Jim's Eclectic World

What it was like to volunteer with Buffalo Field Campaign

2009-02-23T03:29:00.001-05:00

A small group of us with Buffalo Allies of Bozeman went down to volunteer with Buffalo Field Campaign on Saturday. I'm going to share a little here so that you know how easy it is to do and how much fun besides.

Buffalo Field Campaign lives west of the park near Hebgen Lake and is mostly comprised of volunteers, a number of whom spend November through May looking out for the bison populations roaming out of Yellowstone. Because buffalo that leave Yellowstone are not generally tolerated by the state of Montana and have been subject to killing and hazing (or forced movement) in large numbers, Buffalo Field Campaign was founded to stand up for the wild buffalo of Yellowstone. Their primary focus is media and outreach, documenting what happens to the buffalo and educating the public at large in the hopes that the slaughter stops and that buffalo are respected and treated as wildlife, i.e., without being forced to stop at the arbitrary boundary of Yellowstone National Park. Buffalo Field Campaign was founded in the winter of 1996-1997, during one of the worst buffalo slaughters on record.

Our group, Buffalo Allies of Bozeman, was founded by a small group of us in Spring 2008 during the worst slaughter of wild buffalo since the 19th century, and we were founded in large part to serve as a locally-based support group for other activists, including and especially Buffalo Field Campaign, working on the buffalo issue. We are in part here to help with the needs of other groups working on the buffalo issue.

One goal that I have always had is to empower local people to take action on behalf of the buffalo. From my years in the anti-war movement, I became convinced that local movements have the greatest power to bring about change and are the most sustainable. Whereas national organizing can bring an issue to large numbers of people, often the participation is passive. People think that action amounts to signing petitions and giving money, but no one is expected to put their heart and soul into it. So, when I lived in Washington, DC, I did not know how you could be an anti-war activist and not take action with the oppressed communities in your locality. We spent a lot of time in our activism not simply marching but also serving the homeless community; we spent time trying to understand how militarism affected our neighborhoods. Being in Gallatin County, Montana, we are drawn necessarily to our environment, to what lives in our environment, and one crucial part of that is the buffalo.

The point I am trying to make is that Buffalo Field Campaign has often depended on volunteers from across the country and across the world, sometimes from across Montana, but the Gallatin Valley has not always been a ready participant in buffalo activism. Bozeman has the reputation of a sleepy town of recreational enthusiasts and college students but certainly not social and environmental activists. However, if I am right about the ultimate need for local empowerment to local causes, then the success of the movement for wild buffalo will depend a lot on our success in Bozeman, the largest population center close to the wild buffalo migrating from Yellowstone National Park.

That's why we organized a number of us to go down to Buffalo Field Campaign to ski and look for buffalo.

This winter, only two buffalo have been killed. One was a buffalo in Idaho back in the fall; the other was killed on the first day of Montana's bison hunt in November. Outside of that, bison have simply not left the park and have not really come close. Two hypotheses have been offered: 1) Last year's record kill have left fewer bison to leave the park; 2) The mild winter has left grass plentiful and easily accessible within the park.

Nevertheless, we felt it important to go down to Buffalo Field Campaign anyhow because we want to build a base of people who can be volunteers that can be called on when necessary. We also want this base of volunteers to be able to educate the general public here in Bozeman about what it's like in the field with buffalo and how people can take action on their behalf. Before this fall, none of us who went down on Saturday could have told you much of anything about what it was like or how to take action. Now, we feel we understand enough that we could hold our own workshops to let people know what it is like. In fact, on December 6, we did just that, after Mark from our group (whose picture you see) took the first steps for us.

Volunteering with Buffalo Field Campaign is a lot of fun. At the very least, it's a ski trip into the Yellowstone borderlands in the world's most beautiful place. Saturday was quite sunny, and the snow was pristine, fields of white going on forever.

When you volunteer with Buffalo Field Campaign, they like to know when you are coming to give them a heads up of what to expect. When you arrive, one of the volunteers will give you a tour of their grounds and how they operate, and you are bound to meet several people. There are usually somewhere between 10 and 30 volunteers living there from anywhere ranging from days to months. It's quite an operation and worth seeing. A lot of camp life obviously involves keeping the camp going. Every day, meals have to be prepared, grounds have to be cleaned, there are maintenance chores. If you come to Buffalo Field Campaign and have a particular skill - like say, fixing cars - you will find something to do that does not involve going out into the field with buffalo. Whatever skill you have - whether you think it's relevant or not - Buffalo Field Campaign can probably find a use for it.

However, a great many people coming down want to go into the field. Before that happens, you have to understand what the campaign does and what its tactics are. As I mentioned, Buffalo Field Campaign is primarily a media campaign. When crews go out into the field, they take with them video cameras and radios in order to record and report what is happening. The campaign is nonviolent and nonconfrontational; they are there to document. If people want to take other kinds of actions - like for instance, setting up a blockade to stop a Montana Department of Livestock agent from reaching a buffalo - that is something you will do on your own. Actually, Buffalo Allies of Bozeman would support you - talk with us! - but is not what the campaign does when they are in the field.

When you are ready to go into the field, and assuming there is snow on the ground like we had, Buffalo Field Campaign has you covered. I had my own set of boots and skis and was ready to go, but some in our group needed boots and skis. They'll do their best to set you up, though the truth is that they could use more bindings, boots, and even skis. One of our group repeatedly had an issue with his boots coming out of the bindings. One thing we can do in Bozeman is to provide ski equipment to BFC. However, if you don't have skis, that should not stop you. And, if you have never skied, that shouldn't stop you, either! One person in our group had only skied once while another hadn't skied since childhood, and yet within no time they were on their skis moving forward. There are patrols to flat areas, as well as very hilly areas, and what's more, you will always be paired with an experienced Buffalo Field Campaign volunteer.

If the snow isn't good, people snowshoe. If there's no snow, they hike. Patrols on the west side of the park go along the Madison River at the park boundary, to lowlands near the Department of Livestock's Duck Creek trap, as well as to high overlooks like Sandy Butte. In our case, we went to the top of Sandy Butte, from which you can see the entire Madison valley inside the park. Sandy Butte is quite high, and though none of us were especially experienced skiers, most of us made it up. There we saw about four (perhaps, as many as six) buffalo, all of them small dots on the landscape, the largest small dot below us on Duck Creek, still about two miles from the park boundary. Apparently, buffalo have made it repeatedly to that spot without daring to venture closer to the park boundary. Though the buffalo weren't near, we were encouraged by seeing any at all, especially from such a stunning point.

In the nearby distance, we heard the roar of snowmobiles, sounding like the Daytona 500 or a plague of locusts. It was quite a contrast in worlds and cultures, separated by the well marked park boundary.

In any event, we had a blast on skis and returned to camp. When you return, you will be encouraged to stay for dinner, which they will provide. Dinners generally consist of vegan, vegetarian, and wild game alternatives. There's always plenty to eat. Before or just after dinner, every night, the group has a meeting, where they share their patrols and make sure that volunteers cover the tasks for the next day. People will be encouraged to share their experiences on the patrols and be part of whatever decisions need to be made at the meeting.

Obviously, Buffalo Field Campaign would like people to stay the night and continue to volunteer. But, just as obvious, people in Bozeman much more often than not will need to return to their homes. However, each time you return, each time the people and places become more familiar to you, the more useful you will become as a volunteer. At this point, we in Buffalo Allies are mostly just tourists on skis, but we are getting information and experience that will continue to help us help Buffalo Field Campaign and the buffalo.

I can say very sincerely that this is a very delightful experience that people should be encouraged to have. If someone wants to go up next week, we might be willing to go with you. And, if by chance we can't, we could tell you everything and set you up with the volunteer coordinators.

In the spring, the buffalo will come out of the park to calve. They are likely to face troubles then, especially if they are in no hurry to return to the park. We can do something about this and be a positive force for the buffalo and a steady source of solidarity for Buffalo Field Campaign. Please consider joining us as we work to make that happen.

Bison bill defeated in Montana, but what's the strategy?

2009-02-06T01:35:00.003-05:00

Montana House Bill 253 - the Montana Wild Buffalo Recovery and Conservation Act of 2009 - went down to defeat 10 - 8 on Thursday in the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee.

What I am going to say now represents my views on this and does not necessarily reflect the views of anyone else in my group, Buffalo Allies of Bozeman. In fact, I suspect my views will go beyond most of the members of the group.

I am having a lot of trouble understanding what the strategic purpose has been in pushing a bill that most people have acknowledged was likely to be defeated. A lot of blood, sweat, and tears went into this bill, especially by members of the Gallatin Wildlife Association, much like the blood, sweat, and tears they put into a similarly defeated effort in 2005. Back in June, Rep. Mike Phillips, who drafted and shepherded the bill, said very clearly at a forum that there was almost no chance of this passing if both Gov. Schweitzer and Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) did not support the bill. And, they didn't. Officially, they stayed silent, but they were against the bill. The Governor's policy advisor, Hal Harper, and FWP's Pat Flowers made their views known to activists before this ever went to committee.

And, what do you know? It went down to defeat in committee. Imagine that; almost everyone knew it would fail, and it did.

I believe in a diversity of strategies and tactics. If you can get a win in the state legislature, go for it. I'll be glad to help, even if I have very little interest in pursuing these tactics. However, what's the strategy here? Does anyone plan to hold anyone accountable? Republican representative Ted Washburn supposedly supported the bill and wound up voting against it. Is anyone going to call him out? Or, are people naive enough to think that if they are just a little more persuasive that people will change their votes?

The problem for me always with using the legislature as a tactic is that it's liberal and reformist. It pretends that the system can be used to correct the abuses of symptoms in our society that are wrong. And, while it may be the case that occasionally you can treat a symptom, what really ever gets changed? What's wrong with Yellowstone, with buffalo, with everything in this region is not merely a symptomatic problem, a problem of just fixing this and adjusting that. Even if this bill had passed, we would still need to ask ourselves, what next? Like the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP) that we decry as unworkable so too is the way the system functions.

The fact is that Montana politics is dominated by the livestock industry, an industry that might economically be responsible for only 1% of GDP but has an outsized presence in the political power of the state. You don't negotiate with a fundamentally irrational power or pretend that it's just a matter of winning an argument. You have to fight a different fight. It's like a bantamweight taking on a heavyweight. You don't fight like that on their turf and on their grounds. And, if anywhere is their grounds in Montana, it's in the political establishment.

The misguided idea has been that if you got wildlife advocates, environmentalists, other property owners, and sportsmen together, maybe you can politically overwhelm the livestock interests. Nope; you can outnumber them 4 to 1 in a committee hearing, you can win in the newspapers, but you won't win in Helena.

HB 253 was a tame bill; it didn't do much. The IBMP would have still held sway. All it would have done is alleviate an incoherence in Montana law where wildlife were managed by a livestock department, while allowing property owners to determine whether they wanted bison on their property. They would have been allowed to call in the Department of Livestock to deal with problems; however, all of that might have been moot anyhow under the IBMP (it might have been for a court to decide). It was worth supporting as a tactical victory toward a larger aim except we all knew it didn't have a chance of passing no matter how many hours spent trying to get it passed.

So, what is the strategy? I am going to find out, and I want to see what the Gallatin Wildlife Association has in mind. It's not enough that the issue is in the public dialogue unless there's a way to thrust that dialogue into further action.

If there was one thing that happened was that a lot of pro bison groups that haven't been getting along that well got behind this bill in a way they didn't four years ago. If this is an exercise in movement building, that's great. But, then, I have trouble understanding why anyone is pretending that action in the legislature is the best means toward that end? Is it just the culture of the groups involved? That's what they do? I'd be fine with that answer so long as no one is pretending that the bison situation actually will be solved simply by passing a law. Because, it won't. This is a very long struggle that depends on a lot more changing.

I believe we need to learn to embrace different tactics alongside this one. If we don't, this sorry story will just keep repeating itself until no one cares anymore.

By writing so harshly, I don't mean to put down the efforts of those who pushed this bill. In fact, I admire them very much. I truly just want to know what's next, and if that hasn't been thought about, then we all had better start.

Mourning the loss of William "Doubting" Thomas

2009-01-24T01:25:00.007-05:00

William "Doubting" Thomas, founder of the Peace Park vigil in Lafayette Park outside the White House, died on Friday morning after a long illness. He was 61; he was my friend. I mourn his loss intensely.

Thomas, as he was known to all of us, began his 24/7 vigil for "Wisdom, Honesty, Truth, Justice, and Global Nuclear Disarmament" on April 13, 1981 interrupted only by numerous arrests and a "stay away" order the last year of his life. The anti-nuclear vigil became the most visible statement of an anti-nuclear organization called Proposition One. He was joined in the vigil by his more famous sidekick, Concepcion "Connie" Picciotto, who achieved a small measure of fame when she was filmed by Michael Moore at the vigil for a scene that appeared toward the end of Fahrenheit 9/11. As we mourn the loss of Thomas, we must remember that Connie struggles on and needs our support.

The Peace Park vigil is certainly a tourist curiosity, situated right across the street from the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue, so close that it has been dubbed 1601 Pennsylvania Avenue. Over the years, the National Park Service has tried to remove it many times, but it remains the eyesore on the front steps of the greatest power the world has ever known, reminding us of our role as a nation in nuclear destruction and urging us to stop now and forever. Unfortunately, that message is as pertinent now as it was when Reagan was ratcheting up the Cold War in 1981. The United States still possesses the world's largest nuclear arsenal; more nations possess nuclear weapons than ever, and the world's energy crisis is increasing calls for nuclear power (or disguise it in the form of hydrogen power, a byproduct of the nuclear process).

This issue is what my friend Thomas fought for, passing out information, talking with strangers, and keeping watch year after year, decade after decade.

Thomas leaves behind his beloved wife Ellen, whose email message reached me this evening. When they were not at shifts at the vigil, they lived in a house not too far distant called the "Peace House," taking in and feeding homeless people, providing space for the Washington Peace Center, and providing a welcome mat to anyone who needed anything or simply wanted the company of good people. Whenever I visited Ellen and Thomas at the Peace House, I was chastised for not coming by enough - tonight, I regret that I didn't.

What I want to reiterate to you all and to Ellen, if she reads this, is the role that Thomas and the Peace Park vigil had on my life. I had a transformative experience in November 2000 because of Thomas and the vigil he started. Without that experience, I really don't think I would have taken the road I went down as an anti-war activist, as a global justice activist, and now as an advocate for buffalo in and near my beloved Yellowstone National Park. It was one of those experiences I will never forget, and it made a profound difference for me and no doubt the people I have been able to touch through my own activism.

