During Dr. Marty Zaluski's presentations,
the Board of Livestock covered the issues of the Elk DSA expansion
and the Bison Environmental Assessment for Year Round Tolerance.
The final decision on the DSA was to expand
it and the final decision on the Bison EA was to retain their
original vote from January of No Action.
Joint Pilot Project Document presented to the BOL May 20, 2014
MP3 1hour 21 minutes
Audio begins with the
elk brucellosis DSA expansion. Vote passes expansion, it will
now go out for public comment (map and document coming soon as
it is posted at DOL website.)
11:29 the Bison EA conversation
37:33 - Errol Rice of
the Montana Stockgrowers Association said they cant support this
38:40 - Nick Gevock of
the Montana Wildlife Federation stated, "I'm Nick Gevock.
I'm the conservation director for the Montana Wildlife Federation.
Obviously there's a lot of support for this from the hunting community.
And I just want to say that the Park is often criticized for not
managing their bison herd. This would allow the most effective
management tool, which is hunters and set some real population
targets. We do support this. Thank you."
(I have to refute that Montana hunters
support this. I know quite a number that do not. Additionally,
the science does not back up Mr. Gevocks statement that the YNP's
bison population needs to have "some real population targets."
In fact, a number of reports show that YNP can easily handle more
bison than the current population. Please see papers on the Yellowstone
National Park Habitat page, especially the Ecological Dynamics
on Yellowstones Northern Range, a National Research Council report
which addressed bison population in the YNP.)
39:08 - Joe Gutkowski
of the Yellowstone Buffalo Foundation thought they were just voting
on the previous EA that did not have bison slaughter objectives
attached to each alternatives as the current one did, asked them
to vote for Alternative B, the largest expanded habitat. Asked
them to stop slaughtering bison.
45:50 - Sen. Taylor Brown
asked them to remember who you are representing here today - livestock
48:23 - Sen. Ripley asked
them to put it off and do more work
49:17 - Kathryn QannaYahu
EMWH pointed out that this EA has been changed after the closing
of the public comment period, that it was disingenuous to add
minimum population reducing objectives with each of the alternatives,
to apply them post public comment time is a disservice to the
public. Lethal removals - if they voted on this and it went to
the IBMP for a vote, the 3 Native American organizations (ITBC,
CSKT and Nez Perce, which have been major recipients of bison
meat from slaughters (ship to slaughter agreements), would be
voting on this EA and would be beneficiaries. The lethal removal
section: "When bison migrate outside any of the tolerance
areas described above, removals may be made by agents of MDOL,
MWFP (another typo, should be MFWP) or private hunters (?). When
agents of MDOL or MWFP make a lethal removal, carcasses will be
handled in accordance with 81-2-120 (2) MCA. The final decision
for lethal removal will be made by the state veterinarian."
This would not guarantee MT hunters the chance for licenses, tags
( I advocate fair chase hunting btw), the Native Americans could
be recipients of more ship to slaughter (ITBC
SLaughter Agreement, CSKT
Slaughter Agreement). MT hunting of wild bison is not under FWP authority bu the MT DOL St. Vet per MCA 87-2-730.
50:40 - Rep. Allen Redfield
said it was a step in the wrong direction
53:42 - Matt Skoglund
of NRDC stated that we need to manage bison on a larger landscape.
55:20 - Kirstin of Sierra
Club stated expanded habitat and tying that to decreased numbers
was counter intuitive.
55:37 - Montana Farm Bureau
submitted a petition against it. Brought up the
elk brucellosis management lawsuit filed
by two sportsmens groups, then went on to say, "Bison are
a species in need of management because they emanate from a disease
herd - these will not be wildlife - they will be species in need
of management." Then he questioned if like the elk lawsuit,
they would get sued over this.
57:37 Christian MacKay
explains some fencing issues and addresses some other questions
that have been brought up in the public comments.
1:01:30 Jim Hagenbarth
said this was a huge issue
1:04:46 - Board of Livestock
member rancher/attorney John Scully brought up that the document
does not include parties that need to be included. "We are
in absolute violation of state law (87-1-216)."
He brought up the elk brucellosis management lawsuit, says they
are subject to MEPA since EA has been expanded or changed from
its original purpose. Gallatin National Forest should be included.
"Governor has already decided, as announced to this board,
the IBMP is something he is going to control next time and I think
thats very appropriate. So therefore the Board of Livestock and
Fish, Wildlife & Parks wont have their independent say."
(Called theGovernors office and Tim Baker stated the Governor
had no plans to take over the IBMP process and remove DOL or FWP.
Spoke with John Scully afterward, he equated the EA and new EIS
process with the IBMP, so he believes the message from the Governor
was in relation to DOL and FWP working together on this Bison
EA, not the Governor removing the DOL or FWP from the IBMP Interagency.
So hopefully this will clear up any confusion as to what this
was in reference to.)
1:21:32 they vote to accept
previous vote of No Action.