Dr. James A. Bailey Passing

 

Jim's Obituary written by his daughter Tina. Jim's biography can be read here.

Prof. James Allen Bailey of Belgrade, MT, finally let go the mortal coil on May 30, 2023. He had just finished mowing the lawn and sat down to rest on the back porch to gaze at his “shining mountains,” fell asleep and did not wake up. He died knowing the Cubs had won that day. He was aged 89 years and 16 days.

Jim was born at home on Melrose Street in Chicago, Illinois to Ella Voss Bailey and Leo Carl Bailey. He was an Eagle Scout and was presented his badge by Rear Admiral Richard Byrd, Antarctic explorer. He earned his B.Sc in Forestry at Michigan Technological University and his M.Sc and Ph.D in Wildlife Biology at State University of New York in Syracuse.

He met his bride, Natalie Ann Jewett, in Syracuse while busing tables at the Savoy Restaurant. He told her his name was George G. George and she believed him for weeks. Jim and Nan enjoyed travelling the wide open road in several different motor homes throughout the years and particularly enjoyed the southwest. He often sang “You Are My Sunshine” to her and she always made sure he had cookies in the cookie jar.

Jim served as a researcher in the Army Chemical Corps when he was drafted in 1960. He began his long career as an instructor of Wildlife Management at the University of Montana in 1964. He then joined the faculty in Wildlife Biology at Colorado State University in Fort Collins where he remained from 1969 until 1991. Upon retiring, he took a position as Assistant Director of Conservation Services at the New Mexico Game and Fish in Santa Fe, serving from 1994 through 1991. He also consulted for several tribes and reservations seeking input on managing their big game populations. Jim and Nan moved to Belgrade in 2005 where he began to study, write about and tirelessly advocate for wild bison.

Jim was the author of several books and numerous publications and articles in the field of wildlife management, including The Principles of Wildlife Management and American Plains Bison, Rewilding an Icon. He and his many graduate students conducted extensive research and collectively contributed many publications while observing Bighorn Sheep and Rocky Mountain goat populations in Colorado. Jim’s last crusade was as coordinator of the Montana Wild Bison Restoration Coalition, seeking to reintroduce wild bison to the CM Russell Wildlife Refuge.

He was a member of the Colorado and New Mexico chapters of The Wildlife Society, The Gallatin Wildlife Association, a Life Member of the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society, the Desert Bighorn Council and the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council. He was also an official member of the Die Hard Cub Fan Club since 1944 and lived to see “the day hell froze over.”

He is survived by his wife Nan, brother Richard of Novato CA, daughter Tina of Auburn CA, son Mike of Willow Creek MT, grandson Kirk of Belgrade MT, granddaughter Sara of Loomis CA, grandson Evan of Aloha OR and great granddaughter Nova Rainbow of Loomis CA. No services are planned at this time. 

Vaya con Huevos, Jim. May the coffee in heaven be dark as mud and the beer cold as mountain run-off.

Bison Coalition Petitions Department of Interior to Fulfill Public-trust Responsibilities for Preserving Wild Plains Bison

 

In an April 14 letter to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, the Montana Wild Bison Restoration Coalition responded to Department of Interior Order 3410, the Bison Conservation Initiative of 2023. The letter noted perceived deficiencies in the Initiative and suggested a path forward that would “clearly recognize and commit to dealing with the most serious bison conservation issue south of Canada; and commit to providing equal and legally mandated access to wild public-trust bison on federal lands.”

The Coalition noted that gradual but persistent domestication is “the most serious threat to plains bison in the USA”; but is essentially neglected in Order 3410. Without defining “wild bison”, 3410 asserts there are 15,000 “wild” bison in the country, misleading the American public. The genetics of most of these 15,000 bison in “conservation herds” are being domesticated with small herds and artificial management in less-than-wild environments.

Order 3410 briefly mentions a need for consistency with unnamed federal laws. The Coalition asserts: “The people deserve a more complete review” of the legal mandates within the Park Service Organic Act and the Refuge System Improvement Act.

The overwhelming focus and stated priority of Order 3410 is to develop Tribal co-stewardship of bison on federal lands. There is no discussion of how this priority will complicate Refuge management, affect public access to bison, determine management goals and practices, or possibly conflict with existing laws that emphasize biotic diversity and integrity (wildness).

