Skip to main content

UPOM Oped: Don’t transport bison out of Yellowstone Park

UPOM’s Mark Robbins responds to the Billings Gazette’s call for transferring YNP bison to Eastern Montana.  Here’s an excerpt: The Billings Gazette editorialized in support of creating a brucellosis testing facility on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. (“An Alternative to Yellowstone Bison slaughter” Feb. 14). Rather than addressing the root problem —poor federal management practices that has led to a severe overpopulation of bison in the park — the Gazette advocates simply moving the problem somewhere else. It’s a ludicrous proposition. It won’t fix what’s wrong at Yellowstone National Park. And worse, it will create the exact same problem in northeastern Montana. And let’s correct one big point the Gazette got wrong. These are not animals that have been proven...

Continue reading

UPOM files protest with BLM over APR grazing permit

UPOM has filed a protest against the BLM’s proposal to adopt an application by the American Prairie Reserve to remove interior fencing and allow year-round grazing on certain allotments.  APR’s application also indicates their desire to switch the classification of the bison they own from livestock to wild, free-roaming bison. UPOM’s protest is the first step in stopping the APR’s grazing permit change.  It establishes standing for us in the event BLM goes forward with adopting the proposal even with the strong protest against it. You can download UPOM’s official protest letter by clicking here.

Continue reading

MOU Between FWP and Turner Enterprises, Inc.

Over the past several weeks we have had several members inquire as to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between Turner Enterprises, Inc., Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, and the Montana Department of Livestock regarding the quarantine and relocation of Yellowstone National Park Bison. Click here to view the MOU.

Continue reading

Oped: FWP should stop free-roaming bison plan

The Montana Department Fish, Wildlife, and Parks is on a strange mission to impose a free-roaming bison herd in Eastern Montana.  It’s puzzling because it’s a plan that few Montanans want, and a large, diverse majority oppose.  Yet, inexplicably, Governor Bullocks’ administration and FWP Director Jeff Hagener seem determined to give us a dose of a bitter medicine we don’t want or need. The opposition to free-roaming couldn’t have been more evident at a recent FWP meeting on the issue in Lewistown.  One after another, ranchers, sportsmen, farmers, local business owners, and others voiced their objections to FWP’s proposal to move bison from Yellowstone National Park to an undisclosed location in Eastern Montana. They spoke loud and clear that free roaming bison would be an economic...

Continue reading

Supreme Court’s bison transfer decision a big win for landowners

The Montana Supreme Court recently decided a lawsuit brought by landowner and multiple-use groups, including UPOM, against FWP for their transfer of Yellowstone Park bison to the Fort Peck Indian Tribe.  Our objection wasn’t that the bison were transferred, per se, but that FWP did not follow the law requiring landowner notification and collaborative planning before bison could be transferred.  We ultimately lost the case on the grounds that the legislature did not specify that that law applied to transfers to tribal property, in addition to public and private property. However, we won on a much bigger issue.  In the decision, the Court pointed out that the bison in question were placed in captivity, and therefore no longer fit the definition of “wild bison.”...

Continue reading

Oped: Property rights trump ‘public trust doctrine’ in Turner bison dispute

By Professor James L. Huffman In her report on Judge Holly Brown’s dismissal of a challenge to the Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks agreement with Ted Turner on the management of Yellowstone Park bison (Bozeman Chronicle, May 12, 2013), the Chronicle article states the following: “Under the public trust doctrine, which applies nationwide, the state has the responsibility to manage and maintain resources like water and land for public use and future generations.” Only in the dreams of the petitioners does that summary of the public trust doctrine have any relation to the law. Even in Montana, where the public trust doctrine was dramatically revised 30 years ago in two Montana Supreme Court cases, the doctrine has never been found to apply to wildlife or beyond the waters of the...

Continue reading