| Objectives
Principles
Newsletter
Board
Links
Contact
us |
 |
Oct. 27, 2008
RTR Grazing Rights EA
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
The Gallatin Wildlife Association (GWA) is a non-profit volunteer
wildlife conservation organization representing hunters and anglers
in Southwest Montana and elsewhere. Our mission is simply to protect
habitat and conserve fish and wildlife. GWA supports sustainable management
of fish and wildlife populations through fair chase public hunting
and fishing opportunities that will ensure these traditions are passed
on for future generations to enjoy.
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Royal
Teton Ranch (RTR) Grazing Restriction and Bison Access Agreement,
dated October 2008 (EA) and the Draft Grazing Restriction and Bison
Access Agreement, dated 10/01/07 (Agreement) between Fish, Wildlife
and Parks (FWP) and the Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT). The
Agreement was attached to the EA. We obtained these documents at the
Region 3 office of FWP on October 22. We also refer to the Interagency
Bison Management Plan, updated Nov. 16, 2007, (IBMP) which is Appendix
A of the EA, and to Montana’s Comprehensive Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Strategy 2005 (Montana Strategy).
Based on numerous concerns and objections, cited here, the Gallatin
Wildlife Association opposes spending more than $3.3 million in taxpayer
dollars, including an unknown amount generated from Montana hunters
and anglers. The Agreement would attain very limited, if any, benefits
for free-ranging wild bison in Montana, while setting dangerous precedents
for the management and conservation of all Montana big game species,
and accomplishing little, if any, reduction of risk for brucellosis
in Montana cattle.
1. The EA is an incomplete, misleading and inadequate public
communication.
1.1 Exhibits A, B, C, D and E of the Agreement are blank, failing
to disclose on-the-ground details of the Agreement and FWP commitments
under the Ranch Bison Management Plan.
1.2 “Bison use areas” are mentioned at least 3 times in
the EA and at least 23 times in the Agreement. Since June 2008, we
have been trying to learn from FWP where these areas are located and
how large they are. On October 22, 2008 we were told at the Region
3 FWP office that the “bison use areas are an artifact of earlier
discussions with CUT” and that they are no longer included in
the Agreement. The Agreement and EA are therefore misleading as to
the benefits being purchased from CUT.
1.3 Most page numbers in the Table of Contents of the EA are incorrect.
1.4 We suggest that 1.3 of the EA should include MCA 75-1-201, or
other appropriate MCA citation, to inform the public of the legal
directions for preparing a complete EA.
1.5 The statement “Much of the bison corridor is roadless”
(EA, p.14) is incorrect, failing to disclose that most of the bison
corridor includes the Old Yellowstone Road, a county public right-of
way that would allow hazing of bison to the northern Forest Service
bison habitat without paying several million dollars to CUT. The County
road is recognized (EA, p. 16) as a “short portion” of
the road being within the bison corridor. What is important is what
proportion of the corridor includes the road, not what proportion
of the relatively long road is within the corridor.
1.6 The EA does not address how many bison may yet be sent to slaughter
despite implementation of the Agreement. This past year, 1434 bison
were sent to slaughter. If the Agreement had been in effect, this
number would have been reduced by 25-100 animals, by only 2-7%; and
these “saved” animals could have been harvested by Tribes
or public hunters. The EA should be clear that it probably will not
be successful in stopping bison slaughter.
2. The EA lends credence and support for the failing IBMP
at a time when the General Accounting Office has criticized the Plan,
when the IBMP Partners are already considering adaptations under the
plan, and when several non-government organizations are officially
requesting a supplementary Environmental Impact Statement to modify
the Plan, as required by NEPA when there is significant new information
or changed circumstances. This may restrict opportunities to modify
the IBMP, or to adapt under the current IBMP; and is not in the public
interest.
2.1 The EA and the Agreement perpetuate several myths inherent in
the IBMP.
2.1.1 that control of brucellosis in cattle may be achieved through
severe management of bison while cattle management is limited and
elk are largely ignored as a vector of the disease. Rather, there
is no rationale for
hazing bison back into the Park by April 15 from areas where there
are
no susceptible cattle. Moreover, bison are extremely unlikely to transmit
Brucella to cattle after June 1.
2.1.2 that the IBMP seeks to achieve a free-ranging herd of wild bison.
Instead, mostly selected bison are allowed out of Yellowstone National
Park for only 5 months a year. Most or all these animals are being
handled, tagged, tested, vaccinated and perhaps vaginally inserted
with transmitters. Under the Agreement, bison would probably be “hazed”
across the RTR bison corridor twice a year, as if they were livestock;
and their movements would be greatly restricted at all times. The
corridor would be closed except for the two migrations per year.
2.2 Section Eight of the Agreement (p. 8-9) can restrict opportunities
to implement Step 3 of the IBMP or to modify the IBMP as it relates
to bison use of the RTR (including the public right-of-way?) (see
also p. 35 of EA).
2.2.1 A decision to move to Step 3 of the Plan (allowing untested,
but probably vaccinated, bison outside the Park), or a decision to
increase the number and (or?) timing of bison allowed outside the
Park will require an amendment of the Agreement.