If you recall, in November 2000, we had a contentious presidential election involving George W. Bush and Al Gore. I had only moved to Washington, D.C., that past spring in order to work on a Ph.D. in philosophy at Catholic University. However, as upset as I was by the politics and the process of what was happening in Florida, I did not do anything. Never had I protested; never had it really crossed my mind. That was something my parents did during Vietnam; I had thought that era of history was more or less gone, though it had never really stopped. In any event, I was temping at the Urban Institute over in the Dupont Circle area. One morning I couldn't shake the feeling that I needed to do more, but I didn't know what. The only thing that came to my mind was how much I hated the death penalty; however, I didn't really know if that was what was calling me.

I got off of work early in the afternoon and wandered in the direction of the White House. There I saw the Peace Park vigil, which for some reason at that time was set up near H Street on the other end of Lafayette Park, perhaps because the city was getting ready for another inaugural, which tended to move the vigil. I don't recall whether I saw Thomas or Connie, but there was a man there. He looked defeated and sad, as though he needed something from me. All of my being wanted to go up to him and simply say, "God bless you." However, I can be painfully shy sometimes, and I couldn't work up the courage. Instead, I walked away saying nothing.

There have been few times where I felt more guilty than I did at that moment; it is a hard thing to explain because there was nothing technically that I had done that was wrong. Yet, inside of me, I felt this incredible moral failing. And, there was something in that feeling that told me that I needed to be doing more, that to make up for what I had done wrong I had to become active.

And, so I did. I became involved in grassroots organizing, protesting what was happening in Florida. Within weeks, I spent an entire night on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court. It never occurred to me that what felt like an amazing feat for me was something that Thomas probably could count years of his life doing in Lafayette Park. I worked with others to try to start a grassroots group. Though that experience burned me in many ways, it didn't ultimately stop me. The lead up to the war in Iraq led me to anti-war organizing, led me to the DC Anti-War Network, and ultimately that work led me finally to know Thomas, to know Ellen, to know about Proposition One and the Peace Park vigil. I'd spend time occasionally covering the vigil when someone had to go for a bathroom break; I joined my partner Genevieve when she and a friend named Midge held a solidarity one week vigil alongside Peace Park. I spent another night in the park honoring the work of the vigil. And, I got to know Thomas little by little.

So, Peace Park and Thomas inspired me to where I am now in so many ways. So many of you getting this know my work right now on Yellowstone issues, but Thomas is an important inspiration that drives me. And, I miss him.

When I knew Thomas, he had this dog named Wise Guy, who died a few years ago. Wise Guy was a pit bull, and yet Thomas kept him at the vigil without a leash. What a sweet dog, and Thomas once got arrested because of Wise Guy not being on a leash. And, yet, through millions of tourists, I never saw anyone afraid of Wise Guy. However, Thomas, when he was in a foul mood, could scare you because he was so passionate and could be so caustic toward the relentless BS from people who tried to defend American war and nuclear policy. He had certainly heard it all, and yet someone would inevitably approach him as though they were giving him an argument he had never heard before. I delighted in watching Thomas talk with people.

It was clear in recent years that Thomas was ill, and I'd often feel sad knowing that. Nevertheless, I was amazed at the way he kept up his commitments despite how badly he often felt. I saw so many activists fall by the wayside over much, much less.

Sometimes, I felt that a lot of people thought the Peace Park vigilers were crazy, and I can only imagine what endless days in the tourist hell outside the White House in all kinds of weather does to one's sanity. However, I have always been convinced that that vigil is the sanest expression of protest against war, that war and those who perpetrate it for any reason are absolutely nuts and that no amount of rationalization in the world can make the carnage of war any more sane. When such power is held in the hands of one man, that's insanity. I heard that a CIA drone killed 18 people in Pakistan today, and few here would blink an eye. How can anyone - are you listening Barack Obama - have that kind of power; how can anyone with that kind of power dare to use it? Thomas was just one man, and perhaps he and Connie alone have stayed sane while we all delude ourselves that the madness of the world is normal.

I want to fight the madness like Thomas fought the madness.

Nuclear war vigils seem distant sometimes to me in the relative paradise of Montana, surrounded by mountains, near the most beautiful and greatest wonders of the world. Here we deal with issues related to the land and those that live on it and the way we should live with land. Yet, another dear friend of mine in the Washington area, John Steinbach - and a friend to Ellen and Thomas - understands perhaps better than anyone how nuclear issues relate with indigenous issues (where on whose reservations so many nuclear tests have been conducted) and relate with land and wildlife issues. Like John, I can't see the Yellowstone I love and the buffalo I love without giving a loving glance back to Ellen and Thomas.

Thomas, we are hurt in ways we scarcely understand by your loss.

The best I can do now is write this ode in your memory and honor, Thomas, and hope that a few people take notice to make the commitment and the connections that your life was about. "Wisdom, Honesty, Truth, Justice, and Global Nuclear Disarmament" indeed.

Love,
Jim

Buffalo Rally in Helena : Success of a small action inside a big problem

2009-01-07T02:14:00.010-05:00

Warning: This essay has nothing to do with earthquake swarms or the Yellowstone supervolcano. Be forewarned or else you might fall under the apocalypse of reading what is to follow on something else entirely pertaining to Yellowstone. ;)

On January 5, 2009, I was a participant in a march on behalf of the wild buffalo population in Yellowstone National Park, animals who have been denied year round habitat in the state of Montana. The action, sponsored by Buffalo Field Campaign and Buffalo Allies of Bozeman, was in Helena and was targeted at the swearing in of the state legislature and Gov. Brian Schweitzer, under whose watch the greatest wild buffalo slaughter since the 19th century has happened. It was in support of the Montana Wild Buffalo Recovery & Conservation Act of 2009, which calls for shifting management of wild bison from the Montana Department of Livestock to Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks so that bison are managed as wildlife instead of as animals in need of disease control. During the action, about 15 activists from West Yellowstone, Bozeman, Missoula, and Helena were able to get inside the capitol rotunda with signs that read, "Stop the Slaughter" and "Stop the B.S. = Buffalo Slaughter = Brian Schweitzer." Reporters took our pictures, filmed us, and wrote articles about it.

Those are most of the basic facts about the action. I can also add that the crowd - mostly Montana policy makers and their families - received us mostly with thumbs up. One of our number reported that the governor acknowledged our sign. I can add that the march through the empty streets of Helena reached few people. Perhaps, I should also add that a native man joined our action outside of the capitol and supported us inside the rotunda. There was no trouble from Helena police; besides the signs and buffalo masks, there was no disruption inside the rotunda. After the rally, participants expressed a sense that the action had gone well, especially once we were inside the capitol, where policy makers were forced to notice and where reaction was mostly positive.

However, the basic facts of an action often miss one of a million other things that can be said. What we are doing is for the buffalo, and while the rest of what I write will deal more with the people power aspect of the action, we cannot forget that the buffalo are at the center of everything that happened. Without the basic injustice being done to this animal by Montana and the federal government, none of what we had to say would have any resonance. Without the great disconnect that we who are living on this continent are continuing to have because of the way we confine buffalo inside of Yellowstone National Park, the drama of the moment would be missing. The organizing of people around a cause, the friendships and challenges, and even the resistance against us would mean nothing if not for the animals caught up in the absurd way we play god over everything under the sun.

All that said, in any action I am regularly struck by the metrics we come up with for judging its success. At the most basic level, we can ask ourselves here whether this advances the cause of the buffalo. And, while helpful to have that framework, that really doesn't get us much further in answering the question. It also seems likely that the success of an action targeting any injustice likely would have similar metrics, and there's no reason not to broaden the continent of our question in just the way we would hope that the buffalo might broaden across the North American continent.

So, based on what I felt about the action, I want to say that the action was a success. If it was a success, what made it successful? How successful was it?

These are all incredibly difficult questions to answer because a lot depends upon what the ultimate goal posts are and how much is possible for a particular group of people acting a particular way. As I understand the question, fighting the injustice of buffalo confined to Yellowstone is only the beginning of an incredible problem facing our society. Yellowstone is that place that was set aside after everything else had been run over or was about to be run over. It was the refugee camp for centuries of pillaging a continent, a pillaging that continues. Undoing everything that was ever done is not even possible; however, undoing the ethical arrogance that continues to drive our relationship with the land must be possible if we are to be better off. Yellowstone itself suffers under the weight of the burden. We must free what is trapped within Yellowstone also to free Yellowstone; and we must also do this to free ourselves. I know that all of that sounds poetic, but this is not the place to rehash old arguments, demonstrating the logical fallacies in our prevalent world views about our relationship with the land.

In any event, I think the goal posts are very far from us, and I also think that the individual should, in her or his particular actions, fervently avoid any action that would give that person power over the agency of another. What I mean is that no person should ever strive for too much power - even for an apparent good - lest you simply create one fundamental problem to replace another. I should never have any right to have power over you and your decisions; I might resist the power you wield over others, but I have no right to become lord over you as you lord over others.

Thus, the challenge against injustice is of a great scale - like the one we see with the buffalo, like the one we see against indigenous people, like the one we see in warfare, like the one we see in sexism, like the one we see in racism, and on and on - and we have to realize that our particular power in exerting our influence over a situation must necessarily be small. We are only capable of small feats against great problems, and that is a terrible dilemma for anyone who wishes to fight against injustice.

I believe that our action in Helena was a small feat that can help us move toward defeating a great problem. Remaining small in scale to fight what's large in scope requires incredible creativity and persistence in organizing. It requires communication, organization, and flexibility. If my action is going to ever be part of something large enough to fight the problem, it has to be part of something that encourages others to take similar actions. It has to be part of something that inspires us to reach out for others and increase our network of support. We have to at once build our own small communities - family units, if you will - while using those family units to build herd after herd so that the injustice eventually falls apart. However, that's a romantic analogy; in truth, it's very difficult for families to get along, for groups of people to get along with other groups of people, for those groups of people to stay in touch, to collaborate, and to build the movement necessary to overrun injustice. It may be hard, but it had better not be impossible.

So, let's look at the action in Helena. What it was first was a collaborative effort, spearheaded by a strong small community - Buffalo Field Campaign - inspired by another small community - the legislation proposed by the Gallatin Wildlife Association - in conjunction with a budding new community - Buffalo Allies of Bozeman - built on connections that already existed with people in Missoula and Helena. However, beyond that, it drew new people in - marchers not known about in Helena, inspiring new connections in our group in Bozeman. Secondly, the action managed to reach the media so that others have the opportunity to know and take action. It provoked the power holders and those guilty of injustice to react, as Schweitzer apparently did. It inspired those who took action to want to take more action, to share their experiences as I am here, and therefore to do more.

Of course, the gains of the action are tentative; their permanence depends on us continuing to chip away, to continue making connections, and to work on inspiring new people both to join our group or to perhaps form their own groups. Maybe, protest isn't your thing; maybe, you are an academic and have information to share. Maybe, you are a farmer and have food to share. Maybe, you are a poet or a musician and have beauty to share. Maybe, you are a cynic and have your honesty to share. The point is that the more we build these connections and embrace and overcome the challenges that arise, the stronger we will become, even though our own individual efforts will remain small and tied to the families and communities with which we belong.

That is the core of people power. Now, if I am wrong that the individual should not aspire to overwhelming acts of heroism or wrong that the problem of the buffalo is huge, then perhaps one could argue that the action was not really a success because the acts were tiny but not large enough to handle a relatively small problem. In that case, no doubt people will keep throwing their money and their energy at that individual who promises to fix the problem. I think that's why people have such faith in electoral politics. If only this guy - for some, it was once Brian Schweitzer - gets elected, then he can fix this problem. We can argue about that, but I will contend that the problem with the buffalo is greater than the Montana Wild Buffalo Recovery & Conservation Act of 2009 and that respecting any animal as wildlife opens quite a pandora's box. And, I will continue to argue that it's beyond any one of us to fix. So, that's why small acts - like pushing for this bill, like rallying in support of it, like organizing in Bozeman, like connecting with friends in the movement - can truly be the most effective and meaningful acts that we undertake. Again, that's my assertion, but I must keep my ambitions relatively small for this essay to be a success.

Thus, protesting, marching, and holding signs can be powerful when they tend to build the roaming of the movement that they are supposed to support. If we are looking for the knockout punch, we are in the wrong sport. Winning will come as we build strong families and strong herds (i.e., strong families and strong communities), but that is built on what might seem to be a lot of pointless moving about. It can be, sometimes, but if you look closely at this action in Helena, this one was far from pointless. Yes, we made our point to Gov. Schweitzer and the politicians of Montana, but more importantly, we made it with each other in a way that can only make us stronger and make our point more strongly.

Jim Macdonald
***
Somewhat related, please read about the May 2008 action in Helena that I wrote about here.

Yellowstone doom: Imagine better this new year

2009-01-01T03:05:00.005-05:00

A new year has begun, one of the arbitrary boundaries we set in order to measure the passage of time. It's a time where we reflect backwards and look forwards, and doing so is socially shared. We all do it, and even if we don't, we are conscious of the fact that we don't. Even the rebels among us who treat New Year's as just another day do so fully aware of what they are not doing.

New Year's, arbitrary though it is, nevertheless has a stunning significance.

For me, it almost marks my first year since I've moved much closer to my beloved Yellowstone. In fact, the day I moved here was December 23, 2007; however, it's close enough to the magnetic pull of New Year's that it might as well be a year today. What a neat year it has been, watching my little baby boy grow, watching the seasons change, adoring the mountains, co-founding an activist group, moving into a new house, learning to ski, and taking every opportunity I could to know Yellowstone.

Who knows if next year will be as fortunate? The impermanence of our experience is in part what makes it so compelling. That it might be otherwise or might have been otherwise, whether by luck or our own control, the possibility of what might have been or what might still be certainly is part of the drama of our existence. We never know whether the moment we live might be our last or whether bad times might be better or worse yet. We'd like to think that what goes up might go down, but we wonder if it mightn't just keep rising forever. The odds that I would be here right now writing this essay in this place are almost impossible. That I am when I might not have been, that I am here and not there, there is nothing that can amaze the mind more than imagining all the possibilities.

