The Limits of Discourse

We’re taking a break from Probing the Project this week to collect our thoughts, consider and reconsider reactions from the public, and recalibrate our approach to investigating the American Prairie Reserve and their plans for bison release and grasslands restoration.

If anything, this pause reflects an attitude of seriousness from our staff, concerned community members, and APR representative Hilary Parker, who has graciously played along with the press despite hostile and skeptical attitudes about her organization’s goals from residents of the region.

Such attitudes are grounded in an awareness of the precarious nature of how many of us pay the bills around here. Agriculture is a tricky proposition at best in any community, and indeed, the wider world. Weather, commodities prices, and the flux of local land values all impact the basic business of getting our plant and animal products to the marketplace. Is it any wonder that a grand vision of “free-roaming” bison release enacted without adequate explanation (and, possibly, without adequate foresight) would cause consternation among members of a community that is bound to livestock management and farming?

Taking stock at this moment, I want to return Parker’s thanks and double down on the importance of adequately answering and addressing the prudent questions and concerns of area residents.

The question and answer format employed in some installments of our coverage has definitely been frustrating. The reasons for this are both obvious and somewhat counterintuitive. Hindsight can be instructive, even as it tempts us to judge and in some cases exhibit doubt about the sincerity and expertise of Parker and her colleagues. Trust has to be earned, and large-scale planning demands careful evaluation.

It’s true and worth noting that some questions simply cannot be answered in discussions limited by word count. It isn’t really fair, for instance, to expect the APR to fully explain their plans for watering and feeding large numbers of bison through a Montana winter in a paragraph or two. But we have to start somewhere, and if certain questions cry out for rigorous investigation, then that is simply the task at hand. It’s no use wringing our hands about it.

Limitations aside, doubts will arise when a simple question like Dave Pippin's regarding the existence of site-specific scientific fieldwork elicits references to anecdotal evidence and the journals of Lewis and Clark. That isn’t a serious response and is bound to leave our readers with the impression that the APR hasn’t really thought this thing through. We’re still waiting for answers regarding the existence of legitimate science on that one.

In any case, we’ve established a baseline of questions from the community and on-the-record statements from the APR. We’re nowhere near exhausting the well of pointed questions for Parker from this community. We have plenty to work with and our coverage moving forward will focus on specific issues and untangling the threads of a surprisingly open dialogue.

Transparency and openness are what we're after regarding the APR’s plans. For now, I take my hat off (one of them anyway) to Parker as she attempts to parse the frustrations of readers who remain unsatisfied with her organization’s answers.

The only antidote to dissonance in discourse this complicated is mutual respect and a harmony of continuously flapping gums (or rather, continuously typing fingertips). I encourage our readers to hold fast to the good manners and kindly attitudes that are typical of people here.

This process may take a while and it will likely necessitate the establishment of different forums for discussion and debate. As long as the APR continues to cooperate in good faith, however, we can at least enjoy the prospect of a productive conversation.