South of Canada, Tribes have well over 20,000 bison in about 65 herds on reservations. Tribes have received thousands of excess federal bison since at least the 1960s, and this process will continue.

 In Contrast, the Department of Interior has about 15,000 bison in only 10 herds managed without existing co-management with a state or The Nature Conservancy. These are the only herds with clear, reliable, legal mandates to restore and maintain wildness of plains bison. Only 2 of these herds have at least 1,000 bison, the minimum number for avoiding serious genetic drift. Four herds are less than 100 bison. Additional large herds are critically needed.

 As a path forward, the Coalition petitions the Department of Interior to:

1. Recognize the threat of domestication to conservation of wild plains bison.

2. Commit the 10 above public-trust bison herds under complete Department control, as a separate genetic metapopulation with priorities for restoring wildness of bison, benefiting all Americans.

3. Restore a large public-trust wild bison herd on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, the largest federal refuge within the historic range of plains bison; and commit this herd into the above metapopulation.

On CMR Bison, Legislature Misinterprets Laws, Reality, and Montana Values

 

With Senate Joint Resolution 14, the Montana legislature lobbies the United States Congress and 3 federal agencies to prevent restoring public-trust, wild bison on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge (CMR). SJ 14 passed both houses with party-line votes. It claims the State of Montana opposes any restoration of bison on the CMR. In contrast, 3 random polls have shown that about 70% of Montana voters support returning bison to the CMR.

The CMR is the largest federal refuge within the historic range of plains bison.

The legislature claims that the state has supreme jurisdiction over wildlife on federal lands and that unilateral restoration of bison would violate the U. S. Constitution. This legal mythology was extensively reviewed and denied in the Journal Environmental Law (2017) by a University of Montana law team. The Refuge System Improvement Act (1997) directs the Refuge to collaborate with the state “for timely and effective [resource] management to the extent practicable”. Getting bison on the CMR, proposed in 1937, has not been timely or effective, and given anti-bison laws from the 2021 legislature, waiting longer for state collaboration is clearly not practicable.

The legislature warns of disease transmission from bison to private livestock, whereas this has not been a problem with several herds of private bison already surrounding the CMR – a condition that is common throughout the country.

The legislature exaggerates the amount of state land within the CMR; but correctly notes that achieving state goals for these parcels is difficult, as they are isolated within the Refuge. Clearly, it would benefit the state, occasional private users of these lands, and the Refuge, if state lands within the CMR were traded for isolated federal lands outside the CMR.

A Reliable Future for Public, Wild Bison Depends on Only 10 Herds

 

 Recent NEWS items presented two different numbers for plains bison herds with reliable mandates to restore and maintain wild, public bison. March 13 NEWS referred to 13 herds; upon further study, March 27 NEWS referred to only 10 herds. Here we clarify this change.

To qualify, a herd must be managed as public-trust bison, with primary management to develop and maintain natural selection that is preponderant over artificial selection and genetic drift. Only Department of Interior herds, under the Park Service or under Fish & Wildlife Service Refuges qualify under relatively dependable legal mandates for wildness enacted by Congress.

Previous news releases from the Department of Interior claimed as many as 19 federal bison herds with 11,000 bison are managed for biotic diversity and biotic integrity – the equivalent of “wildness”. Subsequent news releases by this and other organizations have reduced this number to 16, 13, and now 10. Nine of the alleged 19 public, wild herds are:

2 herds in Alaska -- Not on native plains bison range.

1 herd on the Bison Range in Montana -- Recently ceded to the Kootenai/Salish Tribes.

2 herds in Utah -- Book Cliffs and Henry Mountains herds: spend some or much time on federal lands; but are managed and limited as state game animals and (Book Cliffs) by the northern Ute Tribe.

1 herd in Wyoming -- Jackson Hole herd: co-managed as state game; recently reduced from 1000 to 500.

1 herd in Arizona -- Has habitat in Grand Canyon National Park: co-managed as state game to limit numbers and consequent damage to Park’s prehistoric relics.

2 herds in Colorado and Kansas -- co-managed with The Nature Conservancy; have some federal habitat, but most habitat is TNC.

Likely, Department of Interior has collaborative agreements to exchange animals between these 9 herds and Interior herds to limit loss of alleles to genetic drift. However, excluding 2 herds in Alaska, the management priorities for these herds include production as game or for sale, limiting competition with private livestock, or other priorities that detract from managing for wildness.