Perhaps, that's why people are so drawn to doom. In recent days, a ridiculous number of people have been drawn to reports of a large swarm of minor earthquakes in Yellowstone. There have been hundreds of small quakes within the Yellowstone caldera, one of the world's largest volcanoes (supervolcanoes). There's nothing unusual about small or even large earthquakes in Yellowstone, but what made this newsworthy was the sheer number of earthquakes all at once mostly in the same area. And, once that became a national story, it has drawn out dozens and dozens and dozens of blog posts about it, a great many of them with apocalyptic predictions of what might come, or in the words of many, what surely will come.

It has been almost absurd to see that my newspaper on all things greater Yellowstone has had more unique visitors the past couple of days than any other day of the online paper's existence. That's more striking because we are not in the main tourist season, and in fact we are in the holiday season. It's been particularly hard to keep up with the sheer number of blogs posting opinions on this. Like New Year's draws us in right now, for me, the fact that so many people are obsessed with news about the very common occurrence of earthquakes in Yellowstone is something that I cannot avoid thinking about.

So, impermanence is our lot. We will die. The Earth one day will surely be gone, at least when the sun finally explodes, perhaps sooner. What we work to protect, what we fear of losing, we all will lose. Just as today passes into yesterday, we will lose the possibility of what might still be into a merely what might have been. Doom, whether it comes in a spectacular ball of fire, or dying quietly surrounded by hospice caretakers like my partner Genevieve cares for, is certainly our lot, at least in terms of our lives here on Earth.

Old Faithful will be gone one day. And, yes, one day, that supervolcano will indeed explode.

However, the fact of doom is perfectly normal, the essence of mundane. However, no one is interested in something simply because it is perfectly normal. No one is interested about my sleeping schedule, when I choose to eat, when I choose to relieve myself. Few particularly care whether I live or whether I die. The inevitability of doom isn't what's attractive to people; what is attractive is thinking the possibilities of what might happen. People are attracted in particular to the manner of their death - or perhaps the death of others. If someone is murdered, they care more than if they happened to die a slow, agonizing death overcome by dimentia, or perhaps Parkinson's--like my grandmother. The unexpected--the death of a young child, the sudden heart attack, perhaps a suicide that was a surprise. And, the more bizarre and unusual, the more attractive. If we all go down in a fire of ash, suffocated by chlorine gas, and an ice age, caused by the most beautiful place in the world, now that's a story. That's something people can buy into; that's really an attractive way to die or to cheat death. That's drama, and that's the kind of possibility that people dream about.

And, even if it's not likely, that the notion that the supervolcano is overdue is based on a very weak inductive generalization of the fewest instances, the sheer possibility, the knowledge that maybe we are the lottery winners in a game of the most sensationalized doom, is enough to keep hope alive for those who don't want their lives to be merely normal, their doom to be like all the others.

That it's sadistic to the hilt is of no matter; I imagine many thousands of people were thrilled at first when Hurricane Katrina struck hard. It's disgusting and revolting but no doubt true, or else why would cable news outlet after outlet send reporters down to the eye of the storm? They don't do it because they are concerned; they do it because people have a fascination with disaster. When terrible disaster struck, the sensationalism couldn't last but a few weeks even though the problems for the people of New Orleans still remain. But, at that point, it was mundane. People were used to it; the drama of the true tediousness of life no longer concerned them. Perhaps, people felt a little guilty for wishing such doom, but then the thought creeps in, "What if it were to happen again?"

In fact, disasters are happening in Yellowstone right now that are apparently not sensational enough to matter. Wolves are caught in the crosshairs of political disputes and land wars. Buffalo were slaughtered in record numbers in 2008 by the government. Unexploded ordnance, all to keep Sylvan Pass open during winter for a few snowmobilers, litter eastern Yellowstone (oh wait, you didn't know about that, isn't that a disaster waiting to happen?) No doubt that all around Yellowstone, you won't have any trouble finding hundreds of people whose obituaries are being written and thousands of animals who die in the life and death struggle of the ecosystem (oh wait, you really dig that - that's what National Geographic or an Anderson Cooper special are for or perhaps all the spotting scopes in the Lamar Valley). But, how can any of that compete with supposedly impending planetary doom? One person's year, one person's possibilities, one blade of grass's hopes and dreams cannot possibly connect us so powerfully. Just as New Year's connects us all, we are connected by really big, unique notions of doom.

There might be no helping our sensationalistic tendencies; how can we tell anyone not to imagine doomsday scenarios? We are drawn magnetically to considering what might be. However, I think sometimes our imaginations aren't brilliant enough. That might seem odd considering some of the apocalyptic nonsense that you can read online right now about Yellowstone or the Mayan prophecy and 2012. It seems the imagination is doing well, but is it? Actually, it's pretty dull and predictable. People are drawn to the same kinds of disasters - volcanoes, earthquakes, meteors, plagues. It's particularly dull to see so many people running to my Web site looking for the same thing. Rather than evidence of a vivid imagination, it's evidence that people are basically trapped by the same societal paradigms. Those who are accused of having overactive imaginations in fact are just guilty of bad reasoning, and those who spend all their time debunking them - while just as lacking in imagination - at least have the good sense not to be totally trapped.

What I mean by a lack of imagination is that we seem unable to understand anything close to the full range of possibility so that we might empathize with anyone or anything caught in any situation. There's absolutely no reason that we cannot wonder at the situation of a single pebble in our backyard. Now, that we don't wonder about these things isn't always surprising, but it would be far more interesting to live in a world where we at least are making the effort. Every time the wind blows over the surface of our lands, an entire universe is displaced. One breath of air is doom for an infinity of molecules. Just the wonder of such a reality where disaster lurks around every keystroke can compel us, can help us reach new levels of empathy for our world and for our own situation. The what might be and what might have been is infinite; there's no reason to fall back to the same scenarios of doom.

Right now, we are stuck in a New Year's state of mind, not that there's anything wrong with that. What's wrong is that it's so dull. It's all very much the same, lacking in the critical variety of experience that our five senses demand. So, this New Year's, I don't resolve to be rid of it. How can I? But, I do resolve to wonder just that much more at what's not being wondered about, to care just that much more, and if in the process, I'm forced to consider a lot of doomsday scenarios about things all too familiar - like the Yellowstone supervolcano - so be it. At least, I'm not going to confine myself to just the same kind of essay. Hopefully ... hopefully ... there is something new under our weary sun.

1/5: RALLY FOR THE BUFFALO IN MONTANA'S STATE CAPITAL!

2008-12-21T10:25:00.001-05:00

From Buffalo Field Campaign

****

RALLY FOR THE BUFFALO IN MONTANA'S STATE CAPITAL!

Dear Buffalo Friends in Montana,

Join Buffalo Field Campaign and other wild bison advocates on Monday, January 5, 2009 for a *RALLY IN HELENA*! We need you to stand with us for the buffalo as both Governor Brian Schweitzer and the Montana Legislature are sworn into office. Stand with us to let the Montana Governor and the Legislature know that wild buffalo have a right to migrate into and be treated respectfully in Montana!

* WHO: Everyone who cares about restoring wild bison in Montana

* WHAT: March & Rally with banners, puppets, speakers and take action items

* WHEN: Monday, January 5, 2009. 9:00 - 10:30 am

* WHERE: Meet at Women's Park then we'll march to the state capital around 9:30 am. Women's Park is located between Neill and Fuller Avenues, near N. Last Chance Gulch, about a mile from the state capital building. Visit Google Maps, and type in Women's Park, Helena, Montana for a map and directions.

* WHY: America's last wild bison that migrate into Montana from Yellowstone National Park continue to be harassed and killed for following their natural instincts. Last year, the state of Montana and Yellowstone National Park perpetuated the largest-scale wild bison slaughter since the 1800's, killing more than 1,600 wild bison. During Governor Schweitzer's first term, more wild bison were killed than under the combined three terms of the governors who preceded him, even though when he first campaigned he did so under the promise to provide "more tolerance for wild bison in Montana."

We gather to hold the Governor accountable for his actions against wild bison, to encourage him to support actions recognizing wild bison as a valued wildlife species in Montana, and to provide year-round habitat for this special, prehistoric species.

When he ran for office Governor Schweitzer said that the Montana Department of Livestock (DOL) is "ill-equipped to manage wild buffalo." We will ask the Montana legislature to repeal MCA 81-2-120, the current law that places the Montana Department of Livestock in charge of bison management, and urge them to support LC0128, the Montana Wild Buffalo Recovery and Concervation Act of 2009; a bill that will remove the DOL's authority, respect wild bison, and designate Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks as the managing agency.

We will also have post cards on hand for you to sign and mail or hand deliver to your state legislators, and we'll have enough post cards for you to take back to your community. Hot beverages and snacks will be provided to keep you warm and happy!

CONTRIBUTE YOUR CREATIVITY & ENERGY! There are many ways you can help make this rally a success:

Join us and bring your friends and family
Make banners, puppets, masks (Message should include: Year-round habitat, Respect bison as wildlife, Remove the DOL's authority, or any others that are close to your heart for the buffalo)
Organize or be available for carpools to get as many people as possible to attend
Distribute fliers around your community (flyer to be distributed in subsequent email)
Contact local media to let them know about the event
Write letters to the editor of local and regional newspapers to talk about the buffalo

We look forward to seeing you there! Please spread the word to save the herds!

For more information, please visit http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org or contact bfc-media@wildrockies.org

--
Media & Outreach
Buffalo Field Campaign
P.O. Box 957
West Yellowstone, MT 59758
406-646-0070
bfc-media@wildrockies.org
http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org

BFC is the only group working in the field every day
in defense of the last wild buffalo population in the U.S.

--

Media & Outreach

Buffalo Field Campaign
P.O. Box 957
West Yellowstone, MT 59758
406-646-0070
bfc-media@wildrockies.org

http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org

BFC is the only group working in the field every day

in defense of the last wild buffalo population in the U.S.

Stay informed! Get our weekly email Updates from the Field:

Send our email address to bfc-media@wildrockies.org

* View BFC Video Footage:
http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org

* Why are they killing the last wild buffalo?

http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/issueinbrief.html

* Buffalo Field Campaign Blog

http://www.blog.buffalofieldcampaign.org

* Protect Horse Butte for Wild Buffalo!

http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/legal/horsebutte.html

* BOYCOTT BEEF! It's what's killing wild buffalo

http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/actnow/boycott.html

* Speak Out! Contact politicians and involved agencies today:

http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/actnow/politicians.html

* Write a Letter to the Editor of key newspapers:

http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/actnow/lte.html

* BFC Wish List

http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/aboutus/wishlist.html

Return to the Ontological Argument for God's existence

2008-12-01T16:35:00.003-05:00

It's been awhile since I have written anything for this blog, but it's not for lack of activity. Instead of writing essays, I've been on the ground organizing for Buffalo Allies of Bozeman.

However, returning to my roots in philosophy, I've recently been discussing God with my dearest friend. I recently remarked that I've always been impressed with a version of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. This, perhaps, may surprise some of you who may only know me for my anarchist writings. It's certainly anarchist heresy to be a theist and an anarchist. But, perhaps, that's another part of what makes me eclectic.

My father is a United Methodist minister back in Ohio. He always taught us that Christianity is a radical religion, that love in particular is the most radical concept the world has ever known. Unfortunately, little about Christianity or love in practice is all that particularly radical. However, we were always taught that in Christ there was no male or female, for instance. That, God's kingdom resided principally within the hearts of the community of believers, that the "kingdom" was an anti-kingdom where the last shall be first, and God was first servant of all. The language of hierarchy was used to invert and subvert hierarchy. The only thing that mattered was the practice of love to each other. "What you do unto the least of these, you do unto me."

That sounds in some sense Quaker, for those of you familiar, and to some extent it is. However, culturally, I've always felt more at home with non-Christians, with those who preferred to make a lot of noise, with those who weren't afraid to identify with trouble making and subversion - who weren't afraid to embrace the radical aspects of virtue. So, perhaps, most of my friends have been agnostics of various types, pagans, and other kinds of spiritualists.

And, yet, all that being the case, I am firmly a theist.

In that context with one of my agnostic/atheist and dearest of friends, I have tried to explain why it is I believe in God and what I mean by that.

Here is most of the recent letter that I sent her, covering my arguments for the ontological argument and then moving beyond that, trying to bridge the implications of the ontological argument, the implications of my experience as a being, with faithful adherence to a theistic view of God.

This is only the start. If people want to chime in relevant comments, they are welcome to do so. You can find some very old writings by me on the subject at http://www.geocities.com/jsmacdonaldjr/six.html. Defending the basis of these views is at the heart of everything I do and has taken up many years of my life. No doubt you can find many online arguments I've had with people just by doing some Web searches.

Here is my letter written today:

Aneslm's version of the ontological argument.

Define God as "that than which a greater cannot be conceived."
"That than which a greater cannot be conceived" includes the concept of existence because a "that than which a greater cannot be conceived" would not be a "that than which a greater cannot be conceived" if it lacked existence.
Therefore, God exists.

Critique: The argument does not prove that existence is necessarily greater than non-existence. That is, if one denies that existence is not something that necessarily makes a concept greater, where is the contradiction in that? Therefore, God's existence would not depend upon the definition of God, it would depend on knowing the value of existence to a concept. So, it is incomplete.

Leibniz's version of the ontological argument.

Define God as "necessary," that is as "that which cannot be conceived not to be."
If God is possible, then God exists. That is, if the concept of a "that which cannot be conceived not to be" is logically possible, that is - without contradiction -, it must exist because nothing can limit it from being.
God is possible. That is, there is no contradiction in conceiving of a "that which cannot be conceived not to be."
Therefore, God exists.

It follows from this that this is the only sort of being whose existence follows merely from considering the definition. That is, I don't exist by definition because I might not have been and might not be. That is, one could posit the non-existence of anything that is not necessary.

A "that which cannot be conceived not to be" is little different than positing the law of noncontradiction, not merely as a law of our thought, but as an existing being in its own right.

But, why call this God? What would it have to do with the God believed in by the churches or the various religions of the world?

Let's consider this more. However, let's note this first. One thing that religious people certainly mean by God is a being that cannot be conceived not to be. The existence of God must be the most pre-eminent axiom of a religion, but whether what necessarily exists bears any other likeness to what people call God than mere existence is a pertinent question. Why not simply call a "that which cannot be conceived not to be" simply a law of reason, or a law of being, required for reason, required for understanding reality, but not an active being in its own right, not a good being, not an all powerful being, not an all present being - as is required by theism.

