Welcome to The Magic of YellowstoneA little bit of Wonderland
Jim's Eclectic World
About Me
Name: Jim Macdonald
Location: Bozeman, MT, United States
Hi, my name is Jim Macdonald, and I have an odd assortment of interests. In no particular order, I love Yellowstone, I am an anti-authoritarian activist and organizer who just moved from Washington, DC to Bozeman, and I have a background in philosophy, having taught at the college level. My blog has a lot more links to my writing and my other Web sites. In Jim's Eclectic World, I try to give a holistic view of my many interests. Often, all three passions show themselves interweaving in the very same blog. Anyhow, I think it's a little different. But, that's me. I'm not so much out there, but taken together, I'm a little unusual.
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.
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
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.***
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 YellowstoneNational 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 HaydenValley, the Lakeshore and in PelicanValley.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 NorthernRange 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 SwanLake. 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 bisonwere 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.
13 April: 3 newborn calves died from natural causes (they were born on the 9th and 10th)
14 April: 1 adult cow (mother to one of the calves listed above) died from natural causes
Other Information:
Newborn Calves held at StephensCreek: 1
Seropositive Pregnant Cows held at StephensCreek: 18
Radio Collared Cows not tested but held at StephensCreek: 26
Total Bison being held at StephensCreek 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 YankeeJimCanyon
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 SwanLake.
***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
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.
Bighorn Sheep on Rescue Creek Trail; bison moving north along park boundary
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.