Thus, the future of wild plains bison genomes, south of Canada, depends upon the remaining 10 herds, with approximate herd sizes totaling 7,880 bison and only 2 herds with at least 1000 bison to forestall weakening of natural selection by genetic drift. These herds are:

Yellowstone National Park: 4800 bison, not welcome in surrounding states.

Badlands NP: 1000 bison (new management plan coming).

Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge: 650 bison.

Theodore Roosevelt NP: 525 bison (south herd: 350; north herd: 175).

Wind Cave NP: 400 bison.

Fort Niobrara NWR: 350 bison (includes separate “Sully” herd of 60).

Neal Smith NWR: 70 bison.

Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR: 55 bison.

Whitehorse Hill Nat. Game Preserve: 20 bison.

Chickasaw Nat. Recreation Area: 10 bison.

These 10 herds are critical to preserving examples of genetically wild bison within the public trust. In the long run, they will be inadequate. Herds less than 100 must be enlarged. Additional large herds on large, diverse landscapes are needed.

Three large or growing private herds¹ may contribute some to saving “wild” alleles; but their management today includes some artificial selection, and limited natural selection, and they are not public-trust herds. There is no evidence that any Tribal herds have management priorities to retain wildness of bison. One impressive Tribal attempt was abandoned in 2004².

¹TNC Tallgrass Preserve in OK; TNC Medano Ranch in CO; American Prairie in MT.

²Braun, F. F. 2008. Buffalo, Inc. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. p. 235.

Wildlife Management Institute Lauds Interior Bison Initiative: Disregards Domestication Threat

 

 A recent news release from the Wildlife Management Institute describes Interior Secretary Haaland’s Order 3410, “Restoring American Bison and the Prairie Grasslands”. (See release on WMI website: wildlifemanagement.institute.) WMI was careful to avoid any limitations or important uncertainties in the Order, or the associated Interior news release. WMI reiterates wordings provided by Interior, with little comment. Important information, buried in an appendix to 3410, was neglected.

Unfortunately, avoiding the uncomfortable issues in public discourse has facilitated persisting domestication of public-trust wild bison for decades.

This is the third Interior Bison Initiative since 2008. It is described as “establishing” a Bison Conservation Working Group; whereas a Working Group has also existed for 14 years. On balance, previous Initiatives and Work Groups have been able to make little on-the-ground progress in restoring wild, public bison on large landscapes. It is easy to be skeptical about another initiative. But hope remains.

WMI mentions Interior’s goals of “wild and healthy” bison, and a “viable” bison species; but does not define these terms. (We define “wild” as a herd influenced by a preponderance of natural selection – equal to Interior’s mandates for biotic diversity and integrity. “Healthy” has different meanings for individuals vs. for herds. With thousands of extant bison, the species is already “viable”.) The word “domestication” is not used, even though the foremost threat to a future with wild plains bison in the USA is domestication of the species.

Success of the Initiative is described as “depending upon” collaboration with states and Tribes. If this is 100% true, Interior is signaling retreat from its obligations to unilaterally manage National Park and Refuge resources, if collaborators supporting federal mandates for wildness are unavailable. History may be repeated.

WMI does not mention the overriding emphasis in 3410, upon Tribal needs and plans for Tribal co-management of public bison on public lands. A significant place for public-trust, wild bison in the Initiative is not assured.

WMI notes that Interior manages or co-manages 16 plains bison herds south of Canada. Only 10 of the 16 are under exclusive management of Interior in Parks and Refuges. In the other 6 herds, efforts to restore wildness according to federal mandates, can be much diluted by existing co-management. And only 2 of the 10 exclusively Interior herds are large enough to forestall random genetics that will weaken natural selection for wildness.

For public-trust, wild bison, the success of the Interior Bison Initiative will depend upon greater public understanding of the domestication vs. wildness issue and public support to fulfill the wildness mandates of federal Parks and Refuges. WMI can help to address this critical problem that has plagued restoration of wild bison for decades.

In that regard, we applaud WMI’s mention of a potential restoration of wild bison on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. It is the largest federal refuge within the historic range of plains bison. Significant restoration of public, wild bison likely cannot be achieved in the USA without a large herd on the CMR Refuge. We urge WMI to join us in aggressively promoting restoration of bison, under the 1997 Wildlife Refuge Act, on the CMR Refuge.

Interior has allocated $25 million to support the Bison Initiative. A two-track program, for Tribal and public bison, will be needed to use the funding fairly. The Biden administration has little time left. Any delay will jeopardize the program.

