State vet details plan to slaughter up to 300 bison. By Charles S. Johnson. Billings Gazette State Bureau.
Here is the msm’s story on the meeting and the slaughter to come. All the standard lies are repeated.
It is infuriating to sit here in Idaho and hear them talk in Montana about the disaster is was that Idah0 lost its brucellosis-free status, when the Idaho media don’t run any stories of woe about it — they run no stories at all.
Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He was a Western Watersheds Project Board Member off and on for many years, and was also its President for several years. For a long time he produced Ralph Maughan’s Wolf Report. He was a founder of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. He and Jackie Johnson Maughan wrote three editions of “Hiking Idaho.” He also wrote “Beyond the Tetons” and “Backpacking Wyoming’s Teton and Washakie Wilderness.” He created and is the administrator of The Wildlife News.
Comments
A major threat to grizzlies is the declining traditional food source like Yellowstone Trout & white pine blister rust. And now 300 bison, another part of the bear’s food chain, will be eliminated. This may sound radical but I had rather have the bison shot in an area where the bears could use the meat.
This is an idea worth debating.
The nutrition for these bison came out of the Park’s meager biological resources. Now it is being shipped off as though it was from a fertilized farm.
Distribution of those carcasses would have to be well thought out, and it would be controversial among both bear supporters and opponents.
If It needs to be well thought out, as it should be, the politicians, both in and out of the park, and the Montana state vet (she knows what side her bread is buttered on) should not be part of any process that would require thinking.
You know what would be an interesting economic study? A study that looks at the amount of people who, because they are oppossed to the beef industry for various environmental reasons (land grab, wolves, bison, etc), have chosen to stop eating meat or at least beef. Add up the total number of $$$ lost to the industry because of this, and then compare that to the amount lost by ranchers directly because of wolf killed pups. Or, for that matter, to their state getting a non-Burcullosis free designation.
The point is this. The cattle industry is a business, like Nike, Apple or Exxon. Yet they seem to continually insult their customers. They chose to call all wolf lovers “city slickers.” They insult folks who care about bison. They seem to forget that most of the people who buy beef in this country LIVE IN THE CITY! And, based on general polls, most of these people want wolves and don’t want baby bison slaughtered.
If the beef industry was self-sustaining among all anti-wolf ranchers, then fine. They can do what they want. But I’m pretty darned sure it’s not. They are basically insulting their customers.
Imagine if Nike, after the sweat-shop labor news broke, started insulting their customers as ignoramouses. Would you buy shoes from Nike anymore? Hell no. Yet this is basically what the beef industry does.
I like beef. I like a burger. That said, I have not eaten beef in 2 years, opting for other meat options or, more often, no meat. I’m making a consumer choice based on the terrible ethics of this industry.
Until the industry adapts its practices and attitudes, I won’t spend another dime on beef. If enough people – especially the millions of millions who live in the city – do the same, the livestock industry will be forced to make a change.
Here’s what Defenders of Wildlife should do. Send a list of insults issued by ranchers and others in the beef industry directed at urban dwellers. Explain these insults are diected at their beliefs, and provide them dietary options. Hit the industry in the pocketbook, and then watch them scramble to change.