2.2.2 In this case, amendment of the Agreement may only (underline
added) occur if FWP will consistently and effectively contain bison
within the bison corridor (and bison use areas on the RTR which we
are told do not exist). This statement of the Agreement needs much
clarification. Does it apply to bison containment only with respect
to bison movements on the RTR? Does it allow, or disallow bison movements
beyond the RTR, including east of the Yellowstone River?
2.2.3 In any case, in controlling bison use of the RTR, this restriction
could limit the IBMP Partners abilities to allow passage of more than
100 bison south of the RTR for more than 5 months per year. CUT could
eliminate the possibility of bison using several thousand acres of
public and private lands that welcome bison east of the Yellowstone
River, for 30 years.
2.2.4 The Agreement’s statement that CUT shall not “unreasonably”
withhold amendment to the Agreement is not assurance that amendment
will be possible. Lawyers earn salaries playing with definitions of
words such as “unreasonable”.
2.2.5 We believe that Section Eight of the Agreement indirectly and
perhaps illegally delegates authority over the management of wildlife
to a private organization that represents no public interest. This
perpetuates the concept that wild bison in Montana must be managed
differently compared to all other wildlife, or that bison in Montana
must be managed as livestock.
2.3 The EA fails to disclose the cumulative impact of the Agreement
and the failing IBMP. This impact is to foreclose or impede any option
for a reasonable, achievable and economically feasible program of
brucellosis risk management that would allow wild bison to repopulate
public lands and private lands where bison are welcome in the southern
Paradise Valley.
3. The EA fails to fully disclose all the fiscal costs of
its implementation, or to provide a rationale for the high
cost of purchasing so little.
3.1 In an earlier review of the Agreement, we noted 23 initial and
ongoing commitments of FWP (document attached). The costs of this
activity and the sources of funding to cover these costs are not disclosed.
We object to hunters and anglers monies being used to manage bison
as if they are livestock.
3.2 The EA commits FWP to providing $300,000 toward the agreement.
However the full cost will be $3.33 million over 20 years (plus the
costs alluded to in 3.1). Section Ten of the Agreement states that
FWP shall provide all payments to CUT. We know that other agencies
and organizations are contributing. What assurances (contracts) does
FWP have that these monies will be forthcoming?
3.3 The rationale for the high cost of removing an unspecified number
of cattle from the RTR (yet allowing the land to be grazed by horses
or llamas), and for “allowing” a wildlife species to briefly
cross a small amount of private land is not provided in the EA. Attempts
to rationalize the costs based on guesses of the number of AUMs (partly)
foregone produce exorbitant costs per AUM. The public should be informed
how these costs are justified.
4. The EA fails to consider and analyze a reasonable, achievable
and more economical alternative to the Agreement. This alternative
would be to fence, or double-fence if necessary, the public right-of-way
across the RTR, to encourage bison to use the right-of-way, and to
establish a seasonal or year-round wild bison population on thousands
of acres of public and private lands on both sides of the Yellowstone
River north of the RTR where there is no conflict with livestock and
where, on private lands, bison are welcome.
4.1. This alternative would promote the IBMP goal of establishing
a “free- ranging” bison herd. Wild bison are extirpated
from Montana. As a Tier I species (in greatest need of conservation),
FWP has a clear obligation to use its resources to conserve them (Montana
Strategy).
4.2 Conflict-free habitat where bison are appropriate and welcome
includes the Dome Mountain Ranch, Dome Mountain Wildlife Management
Area, OTO/Cedar Creek Forest Service winter ranges east of the River
and the R&D Ranch west of the River.
4.3 In this alternative, brucellosis-risk management could include
public and Tribal harvests to control bison numbers, use of east-west
fencing to control bison distribution northward, and limited incentives
for ranchers to further minimize risks by vaccinating cattle and by
managing the timing of grazing and types of livestock.
5. The EA and Agreement set dangerous and unacceptable precedents
for the management and conservation of public wildlife on private
lands in Montana.
5.1. The Agreement promotes management of bison in Montana as livestock.
This emphasizes that wild bison are extirpated from the state and
should be a candidate for federal listing under the Endangered Species
Act.
5.2. The 8th “Whereas” of the Agreement implies that because
many species of wildlife occur on private land, the landowner should
be financially compensated for movements of wildlife on the land.
5.3. Much of the bison corridor appears limited only to the public
right-of-way along the Old Yellowstone Road. The Agreement should
clearly state that it does not abrogate or abolish the public’s
right for wildlife to use the public right-of- way without compensation
to the adjoining landowner.
5.4. Justifications for the EA and the Agreement are based largely
upon the fact that bison may possibly transmit Brucella to private
livestock. However, all wildlife are carrying disease organisms, several
of which may be transmitted to livestock. The Agreement can create
expectations that all landowners deserve financial compensation when
wildlife that might possibly transmit a disease occur on their lands.
Most specifically, what does the Agreement portend for the future
of elk management in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem of Montana?
5.5 The Agreement does nothing to promote a land ethic in Montana.
Rather, it emphasizes that the occurrence of public wildlife on private
land may somehow be used to wrest a financial gain from the public
coffers. The Gallatin Wildlife Association believes that, from bluebirds
to bison, we are all responsible for our part in conserving diverse
wildlife communities for ourselves and future generations.
Sincerely,
Glenn Hockett
President, Gallatin Wildlife Association
Att. Costs and commitments of FWP in the CUT/RTR Agreement
|
|