Interior Department Prioritizes Tribal Bison: Commitment to Maintain Wild Bison Uncertain

Coalition Promotes Two Equal Tracks for Interior Department Bison 

A March 4 Department of Interior News Release, based on Secretary Haaland’s Order 3410, describes a new federal commitment to restore “wild and healthy” populations of bison on American grasslands. It states that Native American led opportunities to establish new large herds owned or managed by Tribes will be centrally prioritized. A “shared stewardship plan” is described in 3410. As presented, shared stewardship implies co-management and some degree of co-control of public bison with Tribes. Unfortunately, “wild and healthy” are not defined, and neither the news release nor 3410 recognize laws mandating Interior to restore truly wild public-trust bison in National Parks and Refuges, and these documents do not acknowledge almost certain conflicts between these obligations and Tribal goals.

As background, a misrepresentation of 19^th century bison history occurs in the news release and in 3410. The complicated eradication and near extinction of bison is presented emphasizing a “U. S. policy” intended to “harm and control” Tribes that depended upon bison. This oversimplification of history is common in today’s media. In reality, bison were near-eradicated for several reasons including commercial harvests as well as to “control” Tribes. Both Euro-Americans and Native Americans participated, though not always equally or for the same purposes. A selective, biased presentation of 19^th century history should not be used to justify exceptional access to public bison for Tribes today. A more complete and authentic history would recognize our common humanity and be less divisive in today’s world. We cannot heal what we do not reveal.

Today, plains bison exist in private commercial herds, in Tribal herds, and in “conservations herds” owned by government agencies, The Nature Conservancy or by American Prairie. Only 13 herds are fully controlled by the Department of Interior. For plains bison in the USA, the most important conservation issue is the long-practiced and continuing domestication of bison with loss of wild genetics. Restoration and maintenance of wildness in bison requires a large herd to forestall effects of genetic drift, minimizing artificial selection practices, and maximizing natural selective forces, to the extent practicable. (See elsewhere on this website under the toolbar “Why Wildness”.) Most bison herds are small and subject to some, usually a lot of, artificial selection. Domestication is most pronounced in commercial herds containing the vast majority of plains bison. For bison in the USA, only 13 federal herds within National Parks and Wildlife Refuges have a reliable mandate, in the law, to restore and maintain wildness. These herds are critical to the future wildness of our plains bison.

The Department of Interior has dual obligations for bison management – centered in its Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National Park Service and the Fish & Wildlife Service. Tribal goals vary among tribes and have varied with time, as indicated by the limited but consistent information available for current Tribally-owned herds. Tribal goals appropriately emphasize Tribal nutrition and economic development, with management for abundant production. This emphasizes artificial selection that is not compatible with National Park and Federal Refuge mandates for wildness.

Today, 63 Tribes own over 20,000 bison (Intertribal Buffalo Council website). Almost all these herds are small such that genetic drift augments preponderant artificial selection. This compares to only 13 federal herds with about 10,000 bison. Only 2 of these federal herds have at least 1000 bison, possibly sufficient to forestall effects of genetic drift in weakening natural selection.

Despite the above disparity and the overwhelming threat of domestication to plains bison, Haaland’s news release and 3410 emphasize support for more Tribal bison, including “shared stewardship” and “prioritizing Tribal led opportunities” to enhance bison on federal lands. Mandates of the Department of Interior emphasizing natural selection that is not compatible with major Tribal goals requiring artificial management are relegated largely to an appendix of 3410. The stark inadequacy of Interior’s few, mostly small, bison herds to avoid further domestication is not mentioned.

The Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge lies in the center of this disparity. It is the largest federal refuge within the historic range of plains bison. It has no bison, despite decades of efforts to promote restoration. It is the most obvious federal opportunity to establish a “large, wide-ranging bison herd subject to the forces of natural selection, where their role as ecosystem engineers shapes healthy and diverse ecological communities (Section 3,f; appendix to 4310). The Refuge Improvement Act (1997) provides a clear mandate for this important goal. Tribal co-management may be illegal and would threaten the necessity to minimize artificial management for bison production on the CMR.

The Bison Coalition has supported a two-track approach to achieving the goals of Haaland’s bison initiative. (See NEWS, August 11 and 21, 2021, this website.) We should support Tribal bison for Tribal needs on Tribal lands; but the critical status of federal bison, with but 2 large herds to save wild bison genomes, and Congressional mandates for the Park Service and for Federal Refuges, dictate a separate management track focused on bison wildness.