Certainly, if we simply stop with the law of noncontradiction, we merely have God as an empty tautology. The philosopher and logician Fred Sommers called the ontological argument by Leibniz a sound argument; however, he said that it implied that this notion of "God" was purely negative. It suggested that God was simply the domain of discourse, or the domain in which we make assertions about objects in the world, but was nothing else in its own right. To suggest that God was more than a domain of discourse would lead to paradoxes that philosophy is not (yet) equipped to deal with - namely others like Bertrand Russell argued, how an object could be a member of its own class. How could we make assertions about God - defined first as a necessary being - if God is the domain in which all assertions about God must be considered.

So, to say as theists do that God is all powerful, all knowing, always present, and all good would be, according to this view, to make claims about God that cannot be applicable to the concept of God.

Therefore, we need to look more closely at the question of what else can be known about God; we also have to understand how tautologies of any type can be incarnate, so to speak.

Just as there is one thing that can be known to exist by consideration of its definition - that is, necessary being (a "that which cannot be conceived not to be"), there is at least one being that can be known to exist through the consideration of experience. Descartes's great dictum whereby he recognized his own existence because he was not able to escape the notion that it was he who was thinking it. When he tried, it was he who was trying. In fact, I do exist. I might not have existed; I may not exist. However, I do in fact exist right now. That I exist, I who am thinking, who might have been otherwise. My existence, however necessary to acknowledge right now, by force of the inescapable experience of my existence, am not a logically necessary being. That is, I can be conceived not to be, at least in terms of what I am, even if I am unable to conceive of it as I am thinking it right now in terms of my experience. This is what Leibniz in part meant by calling a being contingent. Logically, a contingent being, as opposed to a necessary being, is one that can be logically (essentially) conceived not to be without contradiction. However, in one sense, my being is necessary, in that I cannot escape the conclusion that I do in fact exist. That is what Leibniz meant by hypothetical necessity. That is, it might not have been the case that I exist, but that I exist is surely a necessary conclusion. It does not follow from my essence, however. It's not the same nature as a "that which cannot be conceived not to be." That is a being that necessarily exists in fact and also by logic. There is nothing hypothetical about it. The existence of a necessary being does not depend upon me conceiving of God's existence; in fact, it's the other way around.

So, here I am, a being whose existence is contingent. It might not have been; in my definition, I don't contain within me the reason for my own existence. What then is the reason for my existence? To suggest that there is no reason for my existence is nonsensical because the lack of sufficient reason for my existence is precisely what makes me distinct from that of a necessary being. To deny a sufficient reason is to deny my own existence, which we cannot in fact do. Thus, we have unearthed another principle of reason, one that follows from considering the distinction between necessity and contingency. That is, there is such a thing as a principle of sufficient reason. There must be a reason that explains what a thing is - either that thing is necessary, in which its existence is explained from within its own definition, or a thing is contingent, in which its existence is explained by something else.

What explains my existence? Perhaps, it is another contingent being. Maybe, we are like a jigsaw puzzle, not one of us is explained in ourselves, but we are explained by the sum of our parts fitting together. In that way, our sufficiency is a sum. But, then the reason - the sum - is still something which is distinct from a consideration of the parts themselves. Even if we considered existence a sum of parts (a problem for infinite reasons), the sum itself is not reducible to a consideration of the meaning of the part. That is, the existence of contingent beings cannot be explained by contingent beings, no matter how many others there are, and no matter how they fit together. The sufficient reason for anything contingent must have its reason arise from something necessary. Out of the nature of necessary being then, my own existence arises.

This leads to more questions. How can what is necessary implicate the reality of my own existence, which we know is contingent? This is an important question, but we cannot deny that we have reached the point where we cannot doubt that the question has a rational answer to it even if we are not there. One thing we must realize is that there is a connection between my own existence and the existence of necessary being, and this also is something that is consistent with what we find in the religions. But, we must admit its also what we find in philosophies like materialism, which teach that we arise out of the material of the universe. If the universe is that material, and that material is necessary, then we who are less than the sum of the universe nevertheless find our reality from the attributes of universal matter, according to this view. This is not something the religions generally would subscribe to. It doesn't bring us to a theistic notion of God, but it brings us now closer to understanding the connection. Notice that what I've done here , though, in considering the nature of sufficient reason, is give a version of the cosmological argument. It is an argument that derives its force only if the ontological argument is sound. If it is not, then the cosmological argument cannot hold weight. If one can truly deny that a necessary being exists, then there is no reason to posit a principle of sufficient reason.

I'm going to stop here. I've taken a lot of steps; do we need to backtrack? Is there something to this point that you don't find ironclad convincing? We need to stop and look over that. That starts with the ontological argument.

Where have I gone amiss, if I have gone amiss? I have not considered Kant's objections here, either. Should I go over those before I move forward?

Buffalo was topic of discussion at Northern Rockies Bioneers in Bozeman: Presentations available for download

2008-10-20T12:00:00.003-04:00

Buffalo Allies of Bozeman, Buffalo Field Campaign, and the InterTribal Bison Cooperative sponsored a two-day workshop at the Northern Rockies Bioneers Conference in Bozeman.

We want to thank everyone who helped us, presented, and sat in on our presentations about the buffalo, about the history of buffalo and native peoples, and what's being now about Yellowstone's buffalo both in the park region and with native tribes.

We now have three of the five slide presentations available for download (see below).

Below also is a brief synopsis of the speakers and what they talked about.

Saturday
Jim Macdonald - Buffalo Allies of Bozeman - (download PowerPoint presentation): Jim spoke about the history of buffalo and indigenous population declines and the reason for the decline. He argued that indigenous population decline was due to genocide and that the buffalo slaughter was a chapter in that genocide. He further argued that Bozeman has a place in that story and a continuing place in that story, near Yellowstone National Park where the same rationale is at work keeping buffalo confined within Yellowstone National Park. Jim's presentation is in large part based on a previous presentation that can be downloaded here, where you can find the sources for much of the information used in Saturday's presentation.

Mike Mease - Buffalo Field Campaign: Mike spoke to the issues related to bison in the Yellowstone area, especially to the common sense solutions that could be implemented that would protect bison and the property claims of landowners outside of the park. There was discussion on who was responsible and what could be done to take action for Yellowstone's buffalo, as well as Buffalo Field Campaign's role in documenting the struggle of the bison. Mike also spoke to the quarantine of bison to the north of the park, what those buffalo go through, and how unfortunate it was that it was the only choice that the tribes had to restore their relationship with the buffalo.

Sunday
Kristine Reed - InterTribal Bison Cooperative: Kristine spoke about her role as a wildlife biologist with the InterTribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC) and the efforts to restore wild bison, especially from Yellowstone, onto the reservations of the various tribes who are members of the ITBC. Christine spoke about the efforts of some of the tribes to get quarantined bison from Yellowstone that are currently being held at Corwin Springs, MT, just north of the park. She reported that despite all the red tape and the process involved with getting bison, the ITBC had their initial proposal for the bison accepted, making it likely that quarantined bison will ultimately end up on the reservation. She described the process the bison would then need to go through after reaching the tribes.

Jason Baldes - Eastern Shoshone, Montana State University - (download PowerPoint presentation): Jason is working with the Shoshone tribe on the Wind River Reservation to get wild bison onto the reservation. He described the history of the reservation, split between Western Shoshones and Northern Arapahos, the geography of the reservation, and the challenges of restoring bison to the reservation. Unlike the ITBC, the Shoshones are not planning on using Yellowstone buffalo that are in quarantine because of the red tape and rules involved with keeping the buffalo. The Shoshone plan calls for placing wild buffalo from Utah's Henry Mountains onto 800,000 unfenced acres on the northern section of the reservation. They are actively working with Wyoming on a management plan if and when bison cross the reservation boundaries.

Chris Klatt - Buffalo Allies of Bozeman - (download PowerPoint presentation): Chris wrapped up speaking about the issue of science as it relates to the Yellowstone buffalo issue. A lot of conversation throughout the workshop focused on the science of the buffalo; however, Chris pointed out that we need to be careful how we consider that issue. Science not only can be politicized but the scope of the scientific inquiry can be misused depending on the value assumptions that the scientist brings to the subject. So, for instance, 19th century scientists misapplied Darwin's theories on evolution to study the physiological differences between different human races. Likewise, scientists can do the same with Yellowstone's buffalo if they don't understand the values driving the science. Chris talked about population genetics and how the policy that a certain number of buffalo be in the park drives the scientific question that looks at the population required to maintain minimum genetic diversity of a herd. However, that question often ignores the way buffalo are killed, upsetting buffalo sub-populations, and therefore genetic diversity. Therefore, the science in the service of a policy value can be misused.

Please feel free to download and distribute these presentations. The ultimate feeling from the talks was that people could be doing more. One way to do more is to join Buffalo Allies of Bozeman as we plan to take actions here locally in support of the buffalo. We meet every Wednesday at Montana State University's Strand Union Building, 7 PM, in the 2nd floor cafeteria in the NW corner. Join us.

Reflections on the beauty of waterfalls

2008-08-20T14:40:00.006-04:00

Why are waterfalls so pleasing to the senses? As they noisily rush over a precipice of land, crashing to the surface below, the air cooler where the water rushes, why are they so beautiful? What makes the experience different than sitting here at my laptop, the keys clicking, on a green recliner, the noise of construction and television in the background? Would it matter if the waterfall experience were more common than the sitting at the laptop experience? Is there something that just happens at a waterfall that mystically connects us with the thing? Is it the shared consensus that waterfalls simply must be more beautiful?

I love waterfalls, like Union Falls and its 265 foot drop, deep within Yellowstone's backcountry, the fall happening right where two bodies of water flow into each other. When I saw this waterfall and took this picture 10 years ago, there were a couple of other hikers hanging by who soon left. I was alone. No one close to me in life had ever seen Union Falls. There was a feeling of awe but also one of loneliness. The sense of wonder was something I might be able to convey but not the fullness of the beauty, the uniqueness of the sense experience, this waterfall flowing like one imagines an angel's head of hair. In fact, I think I might think Union Falls more beautiful but never having seen an angel's head of hair, all I can point to in describing it this way is the unspeakable nature of this fall to those who can only but imagine.

Waterfalls, then, must be in part beautiful based on something in the sense experience. The loneliness of the feeling is not simply a function of uniqueness. It's a matter of a uniqueness that can't be shared because of what it is. Beauty, then, at least in part must touch us in a particular way. But, what way is it? What is it that brings person after person to the Lower and Upper Falls in Yellowstone, for instance, to admire them often at the expense of everything else around. In the parking lot for Uncle Tom's Trail, people look out at the Upper Falls - so mesmerized they are, they often miss the other beautiful fall visible between the trees on the right. What draws people in? What is so pleasing about waterfalls?

I don't have an answer. We are more likely to get at some of the aspects of what we call beautiful than we are to understand what makes this type of thing so often admired. What is it about the combination of power, grace, uniqueness that evokes such pleasure? We have a better understanding of why certain foods, drinks, and drugs evoke certain things in us. But, we cannot really reduce a waterfall, can we? It is not simply a collection of molecules, of atoms, and light. It is signified only by its function. It must have water, but it's water functioning in a certain way. Yet, this unique function does something inside of us that is often as consistent as H₂O does inside our bodies when we are thirsty. It's in fact often more satisfying than a drink of water. Water that we drink fills a need but rarely uplifts us the way that water flowing over a cliff does.

So, we can gather from these considerations that beauty is not simply an exercise in reduction. It seems highly unlikely that we can reduce the beauty of a waterfall by understanding the physics of the human being who experiences the fall. Perhaps, we can deny the beauty altogether, but then we must have some explanation for the shared phenomena. It would be just as highly unlikely if the beauty of a waterfall was just as much a phantom as it would be to say that my sitting here writing did not evoke the same kind of aesthetic pleasure. We cannot deny that there is a distinction, but what is the nature of the distinction? There are a few people in life who think I am attractive, but I have no illusion of thinking that the sight of me could compete with the sight of Niagara Falls, even overrun by more tourists than usual. We cannot reduce that real difference out of existence.

All of this only makes the subject more perplexing. If the beauty of waterfalls comes in part from the sensing of the waterfall but cannot be explained simply by explaining the sensations of the person experiencing it, we are forced to see the light shimmer on the water and hear the roar of it all that much more. That is, unless the waterfall has been frozen by the winter such that it's almost impossible to tell that a waterfall even exists? Has the beauty dissipated, or has it been enhanced just that much more by the power of winter? Is beauty even something that we can so easily quantify, as though we are measuring teaspoons of sugar?

Again, these are questions I have little insight into. I can say that sitting under the mist of Tower Fall in silence broken only by the fall in a darkness that made seeing the fall nearly impossible was perhaps a more profound experience for me than it is seeing the fall from the top of the trail now washed out making my past experience next to impossible to repeat. Certainly, the waterfall had something to do with the power of the experience, and it didn't necessarily require that it be seen. The waterfall did not exist alone outside of a life context, but it also was more than simply an accidental part of it. The beauty of Tower Fall was essential to the moment, even if pegging that beauty down seems to be an illusory exercise.

Waterfalls seem also to be beautiful because they, for whatever reason, give us an almost endless amount of fodder for musing about them. They inspire musings like this. I'm not musing about the fabric in the carpet, though I might. I could put a piece of fabric under a microscope and discover a universe unto itself. I could see fabric through different colored glasses, touch the fabric, contemplate the fabric in the dark, compare other fabrics. The fabric is no less infinite in some respects, but what keeps me from the same kind of inspiration? Why is there a knowing sense that the waterfall is indeed more beautiful, even if I'm only talking about waterfalls in general? Certainly, we could be wrong. We could start talking about the beauty of different races, different genders, different kinds of destructive weaponry, and we would rightly be called idiots. Yet, we know that waterfalls are more beautiful than pieces of fabric and mere grains of sand. If we are wrong about that, then what explains our prejudice? What has led us astray? We can understand that arrogance and the self righteous need for power explains racism; nothing comparable can explain our attraction to waterfalls over other types of things. What then is it?

Waterfalls are so beautiful to us that even artificial waterfalls can often inspire us.

Anyhow, of course, I am thinking about more than waterfalls. I'm trying to understand my experience, what is it that touches me, what is it that doesn't, and why? I'm trying to understand loneliness and intimacy and what fills me up? What is it about our sexual connection that means something so different to us than a warm embrace or a handshake? What is it about this lonely moment writing that can drive me to such distraction whereas a lonely moment in front of Union Falls can be mostly satisfying and perhaps a little less lonely than it was? And, really, what will allow my next experience with a waterfall to be even richer than it already is?

