Editor's note: More than 200 Yellowstone National Park bison have been killed so far this winter. Why? Ostensibly to prevent the spread of brucellosis, a disease that can cause livestock to spontaneously abort fetuses. This past weekend the Buffalo Field Campaign, a group organized to oppose the killings, held a protest in West Yellowstone, Montana, to draw attention to the killings. Jim Macdonald attended the protest and files this story.
This Saturday, in West Yellowstone, Montana, members of Buffalo Field Campaign rallied outside of Yellowstone National Park's West Entrance to call attention to and protest the ongoing hazing and killing of Yellowstone bison by the National Park Service and Montana's Department of Livestock.
As part of a week of action, Buffalo Field Campaign rallied, marched, and performed street theater. As snowmobiles and snowcoaches entered and left the park, they were greeted by a puppet dressed as the grim reaper pinned with an identifying sign that simply said "Park Service."
In the past week, at least 127 bison have been shipped to slaughter by the Park Service, which captured the bison at the Stephens Creek facility near Yellowstone's North Entrance. Another 17 were to have been shipped to slaughter Saturday. The numbers of bison shipped to slaughter have surpassed the numbers (112) killed in Montana's bison hunt, which ended Saturday.
According to a Park Service press release, the bison herd had moved "toward or across the park boundary, where cattle graze on private land. Under the (Interagency Bison Management Plan]), the park works with other agencies to conserve a viable, wild bison population while cooperating to protect Montana’s brucellosis-free status."
However, the Buffalo Field Campaign claims that there "has never been a documented case of a wild, free-roaming buffalo infecting domestic cattle with brucellosis." Instead, the group argues that "public lands currently designated for livestock grazing should be reclassified to give priority to native wildlife species, including wild buffalo."
At the rally, there was some interaction with Yellowstone visitors and Buffalo Field Campaign volunteers. Some posed for pictures with Buffalo Field Campaign while some questioned what the rally was about. One man on a snowmobile inquired about the buffalo masks. He asked if the volunteers put them on whether he'd be permitted to shoot one of them. In retort, a volunteer quipped, "Do you work for the government?"
It's not clear how many Yellowstone visitors are aware that the National Park Service is engaged in hazing and slaughtering buffalo inside of Yellowstone.
As the bison hunt ends, Buffalo Field Campaign volunteers are beginning to transition into the next phase in the season, where the Montana Department of Livestock hazes and slaughters buffalo, usually west of the park at its Horse Butte facility. According to a volunteer, the Department of Livestock had not yet prepared the facility.
Bison numbers were estimated this past fall at 4,700. To date, this winter, 239-256 have been killed by hunts and by slaughter. The total killed already surpasses the 69 killed last winter and is on its way toward approaching the 2005-06 total of 1,016 and the 1996-97 total of 1,084, which still ranks as the highest number of bison killed during a single season.
Since 1985, more than 5,200 bison have been killed.
Comments
Good Lord. Is NPT now an advocacy rag? Jim, regardless of your semantic take on the word "slaughter" it still smacks of not only a breach of the shaky objectivity achieved on NPT, it's also sensationalistic and I feel strongly this is like something i might see on FOX or CNN.
Slaughter means slaughter but you didn't even bother to mention the concept of carrying capacity in the first post, only touching it later in your response to comments. I highly doubt that the public, when presented with the oversimplified fact that BISON ARE BEING SLAUGHTERED STOP THE SLAUGHTER this is an objective question when you don't even bother to discuss carrying capacity in the park, the impact the larger herds may/may not have on the overall ecosystem and what the broader role of the Park Service is in maintaining ecosystem integrity. This is the type of thing that I would like to read on this site, balanced articles. Had I wanted to know that simply BISON ARE BEING SLAUGHTERED I'd just read the BFC's website. While I might agree with your premise please post something more balanced next time.
Geesh.
Anon,
Methinks you got a bad cup of coffee this morning. As the subdeck under the Traveler logo stats, the site is open to news AND commentary and life in the parks. Frankly, the initial post on Sunday was pretty straightforward and not an advocacy piece by any stretch. It pointed out the Park Service's position and even provided a link to the IBMP so folks could read up on their own and drawn their own conclusions.
Did it cover the entire history of the subject, that livestock more than likely brought brucellosis to the park's wildlife, the carrying capacity issue, the conundrum that Montana officials are so worried about bison and yet elk, which also carry brucellosis, are seemingly overlooked?
No. Perhaps it should have, but every post is not going to be a term paper on the issue at hand. The overriding intent of the Traveler is to raise or point out issues across the park system and, hopefully, spur a dialog into those issues.
Indeed, follow-up comments touched on some of the other points in the bison debate.
The reason for the slaughter of bison officially has nothing to do with carrying capacity, though the IBMP sets an arbitrary number of 3,000 bison for the park, and rules regarding testing and slaughter change at that point. When I mentioned carrying capacity - which is not a reason for slaughter nor would it by mentioning it make an article more balanced - in my editorial response above, I actually used it to suggest the need for expansion of bison range. I have never read the National Park Service mention the word "carrying capacity"; that's a phrase associated with critics of park policies, (and especially the use of science to describe that policy) in respect to the Northern Range, not the Park Service itself. The National Park Service slaughters bison ostensibly because it's a partner in the IBMP, which has to do with transmission of brucellosis.
