The National Wildlife Federation has submitted a 71-page Report to the Rocky Mountain Tribal Leaders Council, outlining legal issues and management opportunities for establishing an “intertribal bison herd” on the Charles M. Russell federal refuge in Montana. The Report, released in spring 2020, was co-written by the Indian Law Clinic at the University of Montana.
The Report cites tribal treaty rights and federal trust responsibilities to justify use of the public Refuge for a bison herd managed under Tribal leadership and administration with an intertribal Advisory Council informed by “generations of wisdom, knowledge and expertise” through a panel of Tribal counselors. A “uniquely Tribal approach” would promote Tribal sovereignty, with enrichment of Native cultures as “a major goal”.
The proposed level of Tribal administrative and management authority may well violate mandates of Congress for the National Wildlife Refuge System. However, treaty obligations and tribal-trust responsibilities are complicated areas of law.
The Report has been submitted to the Department of Interior. It is cited in an April letter to Secretary Haaland from the Montana American Indian Caucus (News, 29 April). The letter also cites a December, 2020 contact from the Rocky Mountain Tribal Leaders Council to the Biden Transition Team, promoting bison restoration on public lands through partnership with the Tribes.
At last report, details of a current NWF position on tribal vs. federal restoration of bison on the CMR Refuge were unclear. The Report’s proposal has many troublesome aspects that deserve public exposure and discussion, especially among NWF members and contributors.
Our Coalition opposes the establishment of what would be Tribal-trust bison on the CMR Refuge. Briefly, our several reasons include: (1) Proposed intertribal management of CMR bison would dilute and unnecessarily complicate the legislated authority and primary obligations of the Secretary of Interior to manage Refuge resources. (2) Proposed Tribal goals, apportionment of benefits and intended management methods are unclear. They may interfere with or detract from fulfilling the primary mission of the Refuge System. In particular, gradual domestication of the bison may be fostered. (3) While Tribal wisdom, knowledge and expertise are not to be denied, they are limited in modern areas of population/evolutionary genetics, for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has superior resources. (4) An emphasis on Tribal needs and values would be inconsistent with the egalitarian mission of the Refuge System. (5) Tribes are not bereft of opportunities to achieve spiritual, cultural and economic benefits of wild bison across about 15,000 square miles of bison habitat on their reservations. (6) Tribal advice and some Tribal objectives can be used and accommodated with CMR bison strictly under FWS control. (7) The CMR Refuge and adjacent lands where bison are accepted are a unique opportunity for establishing a much needed large, public-trust, wild bison herd on a large, diverse landscape. This irreplaceable opportunity to accomplish goals of the Department of Interior Bison Conservation Initiative should not be jeopardized by complicating administrative efficiency or priorities among management goals. (Details of this position available on request, jabailey34@aol.com.)
Support for public-trust, wild bison on the CMR Refuge is our primary goal, justified by many values declared in this website. Since the state of Montana has rejected restoration of wild bison (News, 23 May) we will request Department of Interior Haaland to move forward with a federal restoration project, for a genetically adequate, wild bison herd under Fish & Wildlife Service management on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge.