I don't know the answers to these things, but it would be beautiful if we could explore this much more. Why would it be? Well, that's part of the question.

Yellowstone buffalo: Borders, migration, and the privileged lords

2008-08-07T13:52:00.004-04:00

The map on the left, courtesy of Buffalo Field Campaign, shows bison herds and migrations inside of and outside of Yellowstone National Park. All the problems with and all the inspiration we have of buffalo herds must take these migrations into account.

Humans have an issue with migration because the variance in movement often comes against boundaries that humans have set up. Many Americans have trouble with the migration of people, especially from Mexico, who are often escaping the economic boundaries placed on their own existence by global trade policies - many of them promoted by American politicians. Boundaries create boundaries, and the consequences of the boundaries often create unexpected movements. In 1872, Congress set aside Yellowstone National Park, with boundaries that have not changed a great deal since then. No one could communicate with the animals those boundaries, but each animal has had its movement impacted by those boundaries and others.

Bison, in particular, are bound by the boundaries of Yellowstone National Park, by the movements of its visitors, of its vehicles, but they are also bound by other policy considerations. They are bound by those who control lands both public and private. They are prevented from moving by those who put the values of livestock industry interests ahead of their movements -just as the park boundary prevents those interests from moving cattle and other livestock. They are physically prevented by park rangers and agents from Montana's Department of Livestock, who make sure that bison stay out of Montana. Yet, the boundaries also set up the terms of migration. Because bison need to move by the boundaries of winter, of the need to eat, they move. They move across boundaries.

In that context, some of the bounded entities within the boundary of the United States, groups with very conflicting missions, have been thrust together to manage the movements of bison and to determine their fate. The bounded partners created a new bounding document--one called adaptive because presumably the boundaries can shift, though how and why is a mystery - called the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP). With that, the lords of the border - the ICE of Yellowstone - enforce a reality on buffalo, who continue to roam as they must.

And, what a mess it has been! More bison were killed last winter (1,613) than at any time since the 19th century. More than half the herds in Yellowstone from the previous fall are now dead, some killed because they could not move away from the winter. Now, the partners of the IBMP have been meeting the past couple days here in Bozeman to consider the parameters of their torture and death, to determine the appropriate ways to implement the plan without ever considering whether the border that has been set up makes any sense at all.

Of course, borders of a kind are necessary. To type these words, I am creating all kinds of borders, choosing words that might not have been otherwise and placing them in a space, all with their own boundaries. I am the lord of this essay; I presume to make my point. If life is motion, and motion arises from and creates borders, then borders are necessary. However, the imposition of borders without reason is irrational. That is, it makes no sense to keep beings from pursuing their own survival because of a perceived need to protect the integrity of a nation state or the integrity of an allotted use of private or public land. All of that is to protect an entitlement or privilege for which there is no good reason to presume at the cost of that freedom. Borders in a physical sense are necessary, but as means to defend the arrogance of arbitrarily defined entitlement, they are disgusting.

Is it not enough that we are bound by the four seasons, by the fact that we will die, by time and space? Why do we insist on enforcing boundaries the way we do?

I was only able to attend the IBMP meeting for an hour, and even then, I could not hear more than a few minutes of anything because I was bound by the noise of my 10-month-old son. In fact, I was told that the noises from him that I labored to keep from distracting the meeting in fact had been at least somewhat distracting. My son's movements bounded me and bounded others, and so I moved elsewhere. It was entitlement and privilege that allowed me to be there at all; it would have been for nothing to have stayed under those circumstances. I removed the boundary and left. Yet, there are no similar qualms about disrupting the lives of so many buffalo. What passes for rational discourse among the pre-ordained stakeholders is actually the most arrogant noise of all on the land north and west of Yellowstone. If I had been more ornery, I would have felt perfectly justified not only to let my son cry to stop the meeting but also to join in the chorus myself - to disrupt the moment, to bring people into the primal moment of our physical limitations, to insist on a boundary in that meeting to stop what they will do. But, of course, they will enforce those boundaries anyhow. At this time and place, it was not for me to presume. But, they presume all the more.

What a privilege it is to stand over an entire border and be able to build and move fences, to deal so flippantly with the lives who are so bound by one's decisions. What a magnificent and deadly power that the wildlife manager has, that the livestock owner, the World Bank president, and the general all have. And, what a privilege I have as well in the domain where I set borders and where lives are influenced by my every action. But, why are we so arrogant, so non-chalant? The IBMP partners met as though it were just another meeting, just something that had to be done. It wasn't even news - at least not yesterday. We are so numb to this power, this abuse of power, that we think nothing of it. We don't think anything of what we run over, who we run over, and we're always happy to point the finger elsewhere.

But, what of us? Is our silence not complicity? Is our inability to see the buffalo issue beyond the bonds of buffalo not also a kind of complicity? We are constantly stomping things, erecting borders, and we do so with the same arrogance of entitlement. And, we are almost bound to do so in order to survive the winters in our world.

I still believe that undoing all this is possible if we will own up to it, talk with each other, and collaborate together in resistance against the kinds of borders all of us are bound to set up. Resistance is not simply against what's not us, it's also resistance against ourselves. We all bleed with the boundaries of nationalism and capitalism, and we are enforcers of it.

But, deep down, we are still humans, we still cry, we still make uncomfortable noises, we still move the way the buffalo do. If we can make those noises, that is, collaborate together, then we can do something for ourselves, others, and buffalo. That's what I've committed my life to doing. Who will join us? I come with my own baggage and limits; so do you. But, let's work. Because right now, I can't tell you that these IBMP people aren't going to keep up their arrogance; it goes unchecked. But together, we can at least tear down these fences.

Newspaper article misrepresents Buffalo Allies position on brucellosis and bison management

2008-06-19T10:35:00.003-04:00

Appearing in today's Missoulian and Billings Gazette, Lee Newspapers reporter Jennifer McKee misrepresented the press release of Buffalo Allies of Bozeman.

I wrote the following letter to McKee in response.

Ms. McKee,

I am writing on behalf of myself and not the group I am a member of - Buffalo Allies of Bozeman - regarding your article today that appeared in some newspapers on the brucellosis issue as it relates to corriente roping cattle. Though I am writing for myself alone, I am quoted in the press release that we sent out, and I helped edit and distribute the release.

I believe there is a severe misrepresentation of what's said in the release, and I hope to set the record straight - hoping that the papers will correct the mistake or at the very least that you will give written acknowledgment of the error.

You write about Bozeman Allies of Buffalo:

"Another wildlife group, Buffalo Allies of Bozeman, put out a statement calling for Gov. Brian Schweitzer to pull out of the current brucellosis management plan because Corriente, not bison, were behind the outbreak."

In fact, this is wrong on two counts.

What we say in our press release regarding corriente is the following:

“The current rhetoric from state officials refuses to consider that diseased Mexican Corriente roping cattle may have been the source of the outbreak in Pray. Let’s stop pouring tax dollars into a failed plan, where we spend more than what Montana’s economy will suffer for losing its brucellosis-free status.”

First of all, we don't say that corriente were involved; we say that they may have been the source of the outbreak. Secondly, and more importantly, we never say anywhere in the release that Schweitzer should pull out of the management plan because of corriente, especially since we don't identify corriente as the cause. What we say here and elsewhere in the press release is that bison weren't involved since they have not been in the Paradise Valley near that ranch in a long time, that the continued slaughter and hazing of bison did not prevent brucellosis, and that the IBMP has cost more over time to implement than it will cost Montana for losing its class free status (especially absurd given that buffalo were certainly not the cause - and note that we do not identify the cause and merely tangentially suggest what might have been the cause).

So, we never say that corrientes "were behind the outbreak"; we never call on Schweitzer to pull out of the plan "because Corriente" were behind it. All that's correct is that we have called on Schweitzer to pull out of the plan and that we believe it's not possible that bison were behind the outbreak.

As a new grassroots group in Bozeman, this is the first mention of our relatively new group in the newspapers that this appeared in; it's not helpful to our group to have our press release and therefore our group misrepresented. I ask again that you would correct this for us.

Thank you for your research on corrientes; I'm not sure that what you've written proves definitively that the cattle was not involved; however, I did find the piece informative. If anything, it only deepens the mystery of the source. However, no matter what, what's been happening with cattle and brucellosis in Montana only further is exposing the absurdities of the Interagency Bison Management Plan.

Most Sincerely,
Jim Macdonald

Update: McKee wrote me back saying that she believes her report is "essentially accurate" but failing to elucidate what is essentially accurate. about it.

Press Release: Buffalo Allies of Bozeman Calls upon Gov. Schweitzer to Withdraw from Interagency Bison Management Plan

2008-06-12T01:23:00.002-04:00

I plan on writing an essay pretty soon - for now, activism is taking a lot of my time. Here is another press release that our group has worked on. I try to avoid being quoted in these things, but here I am quoted this time.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Chris Klatt
406-599-3629
lodgepole@riseup.net
June 12, 2008

Buffalo Allies of Bozeman Calls upon Gov. Schweitzer to Withdraw from Interagency Bison Management Plan
Brucellosis outbreak where there are no bison shows that IBMP is not working for buffalo or for cows.

(Bozeman, Mont.) – The grassroots citizens group Buffalo Allies of Bozeman responded to the Monday announcement of brucellosis in a cattle herd in the Paradise Valley with a challenge to Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer to withdraw from the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP).

According to a recent U.S. Government Accountability Office report, the IBMP “lacks accountability and transparency.” The IBMP has also been criticized by Gov. Schweitzer. Despite criticism, federal and state government agencies acted under the IBMP to sanction the slaughter of over 1,600 wild bison this past winter under the guise of preventing the spread of disease to cattle. However, the largest slaughter of buffalo since the 19th century did not prevent cattle in Greater Yellowstone from being afflicted. “There has never been transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle in the wild, and it is clear that no link can be made between the current outbreak in Pray and Yellowstone’s buffalo herds, which haven’t been that far north in the Paradise Valley since they were extirpated for livestock interests. It’s time to scrap the useless IBMP, which treats buffalo as diseased, domesticated animals instead of as wildlife,” said Buffalo Allies member Jim Macdonald.

Buffalo Allies of Bozeman contends that there is no reason bison should be considered “a species requiring disease control,” as they are currently classified under Montana law. The group supports a legislative bill proposed by the Gallatin Wildlife Association, which has in part called for repealing Montana law 81-2-120, where bison are managed by the Department of Livestock as a disease issue.

“These American icons are the only animals that cross Yellowstone National Park’s boundary with a death sentence,” said Macdonald. “The current rhetoric from state officials refuses to consider that diseased Mexican Corriente roping cattle may have been the source of the outbreak in Pray. Let’s stop pouring tax dollars into a failed plan, where we spend more than what Montana’s economy will suffer for losing its brucellosis-free status.”

The grassroots group will be hosting a forum at the Bozeman Public Library on Monday, June 30, at 6:30 PM with State Representative Mike Phillips. This forum will introduce ways in which Bozeman residents can take action to stop the mistreatment of buffalo. In addition to these events, Buffalo Allies of Bozeman will be hosting a community potluck in Beall Park on Sunday, June 29, at 7 PM.

Buffalo Allies of Bozeman meets every Wednesday at 7 PM at Montana State University’s Strand Union Building. For more information, please visit: http://www.buffaloallies.org.

Support Obama? Live near Bozeman? Check out this flyer on Yellowstone's buffalo, Obama, and us

2008-05-20T10:52:00.002-04:00

I was wearing my hat as activist and organizer with Buffalo Allies of Bozeman again yesterday. This is a report from flyering yesterday.

Late yesterday afternoon, there were thousands of people waiting to see Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama speak in Bozeman.

Knowing that a few days in advance, I created the flyer shown in the picture, which you can also download as a pdf. Because the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP) has three federal agencies as its partners, it was fitting that we try to convince people who are supporting the man who might be the next president, to do something about the buffalo in part by pulling the federal government's support for this terrible plan.

I couldn't have possibly created enough flyers. They went out of my hands so fast as people waited in line to enter the event.

So, if you support Barack Obama - heck, even if you don't -, if you live in the Gallatin Valley, if you support wild buffalo, please consider this flyer; or give it to someone else who might be interested. Our community potluck on Sunday, May 25, will be out of date soon, but everything else will still be timely.

Report from BFC rally in Helena, May 14, 2008

2008-05-15T12:15:00.002-04:00

Some of us in Buffalo Allies of Bozeman went over to the State Capitol building in Helena to support Buffalo Field Campaign's rally for the wild buffalo in and near Yellowstone National Park and to protest Governor Brian Schweitzer's part in the largest slaughter of wild buffalo than at any time since the 19th century.

This season to date 1,607 buffalo have been killed, according to Buffalo Field Campaign. As the killing continued, I joined a new group dedicated to providing support for the buffalo. One part of that mission is to provide solidarity to other groups with related missions. As a result, those in our group gladly support Buffalo Field Campaign; a few of us found the time to take the trip to Helena - a town I personally had never before been.

While we were in Helena, hazing of buffalo west of the park had begun. That was among the first topics of conversations among participants. The National Park Service in their press release have promised a "slow haze." As one of the rally participants said, "There's no such thing as a slow haze with a helicopter."

The rally itself was a small affair on a breezy and cloudy day in Helena. Besides hundreds of tombstones in place of the record number killed this winter, there were a couple of banners. One in particular was held by rally participants at the corner of the intersection. Food was provided by Seeds for Peace, and there was a small skit involving the impossibility of interagency juggling of the Interagency Bison Management Plan. A juggler tried repeatedly to juggle six items only to have the items fall to the ground. Participation at the rally was small. Besides the BFC volunteers who were there - most of BFC were in the field monitoring the bison haze - the next largest group was from Bozeman. We met a person from Bozeman who had just found out about our group via the revised press release as it appeared in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle that morning. There were also a couple people from Helena there.

However, because of the location, there was not too much interaction with local people. A few stopped to look or came over to ask questions. From my personal standpoint, the point seemed to be one of spectacle so that a visual image of the death might be put on the Governor's lawn, indeed the lawn of the people of Montana - all of us in a small way culpable for not stopping this embarrassment. If the image provokes, then the action will be a success. I suppose reports like this - whether they are read and seen - will be part of the story of this particular action.