(Possible introduction of wild bison on BLM or Forest Service lands, likely under state management, is not addressed here. It will be politically difficult; but could occur based on Tribal political support. The subject of Tribal co-management of such bison on federal multiple-use lands is beyond the scope of these comments. Any devil would be in the details to be negotiated.)

Montana Senate Opposes Bison for the CMRussell Refuge

 

 By a vote of 34-16, the Montana Senate has passed Joint Resolution 14, opposing bison introduction at the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. The resolution has been transmitted to the House of Representatives. (see more at leg.mt.gov)

The Resolution notes that the Federal Fish & Wildlife Service has identified the CMR Refuge as a potential location to restore public trust bison. (FWS has contacted potential stakeholders re this possibility. However, this Resolution was written before Department of Interior Secretary Haaland released Order 3410 with general details of a new DOI Initiative for bison restoration. Order 3410 does not mention any Refuge by name.)

The Resolution states that Montana has supremacy for wildlife management, even on federal lands including Refuges; and suggests that unilateral bison introduction by FWS would violate the U. S. Constitution. However, a review of this issue (Nie et al. 2017) debunks this states-rights position.

The Resolution asserts that bison restoration on the Refuge would jeopardize critical grazing land. There is very little, and infrequent livestock grazing on the Refuge. Very much of the surrounding grazing land is federal, Bureau of Land Management land, leased for a pittance. Studies have shown that bison grazing can enhance native grasslands whereas livestock grazing tends to damage the soil and flora, especially in riparian areas.

Also claimed is that bison would increase disease transmission between livestock and wildlife. We note that private commercial bison herds are abundant, with only rare transmission of disease to livestock, and more transmission from livestock to several wildlife species.

The Resolution fears for livelihoods of ranch families who may have to bear costs of unspecified “damages” caused by bison. It also mentions a potential loss of state revenue from small parcels of state land within the Refuge. We believe these issues would be minimal and can be handled in a fair manner, once FWS would prepare an impact statement for bison restoration.

The Resolution fails to note that the 2021 Montana legislature has already made bison restoration by the state impossible. Thus, FWS must act on its own to fulfill its legal mandates dating back to the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act of the federal Congress.

Thus, the Resolution proclaims the state of Montana opposes introduction of any bison on the CMR Refuge. However, three Montana polls have shown about 70% approval of bison for the CMR. The Resolution recognizes the state has a vested interest in the economic health of agriculture through disease control and promoting the much subsidized industry. No comparable interest in Montana’s biodiversity or the biotic integrity of Montana’s ecosystems, nor any ethical obligation to support any national goals are recognized.

Approval of SJ 14 by the Montana House of Representatives is expected.

Nie et al. 2017. Fish and wildlife Management on federal lands: Debunking state supremacy. Environmental Law 47:797-932.  

Western Watersheds Project Withdraws as Coalition “Supporter”

 

Western Watersheds Project (westernwatersheds.org) has requested to be withdrawn from our website list of organizations and individuals that “support our 2 goals” (see list at mtwildbison.org, under “mission” toolbar).

Staff of WWP, while they claim to support restoration of (public-trust?) wild bison on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, are concerned that readers of our media will interpret “supporters of our goals” as being members of the Coalition. We have explained the difference, however we recognize that this misinterpretation is likely. Based on this concern, WWP expects each NEWS release on the website to be pre-approved by all the supporters of our goal for bison on the CMR Refuge. Unfortunately, this is not a workable solution.

WWP objected to our request, in a Bozeman Chronicle ad, for members of seven environmental groups to lobby these organizations to increase, through their media, public awareness of the dismal 85-year old history of ignored recommendations to restore public-trust wild bison on the CMR Refuge. While the Montana legislature has rejected any wild bison restoration, the national public is very much unaware of the Congressional mandates that require bison restoration on the CMR national refuge, but remain unfulfilled. Worse, many media reports praise current expansion of small, intensively managed bison herds; while there is little public understanding or awareness of the threat of domestication to the future of wild bison genomes.

Recent public, but limited, activity of the Fish & Wildlife Service suggest some current federal interest in restoring wild bison on the CMR. Widespread public support, outside Montana, for this inkling is critically needed. Otherwise, the largest federal refuge within the historic range of plains bison will lack an important part of its biotic integrity for still more years!

