There is much, especially local, concern about possible negative impacts if public bison are reintroduced on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Predictions of region-wide negative impacts have been exaggerated as indicated by the lack of problems generating from about 800 livestock bison already on the American Prairie Reserve.
Nearby landowners would be most threatened by possible negative impacts from bison on the CMR. Rightfully, they are concerned. Discussion of proposals for public bison on the CMR must include an evaluation of the magnitude of risks and a realistic evaluation of costs and complications that could occur in preventing, or compensating for, any negative impacts to local landowners.
Here, we present data on the amount of private land near the CMR boundary for one possible test introduction of bison on the Refuge.
A test reintroduction of bison on the Refuge has been proposed in the past. However, much more than a “token” herd of display animals is necessary to evaluate the ability of the Fish & Wildlife Service to manage a large, mobile bison herd, in a manner respecting adjacent landowners.
We have chosen to evaluate an area with minimal northern boundary in private land, other than bison-friendly American Prairie, and with a southern boundary of Fort Peck Reservoir which bison may be reluctant to cross. This area extends from Beauchamp Creek in T21N, R28E, eastward about 31 miles to the Phillips County line in T22N, R33E. It is centered on the UL Bend. Its zig-zag boundary would require about 42 miles of fence, with the Reservoir as a south boundary. There would be about 190 square miles of diverse bison habitat, allowing mobile bison to strategically use and retain their natural habitat preferences.
Only 2 parcels of non-APR private land abut this boundary. One of these is a point in 22N 30E where land corners connect. The other in 23N 33E is a quarter-mile long.
We estimated the amount of land in 5 ownership categories within all square-mile sections abuting this refuge boundary. Of about 41 square miles abuting the Refuge, we estimated 6 square miles (15%) of state land, 3 square miles of American Prairie (8%), 2.5 square miles of other private land (6%) and 29 square miles of public, BLM land (71%). About half of the BLM land (14 square miles, 48%) is associated with APR deeded land; with 15 square miles, 52% associated with other private property.
Thus, for this proposed restoration site, there are only 17.5 square miles of private, non-APR, land and BLM land associated with such private land, within about a mile of the proposed boundary. The number of different landowners and BLM allotment permittees involved may be about 5.
Several years ago, opposition to restoring public-trust, wild bison in Montana began with fear-promoting images of brucellosis-laden bison, free-ranging like other wildlife. Since then, the Montana legislature required that such bison must be contained and may not be allowed on any land where they are not accepted. It has also become clear that the threat of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle was greatly overstated. Then, in 2021, new laws precluded any bison transplants by the state. Now, the Fish & Wildlife Service must unilaterally reintroduce public bison on the Refuge in order to fulfill a Congressional mandate for biological diversity and integrity of Refuge resources. Clearly, the early arguments against Montana bison restoration would not apply to such federal action.
Perceived negative impacts, from restoring public-trust wild bison on the CMR Refuge, to region-wide landowners in eastern Montana should not be exaggerated. Current law, experience with APR bison, and lack of evidence of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle indicate that impacts are unlikely. Moreover, geographic data indicate that the number of landowners that could possibly need special protection or compensation is small.
