You are here

Bison Removal In Yellowstone National Park Draws Protests

Share

Plans by Yellowstone National Park officials to remove roughly 1,000 bison from the park's herds are drawing criticisms and protests from groups that say the slaughter is unnecessary.

A month ago Yellowstone officials announced the culling plan, which Defenders of Wildlife officials say will be "the largest in seven years" if it achieves the goal of removing 1,000 bison. In addition to the 500-600 bison that head outside the park and into Montana being removed by park staff, it is anticipated that public and tribal treaty hunting in Montana will remove 300 to 400 bison. Park crews began rounding up bison Thursday.

"America's last wild buffalo are right now being trapped for slaughter along Yellowstone's northern boundary. These capture for slaughter operations are happening even as state and treaty hunters are shooting buffalo that migrate into Montana," the Buffalo Field Campaign wrote on its website. "Such management actions are driven by Montana's bison-intolerant livestock industry, intolerance that is codified in the statute: MCA 81-2-120, a law crafted by the livestock industry that needs to be repealed."

At Defenders, the group said "(T)his capture and slaughter program, implemented by the National Park Service, is meant to keep the Yellowstone bison population below an arbitrary cap of 3,500, imposed decades ago as part of a settlement with the state of Montana for now discredited concerns over brucellosis and carrying capacity."

The wildlife advocacy group also said a poll of Montana residents last month found that 67 percent of those contacted support relocating Yellowstone bison to start herds elsewhere in their state. 

"(Montana) Governor (Steve) Bullock and the National Park Service need to move quickly to bring bison management into the 21st century," the group's release said. "They need to expand the tolerance zone around Yellowstone, finish their environmental assessment of the quarantine and relocation program and kick-start plans to update the 14-year old Interagency Bison Management Plan, the document that sets guidelines for managing Yellowstone’s wild bison."

Jonathan Proctor, Defenders' program director for the Rockies and Plains, said that, “(B)ison are wildlife and should be managed as such. Wholesale slaughter of these genetically valuable animals simply because they leave Yellowstone National Park looking for food is archaic and driven by policies that treat them like livestock. Rather than working towards Montanans’ goal of wild bison restoration, this shipment to slaughter program kills the bison that could, instead, be the beginnings of new restoration herds.”

“We’ve proved that bison restoration from Yellowstone to Montana’s public and tribal lands is viable, making this shipment to slaughter wasteful, unacceptable and unnecessary. Recent polls also clearly show that the majority of Montanans want wild bison restoration. So, why are the National Park Service and Montana’s Department of Livestock continuing to implement this unnecessary and expensive slaughter program? It’s a waste of taxpayer funds, and a waste of prized Yellowstone wild bison.”

Comments

“Were the walls of our meat industry to become transparent, literally or even figuratively, we would not long continue to raise, kill, and eat animals the way we do.” 
― Michael PollanThe Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals

 
 
“The ninety-nine cent price of a fast-food hamburger simply doesn't take account of that meal's true cost--to soil, oil, public health, the public purse, etc., costs which are never charged directly to the consumer but, indirectly and invisibly, to the taxpayer (in the form of subsidies), the health care system (in the form of food-borne illnesses and obesity), and the environment (in the form of pollution), not to mention the welfare of the workers in the feedlot and the slaughterhouse and the welfare of the animals themselves.” 
― Michael PollanThe Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals
 
 
 
You are what you eat is a truism hard to argue with, and yet it is, as a visit to a feedlot suggests, incomplete, for you are what what you eat eats, too. And what we are, or have become, is not just meat but number 2 corn and oil.” 
― Michael PollanThe Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals
 
 
“I asked the feedlot manager why they didn't just spray the liquefied manure on neighboring farms. The farmers don't want it, he explained. The nitrogen and phosphorus levels are so high that spraying the crops would kill them. He didn't say that feedlot wastes also contain heavy metals and hormone residues, persistent chemicals that end up in waterways downstream, where scientists have found fish and amphibians exhibiting abnormal sex characteristics.” 
― Michael PollanThe Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals
 
 
Escherichia colia O157:H7 is a relatively new strain of the common intestinal bacteria (no one had seen it before 1980) that thrives in feedlot cattle, 40 percent of which carry it in their gut. Ingesting as few as ten of these microbes can cause a fatal infection; they produce a toxin that destroys human kidneys.” 
― Michael PollanThe Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals
 
