In the Aug. 5th article, "Horse Butte bison controversy spills into court", attorney John Bloomquist is quoted as saying, "We have two livestock producers whose herds, whose livelihoods and whose economic viability, whose entire operation, is at risk if the DOL does not properly manage bison".

According to DOL attorney, Norman Peterson, bison were on the landscape (Zone 2) in 1988.  In 1999, Mr. Myers chose to graze his cattle there anyhow.  What about his personal responsibility for judicious management?

Nine years under the direction of the DOL, believing they were managing bison properly, Montana still lost its brucellosis-free status.  The DOL didn't fail, necessarily.  It just proves wildlife management is beyond their scope of expertise.

I believe it's time for Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to "take the bull by the horns" and be re-instated as the governing authority over bison stewardship.  Understanding brucellosis is a threat to many livelihoods, DOL will continue having a seat at the table and FWP will continue to be held accountable to them for disease monitoring, etc.
Cattle producers fear of brucellosis derives from interstate limits that other state veterinarians can impose in their ability to market their livestock.  However, did you know it's always been APHIS' responsibility to educate ranchers and veterinarians that any state wanting to place sanctions against you is unwarranted?  Why didn't they tell you?  It's in the IBMP, folks.

Rules and regulations are starting to relax because APHIS acknowledges brucellosis is no longer the human health threat it once was.  We have pasteurized milk now, antibiotics, advanced medical healthcare, a plethera of new scientific research, temporal/spatial separation, and now habitat.  All of this supports policy change to brucellosis management and yet, you still want me to abdicate my private property rights just so you can retain yours.  Are you kidding me?!

Oh, the IBMP also includes provisions for additional monitoring, regular testing and possible adult cattle vaccinations in impact areas at, of course, government (mine) expense.

The majority of Horse Butte is public land.  The National Forest Service has a responsibility to manage it for wildlife.  We encourage them to do so.  Since cattle no longer graze there it stands to reason that bison should be allowed room to roam.  It is ecologically, environmentally, and biologically necessary for the habitat to continue thriving.

Horse Butte residents don't want bison on their private land, like cattle.  We want to continue to enjoy watching as they wander through a community that just happens to be part of an entire landscape meant for them.

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE BISON MANAGEMENT and we understand mitigating circumstances could arise causing some animals to be removed but if a small herd of bison want to eat and sleep in my backyard or give birth in my driveway before moving on then my constitutional right to private property should allow them this privilege.

Many lived on, or visited, Horse Butte years before the IBMP, or this lawsuit, was even a concept.  The harrassment of residents and hazing of bison on a regular basis wasn't anything we signed up for.  Hazing is an ugly, heartwrenching, and life-changing event to have to witness in an otherwise calm and spectacular part of God's country.  We feel justified in resisting.

EGADS!  We've got families losing everything they have, forced to slaughter entire cattle herds because of one cow and 40 year old data.  Non-existant private property rights.  Costly brucellosis-free bison with nowhere to go.  Unestablished herds for hunting.

Constant conflict because all sides have merit.

Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood.  I believe communication without critism is best.  Are there any cattle producers out there who feel the same way?   If so, let's talk.  Couldn't hurt, could it?