There is nothing shaky about the use of the word "slaughter"; as I said, that's in fact a word you'll find used by both sides. It is objectively true (which is actually a somewhat redundant adverb). However, if your complaint is that I did not adequately give the point of view of the partners in the IBMP for why they carry it out, and that that amounts to objectivity, I don't think you have shown how my own particular bias has made the story any less true. I pointed people to the NPS press release as well as the IBMP and quoted the major reason given for supporting the slaughter.
And, "regardless of my semantic take" is a flippant wave of the hand for your further charge that the word is "sensational." Again, I'd argue that it's no more sensational than the use of the word "landslide" or "rout" to express a political election; in fact, it's more accurate. While I certainly am an advocate sympathetic with Buffalo Field Campaign, nothing you have said suggests that the article itself is an advocacy piece. It's hardly different from the articles that have appeared in the local mainstream media in Montana, with the exception that it mentions the event, which is newsworthy (it's newsworthy on a national parks site when a group of people are out actively protesting the policy). The frustrating thing for me writing it, in all honesty, was that it wasn't an advocacy piece and that I took pains to make sure that it was not. If it were, I would have posted it on my own blog or in the comments section here (as I have - when I told Kurt and Jeremy that I would write articles from time to time, I made it clear that I was not likely to send them the opinionated pieces I reserve for my own Web site; they for their part set no limits on the sort of pieces I might write, as they put both kinds up, and I often have to decide whether an essay here - relevant to Yellowstone - belongs in the article or opinion section of my newspaper).
Bias always comes out in reporting based on what someone chooses to write about and how one chooses to focus an article. That bias does not make something in and of itself any less objective. And, I would be the last person to ever want to use the emotional response people get from the use of certain language to convince them to follow a cause. In this case, I'm confident that I'm on firm ground with my word choice.
Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World
Jim, how about the word massacre instead of slaughter...sounds more effective! Good input but much like a "term paper"!
According to the Billings Gazette, there are now 230 bison that have been shipped to slaughter with another 60 now waiting in the Stephens Creek facility. Apparently, the hunt total (according to BFC's Web site) rose to 130 (possibly from the Nez Perce hunt). That means, the total dead is now 360 bison with another 60 awaiting slaughter. At 420 bison, that would be approximately 9% of the entire herd, and the bison hazing and killing season is still quite young.
In other news, the government may de-list the wolf next week.
Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World
Jim,
"The question shouldn't be how many bison should there be but rather why we think we are right to control the number of bison within a certain number. And, more than control that number, why we think we are right to control the movements of these animals."
The point you raise is philosophical and National Parks management is not a philosophical debating club. They manage the little piece of the North American eco system that is left. The romantic vision we hold of a buffalo herd of hundreds of thousands roaming an endless sea of grass is sadly gone.
Lobbying for a National Park dedicated to a large buffalo herd would certainly be interesting. My dealings with National Parks people always has resluted in the ' two hat speach'. One hat agrees with the environmental side but the other defers to the states ecnonomic plan. In reality governments and their employees are interested in jobs and tax revenues (economic development). A roaming buffalo herd isn't an alternative for them. Maybe a rich Indian Tribe would want to combine the concept with a casino?
Yeah..I know.
Joe
Objections to the notion of a "philosophical debating club" aside (I think philosophy has nothing to do with debate), the National Park Service has in fact changed management policies over the years based on a prevailing management ideology.
As people, our only concern should be what is right and justified and whether the actions are. If NPS is incapable of making decisions based on anything rational, then it's imperative that people organize against their absurd behavior until it changes. If that seems unrealistic, then they've lost all meaningful hope. And, all this discussion really is just a debating match, just pissing in the wind. But, then, there are no winners; we all lose.
I don't know whether the world can ever or should ever have 30 million bison roaming again - who can possibly answer that question - the question really is what we are justified in doing now. And, if NPS is incapable, is impotent to act (and they may well be, but on the particular issue of bison slaughter, they probably can do something), then it only makes the call stronger for people to take more radical action, such as that carried out and called for by Buffalo Field Campaign.
Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World
Jim,
Might be time to take a deep breath, enjoy a nice juicy Montana rib eye, and then consider heading back to Washington. Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and YNP have been dealing with these issues long before you left the Washington "anarchy activist" scene to head the wilds of Montana. The BFC pushes enough of the emotionally based, fact minimizing media releases on the local and regional media.
It's not 1872 when the Park was founded, and the bison will never again roam freely at their whim across the regional ecosystem. Railing at the "Bush administration" and all of government from the top down won't really address a solution - unless you're an Obama supporter - he's all for changing the way all life works in America (though I don't think he's clarified his bison position).
Seriously, you'll last a lot longer in Bozeman (I'm from Bozeman too) if you work to find solutions (that indeed means an element of compromise will be in order - on all sides - of this and the wolf issue). Riding into town on a white horse and telling everybody who's been living, working, and recreating out here for years how the "cow ate the cabbage" (sorry, a bit of old Montana humor) won't make many friends, and most importantly won't fix the things that need fixing.