There was a television media person who came at the end of the rally. She was from ABC in Helena and interviewed Joe Gutkoski from our group. Joe traveled with us and is an amazing marvel to me. He has been working on these issues for a very long time, on the front line for the buffalo long before there was a Buffalo Field Campaign. Joe seems to know everyone in Bozeman; more remarkably to me, he knows everything about the land and wildlife along every square inch between Bozeman and Helena. I learned so much from him riding in a car, about river flows, about where dams are, where irrigation is, the history of land and water fights on a particular parcel of land, about the loss of 99% of bighorn sheep this year in the Elkhorns. He was at a meeting early in the morning; later he finished the day at our Buffalo Allies of Bozeman meeting. I hope I can have that much dedication and energy as time goes by.

The rally ended with a kind of comical farce, a trip up to the Governor's office to give Governor Brian Schweitzer (along with Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Suzanne Lewis) a "Buffalo Bill Award" for having killed the most buffalo since any time since the 19th century. We marched into the State Capitol, up the stairs, and into his office to present him the award.

Predictably, Gov. Schweitzer was not in the office. Instead, there was an intern there ready to greet us. The young man admitted that he knew very little about the issue but said that we should all stay in touch, that the governor loves to hear from his constituents, and he had ready a press release that the governor had issued that very day in anticipation of the rally (though one that has not appeared on his Web site as of this report). The scene was rather amusing. Bureaucracy insulates itself putting people on the line not empowered to do anything to deal with people who would like to raise an issue.

At one point, some of the governor's staff peaked in through the doorway. However, they soon scurried back into their office. Instead, it was an intern and buffalo friends engaged in a kind of silly banter. I said aloud that perhaps we should just sit there until he returns, but that wasn't really the plan.

From there, the rally ended. Perhaps, the governor got the message; however, it will take people continuing to let him know how badly he has turned his back from his campaign promises for him to feel the punishment. Schweitzer somehow has overseen a bison slaughter worse than his predecessors; however, he has done it with the gall to pretend that he is making progress on bison management. Buffer zones and split-state status and now the CUT deal all are slick ways to obscure the point - he is not doing anything to stop the killing.

If this rally had some shortcomings in getting the message across, it is only that much more imperative that we do more. It was heartening to see our town represented in Helena; with that, let's do more.

Press Release: Buffalo Allies of Bozeman Is Founded to Take Action against the Slaughter and Hazing of Wild Buffalo

2008-05-13T00:14:00.003-04:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Chris Klatt
406-599-3629
lodgepole@riseup.net
May 12, 2008

Buffalo Allies of Bozeman Is Founded to Take Action against the Slaughter and Hazing of Wild Buffalo
New group takes a grassroots approach toward advocacy of buffalo in the Yellowstone area.

(Bozeman, Mont.) – In a winter where more wild buffalo have been killed than at any time since the 19th century in and near Yellowstone National Park, concerned local residents in the Bozeman area have formed Buffalo Allies of Bozeman – a new grassroots group taking action on behalf of the American bison.

“We believed we needed to build a community of action so that the slaughter we have seen this year, where over 1,600 animals have been killed, never happens again,” said Mel Schroeder, one of the members of Buffalo Allies of Bozeman.

The theme of community is at the heart of the new group, which is open to everyone in the Bozeman area who accepts the group’s mission. Buffalo Allies of Bozeman calls for stopping the slaughter and hazing of Yellowstone’s wild buffalo herds, promoting the expansion of free-roaming buffalo outside of Yellowstone National Park, conserving the natural habitat of the buffalo herds, allying with and giving solidarity to groups working on related missions and supporting a diversity of strategies and tactics to achieve the mission. All those participating at meetings make decisions together on events and actions.

“What makes us a little different than some of the larger environmental groups is that we depend entirely on the energy of the public for making decisions,” said Schroeder. “There is no Executive Director or President; we all roam on this path together.”

Buffalo Allies of Bozeman held an educational event in March, featuring Mike Mease of Buffalo Field Campaign. On May 25 at 7 PM, the group will be hosting a potluck in Bogart Park that is open to the public. In June, the group will host a forum on the various ways Bozeman residents can take an active role in buffalo advocacy.

The group will also be working with the Gallatin Wildlife Association on changing Montana law so that buffalo are respected as wildlife and not treated as a disease control issue. Furthermore, Buffalo Allies of Bozeman will be speaking out against the recent deal made between state of Montana, the National Park Service and the Church Universal & Triumphant. According to Schroeder, “This is a bad deal that, contrary to what some have said in the media, is not a step forward for a single buffalo. The more I learn about it, the more I realize that this does not actually provide habitat, safety or respect for any buffalo – and at an exorbitant cost to taxpayers.”

Buffalo Allies of Bozeman meets every Wednesday at 7 PM at Montana State University’s Strand Union Building. For more information, please visit: http://www.buffaloallies.org.

Buffalo Allies of Bozeman at http://www.buffaloallies.org

2008-05-11T02:53:00.002-04:00

The new Web site is up at http://www.buffaloallies.org for Buffalo Allies of Bozeman.

A delightful trip into the park

2008-04-28T02:38:00.002-04:00

I had a need to go into Yellowstone on Saturday, and so I did - this time by myself. I'm not going to share much here except a fraction of the photos from Saturday. It's not even worthy of mention in the Yellowstone Newspaper, which according to my own standards, I only post stories when they express some unique point of view. These are just pictures that I took.

If you are curious, however, I have still been writing. Check out this discussion on ethics that I've participated in over at Ralph Maughan's site.

Click on the pictures, and they should get somewhat larger; I reduced them somewhat to save bandwidth.

self-shot at the Lower Falls

Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone

Lower Falls

Upper Falls

Big ice at the Upper Falls

Pearl Geyser at Norris Geyser Basin

Ledge Geyser - check out that weird snow

Blue Star Spring (near Old Faithful)

Old Faithful

Bison and calves in the Firehole geyser region

Buffalo Allies of Bozeman is born; mission adopted

2008-04-24T10:12:00.003-04:00

I am very excited to be part of this effort. Last night, our new buffalo group had two exciting developments that will help us move forward - we came up with a name and adopted a mission statement! Check it out. For the short term, (the listserve name and address will change), sign up to keep involved by sending a blank email to bab-announce-subscribe@lists.riseup.net.

***

At tonight’s meeting, local Bozeman activists, focusing on the Yellowstone buffalo situation have adopted a name and a mission.

We are now the Buffalo Allies of Bozeman.

Here is our mission adopted tonight.

Buffalo Allies of Bozeman is a grassroots, consensus-based organization in the Bozeman, Montana area focused on:

- stopping the slaughter and hazing of Yellowstone’s wild buffalo herds;

- promoting the expansion of free-roaming buffalo outside of Yellowstone National Park;

- conserving the natural habitat of the buffalo herds;

- allying with and giving solidarity to groups working on related missions; and,

- supporting a diversity of strategies and tactics to achieve the previous tenets of our mission.

Why buffalo and why not the CUT deal? Against utilitarianism

2008-04-21T01:30:00.003-04:00

Anyone actively engaged in a cause will surely be asked at some point whether they might be doing something else better with their time? For me in particular, I have been asked why I was in the anti-war movement when there are people starving in the streets of Washington, DC, as one example. More recently, I have been asked why I have been involved with promoting the cause of the buffalo in and around Yellowstone when surely there are other things that are more seriously wrong in the world. This sentiment has been expressed to me in comments to one of my recent essays, and its sentiments are urged in the closing chapter of a popular Yellowstone fly fishing Web site.

The question, then, is whether what we care about is as serious or as important as something else we might otherwise be doing?

Along those same lines, in terms of the buffalo issue itself, we see success as a line we can make progress towards one step a time. Just last week, the Governor of Montana - Brian Schweitzer -and the Superintendent of Yellowstone National Park - Suzanne Lewis - alongside the Church Universal & Triumphant (CUT), as well as allied mainstream environmental groups (National Wildlife Federation, National Parks Conservation Association, Montana Wildlife Federation, and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition), announced a deal where in exchange for $2.8 million, CUT would sell their cattle and lease grazing rights to 25 (and in later years 100 buffalo) for part of the year to Yellowstone's buffalo population (which has been shrunk dramatically from 4,700 to less than 2,300 over the course of the winter). Those buffalo would be tested for brucellosis, fitted with vaginal transmitters, and then forced back into the park after a certain date. A spokesperson for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition has called this an imperfect but "good step."

Is this a good step, or is there something else we might be doing? It's the same question. As an advocate for buffalo but a critic of the deal announced last week, how can I answer that I should be acting on behalf of Yellowstone buffalo but reject that we should be taking this route?

This essay aims to answer both. The common thread that clarifies how we should look at this is a rejection of basing our ethical decisions on utilitarianism, or the belief that we should always "act for the greatest good for the greatest number."

On the face of it, one cannot easily reject doing the greatest good for the greatest number. Doing good should be good, and the more good, the better. The problem, of course, is that it's a truism. What is good, what makes it great, and how can one know how to make the good better, for the greatest number of what? To reduce our decisions in life to this maxim tells us absolutely nothing about what we should be doing, how we could figure that out, or for whom we should be acting.

Is the greatest good common sense? Do we know what the good entails? For the classical utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, the greatest good was to be grasped by the happiness principle. By "happiness," Bentham and Mill took it to be the same as pleasure. Yet, we haven't really moved further. Pleasure is either so broad as to be meaningless or so specific that there's no way of knowing whether maximizing it is good.

The problem with identifying our actions simply with the "greatest good for the greatest number" is that we can have no idea what that means except in specific contexts where good is defined. If we are playing baseball, the batter's greatest good is not making an out, for instance. Yet, life is not baseball. What is the rulebook or definition of "the good"? In the end, utilitarianism doesn't take us any further toward the basic ethical question. What is good, and what is it should I be doing? How will I know that what I do is good?

A lot of people are very sure they have a sense of what is more or less serious, more or less good. We hear all the time that those who gave their life (or killed in war) for a greater cause have done something more noble than those who have received the supposed benefits of their action. We hear that great leaders - let's say Abraham Lincoln - who achieve great ends for a great number of people have lived better or more meaningful lives than those who simply live in a world provided as a consequence of those actions. We might get a whiff of Aristotle in the suggestion that that which is nearest the cause is greater than that which is merely a consequence of it. However, most won't resort to Aristotle; they will simply resort to what they take as common sense. For some, people mean more than animals. Americans mean more than Iraqis. The citizen means more than the foreigner. It used to be men meant more than women and whites meant more than blacks, and civilized meant more than uncivilized. The king meant more than his people. All of these things at some point or other were common sense notions of good. John Locke, for his part, would have argued that the property owner meant more than the property he owned, and so the slave owner meant more than the slave. And, let's be bold here, there are people who work on the buffalo who will argue that the wild animal means more than the domesticated animal - that is, the buffalo means more than the cow. However, others who support livestock interests will say just the opposite.

In truth, very few people argue why their supposedly common sense notions of good mean what they do. They just will be quick to point fingers when they are sure that what you believe in is worth something less than something else. It is very easy to say that something is more serious; there will always be a group who will listen. It's not easy at all to justify it, and it adds nothing to promote a calculus of greatest good for the greatest number when no one can figure out what that means.

So, what is the good? Can we figure out what a greatest good is? I know that there had better be some answer for it or else there is no room for any of us to stand in criticism of the choices of others. We could let the "Judge not lest ye be judged" stand as that. Yet, as actors in this world, we must pass a judgment of sorts, or we would be paralyzed into inaction, which is actually not even possible. Even those who do not seem to move inject an influence on the world by their very inactivity.

One of the few things I have come to realize about ethics - but a profoundly important intuition - is that we must be consistent. Meaning of all kinds depends upon consistency. That is, we must not do things which are grounded in contradiction. The good, if it means anything at all, cannot be identical with the bad. While this limitation on acting seems a trifling thing that hardly limits action at all, in fact contradiction has been at the fore of so many actions.

For instance, positing that one should act for the greatest good for the greatest number but failing to provide any meaning that would allow the maxim as serving as the basis for action is contradictory. It cannot be done because it is meaningless, and one cannot be called to do that which one cannot make sense.

However, more seriously, insisting that there are greater and lesser types of beings is one of the contradictions on which human society has been based. It is one thing to say that most humans will in fact favor those of their own kind, which is simply an observation. It's another thing altogether to say that they should, and that society should be constructed by the different beings that humans tend to value. People tend to value their dogs and cats but not as much as their boys and girls, and so some say we should generalize that tendency and make a social and ethical hierarchy based on that. Yes, ranchers value their cows for the livelihood they bring to them, their family and their loved ones, but is that a reason for banishing buffalo behind the borders of Yellowstone National Park? Yes, wildlife lovers value free moving wildlife, but is that a reason to uproot people and their way of life? We do not know that the cow is more sacred than the buffalo or vice versa. We cannot pretend to construct values based on those we perceive to be greater than others. We do not have any idea what the greatest good for the greatest number is. We don't know who is greatest; we wouldn't know how to construct the world for them if we did.

Yet, knowing that there is something contradictory in our social constructs, we know right off that this is not something we should be doing. It may not tell us exactly what we should be doing, but we do have very clearly knowledge of some of the injustice in the world.

But, having knowledge of injustice does not tell us what injustice is more unjust. One contradiction is the same as any other, in terms of being contradictory. There are not "more blatant" contradictions. Anyone who says that does not understand what a contradiction is. And, while some contradictions may affect more of certain kinds of beings (like World War II killed at least 50 million people, or the Holocaust killed 6 million Jews, or the genocide of American Indians wiped at least 95% of indigenous Indians from the earth), identifying the quantity of a particular kind affected with the level of injustice stills falls prey to the trap of prejudicing one kind of being over another.

As Martin Luther King Jr. once said in his "Letter from Birmingham City Jail," an "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." This is not simply a quaint statement; it's because logically, it follows. In logic, one contradiction implies the truth of every other. That is, one contradiction holding true destroys the very fabric of truth, and this can be described very easily in logic. In a world where any injustice is tolerated as permissible, all others follow.

Yet, injustice is everywhere. Humans are finite. There is no way for them to be everywhere and fight everything. Every human will make choices about the injustices they will speak out against. So, while every injustice is connected, each being who can recognize injustice must necessarily choose particular injustices to combat. Our only guide are our emotions and experience, none of which are subject to judgment. We will roam as we are inclined to move. Where we are moved, where we recognize injustice, the good thing is to take action against it. Whatever that means, it means at the very least that we must be consistent and fight inconsistency.