 
“...whenever I hear people say clean food is expensive, I tell them it's actually the cheapest food you can buy. That always gets their attention. Then I explain that with our food all the costs are figured into the price. Society is not bearing the cost of water pollution, of antibiotic resistance, of food-borne illness, of crop subsidies, of subsidized oil and water -- of all the hidden costs to the environment and the taxpayer that make cheap food seem cheap. No thinking person will tell you they don't care about all that. I tell them the choice is simple: You can buy honestly priced food or you can buy irresponsibly priced food.” 
― Michael PollanThe Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals

Just a request here. Can we get some agreement that boldfacing the occasional word or two for emphasis works, but when pages of cut-and-paste are boldfaced all emphasis is lost and it just comes across as shouting?


http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/grazing-cattle-the-new-invasive-species/

Is the Government Destroying the Ecosystem of the American West by Favoring Cattle Over Wild Horses?

 
 
 
 
 
 
Western US Governors have been seeking to remove the wild horses in preference to cattle ranchers’ livestock for years now. These ranchers often are wealthy and can wield great political influence both at the local and national level with their campaign contributions. Management of the land to offset the impact of damage by cattle and other livestock should be given greater consideration. Not to say that ranchers do nothing – but too often greed replaces wisdom. Our short sighted policies will only do harm to both the current wild horse populations that remain and future generations of Americans who will still want beef at their dinner tables. ~ HfH
 

Most barely support one animal per 40 acres, as the entirety of Nevada, for example.

If they be the case, they can't be doing much damage nor displacing much othe wildlife. 


ec,

It is tough to believe that 57% of the grazed land mass is contributing only 4% of the beef.

Actually, I may have overstated the contribution. According to a complaint filed with the Secretary of the Interior, livestock grazing on federal public lands provides only 3 percent of the beef produced in the United States. As Alfred Runte points out, these are not prime grazing lands. Moreover, most have been degraded by decades of overgrazing.

And who is benefiting from that subsidy? Consumers.

When you subsidize something that is plentiful, you are not poviding any additional benefits to consumers. As I noted, even if you ended public land grazing, it would not have any significant impact on beef and lamb supplies, or on prices. There is clearly a cost to taxpayers, but no substantive benefit.

I assume you mean $500 million. Which would be less than $2 a person. Not to mention those costs would also be incurred if the grazing were on private land.

Yes, you are correct; I did mean $500 million. If we added $500 million to the National Park Service budget, that would be about a 20 percent increase. Spending tax dollars on wasteful subsidies takes funding away from publicly beneficial programs. Private landowners do not have the luxury of being subsidized to graze cattle on inferior rangelands.

Most consumers prefer their hamburgers over badgers.

And that is based on what?

 


Thanks, rmackie,

I agree that many public land ranchers are honest and hard working. They deserve to be treated fairly. However, grazing causes a lot of damage that must be addressed.

The reality is that public lands ranching is not only a loser for the taxpayer, but it is also a loser for the ranchers. More and more of them are getting out voluntarily, because their children do not want to continue the tradition. Others are going bankrupt because it is unprofitable. As the family ranch declines, there is an growing trend toward wealthy individuals or giant corporations buying out ranches and grazing allotments. That is increasingly where our tax subsidies go.

I like the idea of a voluntary buyout of public land grazing allotments. There is a lot of resistance from the federal agencies, but I think the concept has a lot of promise. A one-time buyout would benefit the ranchers and allow them to move on, end public taxpayer subsidies, and allow the land to heal. 


According to a complaint filed with the Secretary of the Interior

A truely unbiased source. (LOL)

When you subsidize something that is plentiful, you are not poviding any additional benefits to consumers.

If you are lowering the cost of production for a product consumed by the vast majority of the population, you are providing a benefit to consumers.

if we added $500 million to the National Park Service budget, that would be about a 20 percent increase.

Yes, and it would be a $500 million increase in the cost to consumers.

And that is based on what?

The fact that taxpayers are voting for those that provide the subsidies and not voting for those that want to put badgers ahead of burgers.

 


If they be the case, they can't be doing much damage nor displacing much othe wildlife.

Au contraire. The reason there are so few livestock per square mile is because there is little vegetation to eat. What little there is gets eaten by livestock instead of native wildlife. Moreover, cattle congregate around water sources, eroding the banks and fouling the water with waste, to the detriment of other wildlife. That is why livestock grazing is directly tied to the endangerment of numerous species.

 


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.