLJ Editor
Source: Western Livestock Journal