So, why the buffalo? Why is the buffalo a cause for justice, but the cause of the livestock owners who are protecting their investment not a cause for justice? If wild buffalo is not necessarily any better than the domesticated cow, why choose one over the other? First of all, no one should be taking action on those utilitarian terms. A better reason for standing for the buffalo is that there has never been a good reason to stop them from moving outside of Yellowstone National Park. The reason they have been denied their movement has been because the livestock industry has historically enforced the notion that the land is better used for agriculture than it is for allowing wild animals to move, especially those animals that directly compete for grazing lands. That is, our current situation does not arise from asserting the greater good of buffalo over public lands but from directly the opposite - the assumption that buffalo are a detriment to the greater good. That being contradictory, an affront on reason, an arrogant assertion of ownership over land for a particular purpose, standing for the buffalo is a direct rebellion against the mindset that put them caged into Yellowstone National Park in the first place. Their being stuck there was a product of injustice; their still being stuck there is a product of the very same injustice.

I am drawn to the buffalo for no better reason than life has put them in my way in the Yellowstone that I adore. There's no good or bad in that; it's an emotive response. However, the defense of the buffalo is a defense against an arbitrary boundary, an assertion of a greater good where there isn't. What happens after those boundaries are down, what happens after the rationale disappears is anyone's guess, but the decimation on the basis of a contradiction will be gone.

Likewise, when the environmental groups who have sold out the buffalo alongside the state and federal government promote this as a good step for the buffalo, we must be critical. On what basis is this a good step? It can only mean, if I am right, that this is a good step toward eradicating the unjust boundaries that have created this mess. However, it is not. Twenty-five buffalo will not have more land to roam because they will still be under the arbitrary control of the government, not allowed to stay, and not necessarily allowed to come back. The basic parameters of control remain; only the terms of the boundaries have changed. This only replaces one injustice with another, and so the grounds for fighting it have not changed one bit. It's not a greater good for some number; it's the same injustice faced by us all.

The only way to justify the notion that this is a "good step" is to suggest that this moves the process along in such a way that it will make it more politically reasonable in the future for more buffalo habitat to be accepted. It is as if the buffalo must prove themselves here before they will be allowed. It's the sort of argument that black male suffrage advocates argued against woman suffrage advocates, who told the latter that it's the "black man"'s turn when voting rights were a hot issue after the Civil War. Of course, putting aside that it took women another 50 years to get voting rights, the argument is incoherent. There is nothing for buffalo to prove. They are the victims of an arbitrary assessment of value. And, the only way to call this a "good step" is to make the very same arbitrary assessment of value. It's another inconsistent claim to know what the greatest good is and what the steps are for getting there.

We take steps, we make progress, we move forward, but we do so only when the terms are defined. Whether we are talking about ethics at large or the deal this past week with the buffalo in particular, we do not have a defined good with which we can make the proper measurements.

Until someone can show why advocating for the buffalo is a contradiction, I will continue to do so. From looking at their behavior, we can call to mind a lot. They have values, they protect their loved ones, they have favored foods and favored lands. However, when has a buffalo ever constructed a social and an ethical system based on their movements? They act without pretense of a greatest good for a greatest number. They simply act, and we discern their values and preferences based on how they act. We, however, live in a society based on arbitrary values, and we act based on assumed notions of greater and lesser, which is backwards. Those values are contradictory, and that we know is wrong. The buffalo, among so many other beings, are caught in this injustice. For a lot of autobiographical reasons, I am drawn to this injustice, but I don't pretend that it is the most important thing we should be doing. All working on injustice are working on the same thing.

So, to the extent we can, let's fight against injustice together. And, for those of us drawn to the buffalo, let's be fervent in taking action against what doesn't allow them to roam. That, among other things, means rejecting this deal and all those groups who are trying to make it happen.

***disclaimer: I'm now in a new buffalo advocacy group in Bozeman, Montana (as yet unnamed); this essay is my own and does not necessarily represent the views of the group.***

1,436 to 2,300 Yellowstone buffalo left

2008-04-17T20:07:00.004-04:00

Today, the National Park Service and the state of Montana made some major announcements about the buffalo slaughter in Yellowstone National Park. One of the announcements that they made was that the slaughter for the season is over on both boundaries, though hazing operations will continue.

In light of that, Buffalo Field Campaign (BFC) put out their weekly report, in which they said that the National Park Service has claimed that there are now only 1,436 buffalo alive. According to an email correspondence with BFC, they are now claiming that the number is 2,300 and that they miscalculated the number. So, the number of dead is not clear, but over half have died and perhaps more than two-thirds (down from 4,700). Winter in Yellowstone is not over; we expect a major storm this weekend. What will be the final census?

For public information, I wanted to share the IBMP report regarding bison. Here is the pdf version of that report.

***

YELLOWSTONE BISON POPULATION MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

This report summarizes management activities associated with implementation of the Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Bison Management Plan for the State of Montana and Yellowstone National Park for the time period 1 September 2007 through 31 August 2008. The reporting period for this summary is 1 April through 15 April 2008.

PARKWIDE DISTRIBUTION:

In the interior some mixed groups, totaling ~230, moving around Hayden Valley, the Lakeshore and in Pelican Valley. There are approximately 540 bison in the Geyser Basins. There are approximately 58 bison out of the park, west of Hwy 191 and on Hwy 191 itself. There are approximately 88 bison between 191 and Cougar Meadows inside the park. On the Northern Range bison are primarily utilizing Blacktail and Hellroaring slope with limited, but increasing use of Little America. There are now roughly 170 bison on Blacktail Deer Plateau. There has been some movement east from Gardiner to Blacktail with 3 radio collared bison, but movement has continued to the North, including two radio collared bison from Swan Lake. There are approximately 350 bison in the Gardiner basin, including ~135 in the Eagle Creek area.

HAZING OPERATIONS:

Hazing operations that occur near the North and West Boundaries are primarily conducted and reported by the YNP Division of Resource Management and Visitor Protection and MT Department of Livestock, respectively.

North Boundary Area: 15 hazing events were reported this period.

* Once again hazing has occurred daily. Many of the hazing reports have not been filed yet because the officers in charge are working overtime every day with hazing and capture operations. The days that hazing occurred are still listed and information regarding those days will be included when information becomes available. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

Every day from 1 April through 15 April: information regarding the hazing conducted on these days will be reported when available.

West Boundary Area: 0 hazing events were reported this period.

CAPTURE OPERATIONS:

Capture operations that occur near the North and West Boundaries are primarily conducted and reported by the YNP Division of Resource Management and Visitor Protection and MT Department of Livestock, respectively.

North Boundary Area: 281 bison were reported captured this reporting period

Adding the numbers below comes to an estimated total of 1619 bison captured.

Working backwards using numbers of bison shipped, held, sent to quarantine, etc. comes up with 1645 bison captured and is probably a more accurate estimate for total bison captured at Stephens Creek Capture Facility.

8 Feb: 54 bison captured 18 March: 35 bison captured

10 Feb: 42 bison captured 19 March: 4 bison captured

11 Feb: 4 bison captured 21 March: 120 bison captured

12 Feb: 44 bison captured 22 March: 95 bison captured

15 Feb: 31 bison captured 25 March: 61 bison captured

18 Feb: 100 bison captured 28 March: 35 bison captured

20 Feb: 15 bison captured 29 March: 33 bison captured

25 Feb: 190 bison captured 30 March: 23 bison captured

26 Feb: 18 bison captured 1 April: 119 bison captured

27 Feb: 19 bison captured 4 April: 40 bison captured

28 Feb: 123 bison captured 9 April: 120 bison captured

2 March: 12 bison captured 13 April: 2 bison captured

6 March: 106 bison captured

7 March: 87 bison captured

8 March: 76 bison captured

10 March: 11 bison captured

*10 April: 15 bison escaped from the Stephen’s Creek Capture Facility during a sorting procedure due to improper gate closure/latch failure.

West Boundary Area: 39 bison were reported captured this reporting period

26 Feb: 30 bison captured

4 March: 51 bison captured

5 March: 13 bison captured

11 March: 13 bison captured

8 April: 34 bison captured (Horse Butte)

9 April: 5 bison captured (Duck Ck)

Bison Transported to Slaughter

Boundary	Bison to Slaughter this reporting period	Total to Slaughter (Sept 1 – pres)
West	39	146
North	263	1276
Total	302	1422

Stephen’s Creek Stephen’s Creek cont. Horse Butte

11 Feb: 37 shipped 25 March: 20 shipped 27 Feb: 30 shipped

12 Feb: 30 shipped 26 March: 22 shipped 5 March: 38 shipped

13 Feb: 16 shipped 27 March: 16 shipped 6 March: 26 shipped

14 Feb: 44 shipped 28 March: 16 shipped 12 March: 13 shipped

15 Feb: 17 shipped 31 March: 20 shipped 9 April: 17 shipped

19 Feb: 31 shipped 1 April: 13 shipped 10 April: 22 shipped

20 Feb: 55 shipped 2 April: 34 shipped

21 Feb: 60 shipped 3 April: 20 shipped

26 Feb: 48 shipped 4 April: 37 shipped

27 Feb: 69 shipped 7 April: 15 shipped

28 Feb: 68 shipped 8 April: 45 shipped

3 March: 69 shipped 9 April: 40 shipped

4 March: 14 shipped 11 April: 18 shipped

5 March: 62 shipped 14 April: 21 shipped

11 March: 59 shipped 15 April: 20 shipped

13 March: 61 shipped

14 March: 25 shipped

17 March: 57 shipped

18 March: 62 shipped

20 March: 21 shipped

21 March: 14 shipped

Bison Transported to Quarantine:

Boundary	Bison to Quarantine this reporting period	Total to Quarantine (Sept 1 – pres)
West	0	0
North	38	112

19 March: 37 transported

25 March: 14 transported

26 March: 12 transported

27 March: 11 transported

1 April: 6 transported

3 April: 15 transported

7 April: 4 transported

8 April: 9 transported

14 April: 4 transported

Capture Pen Mortalities:

Boundary

Capture Pen Mortality this reporting period

Total Pen Mortality this operating season

(Sept 1 – pres)

West

North

13 April: 3 newborn calves died from natural causes (they were born on the 9^th and 10^th)

14 April: 1 adult cow (mother to one of the calves listed above) died from natural causes

Other Information:

Newborn Calves held at Stephens Creek: 1

Seropositive Pregnant Cows held at Stephens Creek: 18

Radio Collared Cows not tested but held at Stephens Creek: 26

Total Bison being held at Stephens Creek for spring release: 238

INTERAGENCY BISON MANAGEMENT PLAN SHOOTING OPERATIONS:

Boundary	Bison Shot this reporting period	Total Shot this operating season
West	0	0
North	6	6

11 April: 5 bulls shot near Carbella fishing access, west of Yankee Jim Canyon

11 April: 1 bull shot near milepost 5 on Hwy 89

HUNTER HARVEST:

The numbers are from reports by FWP wardens/biologists, hunters, NPS employees and BFC.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Bison Hunt (Nov 15 – Feb 15)

Boundary	FWP Hunter Take this reporting period	Total FWP Hunter Take this operating season (Nov 15 – pres)
West	0	50
North	0	13
Total	0	63

Native American Tribal Treaty Right Bison Hunts

Boundary	Nez Perce Hunter Take this reporting period	Total Nez Perce Hunter Take this operating season (Jan 26 – Mar 3?)	Confederated Salish and Kootenai Hunter Take this reporting period	Total Confederated Salish and Kootenai Hunter Take this operating season (Nov 15 – Jan 31)
West	0	19	0	38
North	0	45	0	1
Total	0	64	0	39

2007	West	September	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2007	North	September	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2007	West	October	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2007	North	October	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2007	West	November 1-14	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2007	North	November 1-14	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2007	West	November 15-30	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	10
2007	North	November 15-30	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
2007	West	December 1-15	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4
2007	North	December 1-15	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4
2007	West	December 16-31	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	14
2007	North	December 16-31	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3
2008	West	January 1-15	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	26
2008	North	January 1-15	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1

Table continued on next page.

Year	Boundary	Month	Hazing Events	Mngmt Shootings	Total Captured	Captured &Tested	Slaughtered & Not Tested	Slaughtered & Tested Positive	Slaughtered & Tested Negative	Released/Held & Tested Negative	Released & Not Tested	Vaccinated	Quarantine	Capture/Pen Mortality	Hunter Take
Year	Boundary	Month	Hazing Events	Mngmt Shootings	Total Captured	Captured &Tested	Slaughtered & Not Tested	Slaughtered & Tested Positive	Slaughtered & Tested Negative	Released/Held & Tested Negative	Released & Not Tested	Vaccinated	Quarantine	Capture/Pen Mortality	Hunter Take
2008	West	January 16-31	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	23
2008	North	January 16-31	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3
2008	West	February 1-13	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	16
2008	North	February 1-13	7	0	144	18	82	0	1**	0	0	0	0	0	7
2008	West	February 14-29	0	0	30	0	30	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	9
2008	North	February 14-29	5	0	496	0	375	0	17**	0	0	0	0	1`	39^
2008	West	March 1-14	0	0	77	0	77	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5
2008	North	March 1-14	13	0	292	0	290	0	0	0	0	0	0	2***	1
2008	West	March 15-31	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2008	North	March 15-31	18	0	406	201	187	61	0	66	0	0	74	0	0
2008	West	April 1-15	0	0	39	0	39	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2008	North	April 1-15	15	6	281	321	126	137	0	127	0	24	38	4*	0
Summary			64	6	1765	540	1206	198	18	193	0	24	112	7	166

** Seronegative calves, 17 were held for several days pending transport to the Quarantine facility. Due to permit issues the study could not accept the calves and they were shipped to slaughter.

^ Includes 2 bison that were shot inside YNP on 2/29/08 by members of the Nez Perce Tribe. The bison carcasses were confiscated.

` Represents calf that suffered a broken leg due to a collision with a snowmobile on Swan Lake.

***Represents 1 cow bison that came into the capture pen with a broken leg or hip, cause unknown.

*Includes 3 newborn calves that died 4 and 3 days after birth, and 1 of the mothers that died the day after from natural causes.

Prayer ceremony for Yellowstone buffalo: What a blustery wind can evoke

2008-04-16T02:25:00.006-04:00

Today, I attended a prayer ceremony led by the Lakota elder, Chief Arvol Looking Horse, just outside the National Park Service's Stephens Creek Capture facility inside of Yellowstone National Park.

