Groups Ask Judge To Prevent Buffalo Slaughter
“Livestock grazing on Horse Butte [Montana] is bad for buffalo, but it is also bad for the American taxpayer,” said Mike Leahy of Defenders of Wildlife. “The grazing fee for the Horse Butte allotment returns less then $1,200.00 annually to the government, but the government’s system of hazing and slaughtering Yellowstone buffalo for the sake of cattle grazing is estimated to cost the taxpayer more then $1.7 million each year.”
Americans, your federal government and the state government of Montana are hard at work killing buffalo for the benefit of the cattle industry. As long as they stay in Yellowstone National Park, the buffalo are safe. If they leave the park, an attempt is usually made to shoo them back in. If they can’t be shooed back over the park border, they’re killed.
The justification for this is the claim that cattle being grazed on public land might catch brucillois from the buffalo. Actually, there has never been a case of brucillosis spreading from buffalo to cattle. It’s just a handy excuse. The cattle industry wants the buffalo out of its way, and the government is obliging them.
I have a real hard time getting excited about any government plan which cost 1.7 million a year. The amount is so puny when compared to other cost that I can’t believe money is the primary reason why people are protesting the slaughter of the buffalo.
**
Most Americans probably eat beef. Maybe I’m benefiting by paying less for beef. Maybe not.
**
Problem solved! Juts let the ranchers shoot them instead of having the feds do it. I bet the ranchers would even burn the buffalo corpses. No cost to tax payers there.
Maybe there’s no documented case because they always shoot buffalo before they come into contact with cattle? If things like anthrax and mad cow disease can spread from bovine to human I don’t see brucillosis going from buffalo to cattle as a great stretch of the imagination. Wow, that sentence needed better punctuation.
Well, you know what they say, a million here, a million there; pretty soon you’re talking about real money.
Actually, I just don’t like the needless killing of buffalo; for me, that’s the main thing. Naturally, I’m not happy that tax money is being spent to do this.
Er . . . if the retail price you pay for beef is lower because of a tax subsidy (in the form of negligible grazing fees), you aren’t paying less. You’re just paying two different sets of people. Unless you don’t pay taxes.
I seriously doubt that the introduction of the buffalo will solve the problems of the plains. For one thing who cares if their population is in decline and there are many ghost towns? Is this really a problem?
What is the ultimate goal of buffalo commons? Is it to stop the declining population and turn the economy of the plains around? And I’m really not clear how they expect Buffalo Commons to solve any problems. In fact neither are they.
I can respect someone who looks for solutions that are out of the box. The trouble is this guy is pushing a plan that either he doesn’t think will solve the problems or is unsure how they will solve the problems. If he can’t show me how it will solve problems then why should I be interested in it?
Is he saying that we already import food or that we rely on imported food to prevent starvation? I’ll give these folks the benefit of the doubt and consider that they might have worthwhile ideas. But this article certainly doesn’t tell me anything about Buffalo Commons.