You are right to go after the border as the source of the problem here, but if you are going to influence skeptics there should be more factual analysis of the border: it's history, establishment, other resource conflicts across it, etc. You hint that the border might have changed in the past, then change the subject. Do you know there is a really interesting story behind that change which involves our pioneer ancestors rallying with print journalists to protect habitat? Neither does anyone else. A story like that could change people's mindset about the border. Congress almost rejected the first survey of the 45th parallel due to variances and discrepancies, but then decided it was close enough. Once you start introducing these stories into the discussion you can reinforce the idea by using good maps and satellite photos with all news and opinion. This is cheap to do now. I read over and over about Horse Butte being a peninsula cut off from the park by a border, but I rarely see a map that relates the context. Not everyone has the Montana Gazeteer memorized.

I feel strongly that people understand the somewhat random nature of the border, and can relate to how much we are spending to enforce it against nature, that their opinions will start to change regarding managing across that border. This approach is not being pushed by the conservation groups, even though it would be an easy way to gain traction in changing things with the bison.

Keep up the good work.