This winter, the buffalo in Yellowstone have suffered enormously, mostly at the hands of the government. To date, at least 1,598 buffalo have been killed, others have been sent to quarantine or are being held in capture facilities. Hundreds more have been dying from the harsh Yellowstone winter. This is a record number of killings. From a total of 4,700 buffalo counted in the fall, the number fell to 3,000 by the end of winter. Since then, at least another 400 have been killed.

This is a travesty, one that has been completely unnecessary. I'm not going to talk about why this is in fact a travesty; there are a million places where the sordid issues and non-issues have been sorted out. I have certainly written about it many times this winter; others have made what seems like a lifetime making the case against the slaughter of wild buffalo.

Instead, I want to focus on the prayer ceremony in the context of the buffalo and in the context of the struggle to end this travesty. While I cannot speak directly to the specifics of the ceremony itself - out of respect for our Lakota friends who asked that the prayer part of the event not be recorded (to which I must assume written recording as well) - I can speak directly to the atmospherics of the prayer ceremony as they relate to where we are now.

Just over 100 people came down to Stephens Creek for the prayer ceremony on a cold and very windy day. Walking with a friend to the spot of the prayer ceremony, which was within view of the capture facility, the wind kept bringing to mind the thought, "Are you sure you want to be here? This is a hard place to be." And, it was hard. Not quite in my view were buffalo being held. All around us were elk and buffalo scat, though neither in sight. You can't get past the idea that these buffalo are almost certainly dead or captured. In a stunning landscape, I found it impossible to ignore the contrast of such beauty and such horror. In me, I felt quite a bit of sorrow and yet at the same time the usual sense of captivation by a place, a place where every inch draws me in.

In the significant group of people who formed the prayer circle were friends and strangers. For me, they were mostly strangers. While we are all drawn together by the buffalo, we are dysfunctional in our familial and community relationships. Who are these people who care as I do about them? What brings us here? Why have we wandered together without knowing each other? It can't help but remind me of what former Yellowstone ranger Bob Jackson talks about when he mentions the familial structures of buffalo herds and how they have been torn apart by the way Yellowstone slaughters animals and sends others to quarantine facilities. Humans too are a scattered and chaotic bunch, and yet here we are trying.

And, yet less so than before. There were familiar faces, people in Buffalo Field Campaign that I've been getting to know, hugging me, telling me how proud they are of us in Bozeman for putting a bison advocacy group together, telling me in quiet whispers how much I belonged in Montana. There were faces in the crowd becoming familiar, not quite so strange. Can a herd be reconstituted after there has been so much stress, so much forced movement? I think that it is possible. From the Lakota and other indigenous tribes who have struggled to maintain their traditional ways following the wake of centuries of genocide, to the buffalo who were wiped off the planet as a chapter in that genocide, and from all of us who have been scattered about, there is hope. And, what better place for hope to be redeemed than in the magical land of Yellowstone.

Chief Arvol Looking Horse spoke before the prayer ceremony in Lakota, which was then translated into English. Besides the occasional familiar word, like tatanka, for me, it was a struggle, much like the struggle he talked about. Hearing through a strong and cold wind, distracted by a large circle of people, faced with an imposing though gorgeous landscape, and right next to the buffalo capture facility made concentration difficult. I could sense, though, that there was a call to change, a call to make right our relationship with the buffalo. All of that could be expected, but the feelings of place, of people, of connection to land and animal - all that one can feel in a moment - you cannot prepare for that. You hear in another language, but that's merely a sign of a larger struggle of connection. It could be powerfully clear in moments, even if I could not catch or remember every word.

I mention that we were able to see the capture facility, though it is currently closed to the public. For this ceremony, the Park Service, represented here by three rangers, allowed us access within several hundred yards of the facility. Two of the rangers showed an active interest in the ceremony, and all to some extent participated. It's hard to understand the conflicts of people enforcing policies that make little sense. I wonder if they could hear people in the crowd talking about what was happening. I could hear, "Worst superintendent ever," and "Biggest interagency nightmare ever." We hear all the time that no one who is a ranger actually supports the buffalo slaughter. Yet, it happens, and some of these rangers carry it out, perhaps out of fear of losing all that they've fought so hard to attain for themselves professionally. And, yet, how is that fear broken or the power that produces that fear?

Since moving to Bozeman at the end of December, I knew that the winter was going to be very rough for buffalo. I knew that the census of 4,700, which was a very high total, meant disaster for those buffalo who have been reduced by policy makers to a disease control issue. Unfortunately, I was right. It didn't take me long to get involved, to meet Buffalo Field Campaign, to meet new people in Bozeman interested in this issue, and begin organizing. It's been wonderful to have the support of Buffalo Field Campaign and the encouragement of members of that group. They are out there witnessing this, suffering as the animals they care about are being destroyed. I've become convinced that they need much more support from the local communities around them if they are going to make it. Seeing more than 100 people at a prayer ceremony suggests that the potential is there. And yet, it's hard not feeling that all efforts are too little, too late no matter what we accomplish in the future.

It was hard not feeling sad. That was reinforced when just before the prayer ceremony began, a Lakota said that the buffalo skull that was to be used in the ceremony had been a Yellowstone buffalo killed on March 5. Somehow, they had attained the skull. In simple honor and yet with a scent of defiance, he reported, "Now, we're bringing him back home." I wanted to cry.

Yet, we were called by our Lakota friends to go with "some peace of mind" and to be happy. It was a hard thought for me, though I think I got "some peace of mind" from the notion of "some." There was still something profoundly beautiful about this place, about this circle, about the spirit of support for a creature that has had a pretty rough 200 years. To be told that by people who are still suffering some of the worst conditions on the earth, the Lakota people, perhaps gave me a little more. And, yet, not full peace of mind. In me was a raging sense of loss, a sense of agitation about the challenges ahead, and a mind consumed by organizing support for the buffalo. When a Lakota woman, who was part of the ceremony, said to one of us nearby, "You are true buffalo warriors," I was struck by the distinction of peace of mind with being a kind of warrior. What an interesting thought; there was perhaps some peace of mind in that.

And, as we filed off, many to go to a lunch, my friend and I to return to Bozeman, the organizing continued. I spoke with Mike Mease of Buffalo Field Campaign about organizing ideas in Bozeman with our new group. At the same time, I was disappointed that I wasn't able to meet contacts with Gardiner's Bear Creek Council. Can prayer and the business of organizing be of the same spirit? I don't see why not. It can feel disjointed to be part of a cathartic experience and then instantly turn one's mind to the business of empowering people to take action. But, for me, I hardly have felt more alive in life than when I'm engaged in that process. It can, at the best of times, feel very soulful. And, besides, I don't sense time to reflect by myself when there is energy to act.

Cold, blustery, and difficult, but it all seemed very necessary. I'm thankful for the Lakota and Chief Arvol Looking Horse for coming so far to pray for the buffalo and for bringing home to Yellowstone a more beautiful moment than so many that have happened at Stephens Creek. I am thankful to have been part of it. Yet, the buffalo keep dying. For those that are still living, many of us feel the call to keep acting. It isn't that the buffalo are the everything of existence, the be all and end all of action, it's just the place where some of us have wandered. It is connected to atrocities of all types, and doing something about this - if done with a heart and mind toward all the others - can change some other dynamics as well; however, it is something deeply experiential that draws us in. Those are difficult thoughts, but the wind and the right moment can bring them home.

Now, it's back to work.

Amen.

Bighorn Sheep on Rescue Creek Trail; bison moving north along park boundary

2008-04-07T01:55:00.002-04:00

On Friday, I took a journey into Yellowstone with the family. We hiked a short ways on the Rescue Creek Trail, turning back when we saw a small herd of bison along the trail near the Yellowstone River. That herd was very close to this small group of bighorn sheep. Nearby a much larger group of bighorn sheep were resting.

If you are going to hike Rescue Creek right now, which was relatively dry - at least as far as we went - in the lower elevations, you will likely see a huge number of animals - elk, pronghorn, bison, and bighorn sheep. There is various scat everywhere. Additionally, there were a large number of beautiful small blue birds. In our case, we saw no need to disturb the animals anymore than we already had and turned back.

On the way out of Yellowstone north of Gardiner but on the park side of the Yellowstone River, we saw a sizable herd of buffalo moving dangerously close to the park boundary. We think we saw the same herd earlier in the day just outside of Gardiner; several hours later, they were a couple miles further north. Another lone bull had wandered into Gardiner. I felt worried for these buffalo as they continued on the route that so many this winter have taken only to find a one-way ticket to the slaughterhouse. Already, a record number of buffalo have been killed.

The buffalo we saw in the park looked weak from the winter. Most of them were very close to the park boundary. Further into the park, we saw only small groups in the Lamar Valley and along the roads between Mammoth and Tower Junction.

It used to be that I could go into Yellowstone blissfully unaware of what I was seeing. There are moments of bliss - the Rescue Creek Trail is breathtaking. However, now the more I learn, the more concerned I am. It's not that what I'm seeing isn't still beyond words, isn't still so beautiful. It isn't that it's all about to go to hell. It's just that it could be more for all the animals we saw. I saw bighorn sheep in the park - something I never had much luck in seeing in past visits and summers of working in the park - and yet, now that I finally see bighorn sheep, I know now what was - an animal once dominant in the park, hunted by tribes that were displaced, on a land that looked quite different. Yes, Yellowstone is not a museum - it's dynamic and changes - but when I think about why it has changed from that to this, it doesn't make a great deal of sense.

Buffalo moving north and away from Yellowstone makes sense to me; what happens when they cross that invisible line, that makes almost none to me.

Not quite an essay on the significance of the Bozeman activist event on Yellowstone buffalo

2008-03-31T00:53:00.003-04:00

I must apologize to those readers who thought, like I thought, that I was going to engage in verbose, perhaps semi-poetic prose about my most uplifting night of local organizing in Bozeman, following our event with Mike Mease of Buffalo Field Campaign, on the Yellowstone bison.

Though I believe that I had one of my most exuberantly interesting evenings - especially before and after the event - last Wednesday, I simply don't have it in me to engage at the personal level in which I'm prone to engage. Our conversations were rich, but to give them texture here seems almost ludicrous. It would be as if one could understand what it feels like to be an eruption of Old Faithful. Sure, we could see it, smell it, but to have the point of view of that geyser is beyond us. Or, to imagine what it's like for me to give birth to someone else's child would be just as strange to understand. A conversation that rich and engaging, beyond the what, but to the body language, the place, the sense of moment, the sense of place where people come to these conversations, is beyond the scope of time I have or ability I have to render it.

So, all I can say is that it was wonderful, and we may have a real opportunity for a community of action and resistance in Bozeman. It's there for us who wish to make it so long as we dedicate ourselves to the work. And, unlike some moments during all my activism in Washington, DC, I think that that dedication may be there.

Once upon a time, I dreamed of the Young Romantics (a search of the archives or a google search might take you to some of the mysteries), and brought that to a not-quite-so-explicitly shared place in Yellowstone - not once but twice. Now, I dream of creating a space not unlike it, but tied directly not to our dreams, but to those real voices in our world who don't have a chance of being heard.

I believe real steps are being taken to facilitate that space.

That's all I have to write for now. We're on our way.

Love,
Jim

Report back on action now on Bozeman Activist Web site - introspective piece to follow

2008-03-27T14:07:00.004-04:00

A report has been written of last night's promising first event for the budding new Bozeman activist group that happened last night. I wanted to point people there.

I think I'll be the person facilitating the first meeting in two Wednesdays. That meeting is open to the public; however, it's not a meeting without some sense of purpose. It's not a debate club; it's a group for planning action. I think the five points at the bottom of that report back get at some of the spirit we're talking about.

Anyhow, I am going to write about my personal sense of the evening and of the great hope I feel. I just need the time to get myself together to write it. I feel enthralled by my evening, not just the event, but the discussions that carried on well into the night after the event. Some will say that talk is cheap, but out of such talk action flourishes.

Please keep an eye out for it. We're going to be doing our best here in Bozeman, to keep an attentive ear to the community, especially those parts of the community that aren't empowered to speak out, that aren't being heard.

If you don't make your way over to the Bozeman Activist Web site, the first planning meeting is Wednesday, April 9, at Montana State University's student union building - I think in a lobby (will get some clarification on that). It will be at 7 PM. The group will ultimately decide, but the current thinking is to shoot for biweekly meetings.

MEDIA ADVISORY - "Fighting for the Buffalo" film and discussion - March 26 in Bozeman

2008-03-23T23:47:00.003-04:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Chris Klatt
406-599-3629
March 23, 2008

“Fighting for the Buffalo” – Film and Discussion on the Bison Slaughter in Yellowstone
Local Bozeman residents organizing for the buffalo and other local environmental, economic and social justice concerns

(Bozeman, MT – March 23, 2008) A record number of buffalo – 1100 and growing - have been killed in and around Yellowstone National Park this winter. Mike Mease of Buffalo Field Campaign will join concerned Bozeman residents in presenting a film and discussion on the buffalo slaughter. The discussion will be focused on what local residents can do toward ending the slaughter and supporting a wild and free roaming buffalo population. The film, which looks at the on-the-ground realities of the buffalo hunt, hazing and slaughter, is Wednesday, March 26, 7 PM, at Montana State University’s Procrastinator Theater.

WHO: Mike Mease, co-founder Buffalo Field Campaign

WHAT: Organized in partnership with local Bozeman residents (see http://bozemanactivist.wordpress.com), short films documenting the hazing and killing of buffalo in and around Yellowstone National Park, with a discussion on what local residents can do to help stop the slaughter of bison and promote a free-ranging population. Admission is open to the public and is free of charge.

WHERE: Procrastinator Theater
Linfield Hall, Room 125
Montana State University
S. 11th Avenue, Bozeman, MT

WHEN: 7PM, Wednesday, March 26, 2008

WHY: Because the slaughter of buffalo has gone on for so long and because we in the Gallatin Valley live so close to what is happening, the need to organize at the local level on this and other inter-related issues is important. The film and discussion to follow is meant to be an education for those unfamiliar with the situation, an update on the current slaughter from the point of view of those working to stop it, and a tool toward organizing a local grassroots group. The new consensus-based group will focus on issues related to the buffalo, as well as other local environmental, economic and social justice concerns.

For more information about the event, please see http://bozemanactivist.wordpress.com, or contact Chris Klatt by phone at 406-599-3629 or by email at cklatt@riseup.net.