Center for Biological Diversity: “We are unable to oppose bison domestication.”

 

In an e-mail to one of our supporters, the Center for Biological Diversity refused to support restoration of a public, wild bison herd on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Unfortunately, CBD is not alone. All the major national environmental organizations are likewise ignoring this issue.

Referring to itself as “a relatively modest sized group”, CBD states, “We don’t have staff on hand who could properly engage in bison restoration.” (CBD’s website lists a staff of 177 members.)

It was not clear if CBD recognizes bison restoration as only a Montana issue involving only numbers, not quality, of animals. Their message did not refer to the national problem of bison domestication.

Admittedly, CBD has a huge task. The number of imperiled species is immense and accelerating. Yet, bison should not remain at the bottom of that list.

CBD works largely with the Endangered Species Act which is focused mostly on numbers of animals. In contrast, the problem of domesticating plains bison, and of no wild bison on the largest federal refuge within the historic range of the species, is largely addressed in the Refuge Improvement Act where quality as well as quantity of animals is addressed. Taking on the Fish & Wildlife Service for ignoring Congress’ mandates in the Refuge Act would be a new challenge for CBD. Perhaps it is a challenge they cannot imagine?

The general American public does not recognize domestication as an endangered species issue. They see only an abundance of bison in private, commercial, Tribal and mostly small “conservation” herds. But we expect more from major environmental organizations that emphasize wildlife, including CBD. These “big green” organizations have a duty to educate their constituents.

All it takes for the complete domestication of plains bison is for (hopefully) aware organizations to do nothing.

Long-term Study: Bison Facilitate Persistent and Resilient Increases in Grassland Plant Diversity

 

A 29-year study of year-round bison grazing¹ has demonstrated the value of this keystone species in restoring vegetative diversity in a Kansas Flint Hills tallgrass prairie. The study was conducted on the Konza Prairie Biological Station, administered by Kansas State University. Year-round bison grazing was compared to no grazing and to the common practice of seasonal cattle grazing.

Ungrazed plots were dominated by a few grass species, with minimal diversity of other species. Plant species diversity increased with both grazing treatments, especially for forbs (non-grass species). However, with bison grazing, the steady 29-year increase in native plant species was about twice that observed with cattle grazing. Many of the increasing species have been relatively rare and targeted for conservation in Kansas. Nonnative plant species remained uncommon. Bison-grazed communities now include a set of plant species that are nearly absent in the ungrazed and cattle-grazed treatments. Moreover, year-round bison grazing promoted plant communities that were resilient to a 2-year extreme drought.

In this study, the bison pasture was 3.8 square miles, where about 275 bison had free range. The pasture grassland contained a dynamic mosaic of fire frequencies. Our Coalition recommends at least 1000 bison on 100 square miles for rewilding bison and their associated biotic community. Under our recommendation, we expect the response of a plant community to bison restoration will be at least as diverse as in the Kansas study.

This study demonstrates, uniquely with long-term data, a need to reestablish public, wild bison on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, as mandated by Congress, to restore the overall biological integrity of the Refuge.

¹Ratajczak, Z. et al. 2022. Reintroducing bison results in long-running and resilient increases in grassland diversity. Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences 119(36):1-7.

See also, Olson, W. and J. Janelle. 2022. The Ecological Buffalo: On the Trail of a Keystone Species – reviewed here in an earlier News item.

Recognizing the Threat of Bison Domestication: 75 Years Ago

 

Elsewhere, we have noted historic recommendations to restore public, wild bison in Montana – from Hornaday in 1910 and Murie in 1937. To these, we add a 75-year old recommendation using the ominous “D” word!

In 1947, Victor Cahalane published “Mammals of North America” (Macmillan Co., NY), with general descriptions of 94 “species”. He devoted 11 pages to American buffalo. On page 74 we find:

“A big national monument should be established in the Great Plains area where a moderate sized herd could live under primitive conditions, together with other plains species. This would ensure the perpetuation of the animals as a wild species, free from the danger of domestication.”

Our cause is far from novel. It has persisted, but not yet prevailed. The Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge is, by far, today’s best location to fulfill Cahalane’s recommendation.

Please see a new website article on the diversity of bison management practices that weaken natural selection and hasten domestication. Click on the “Why Wildness” toolbar.  

Negligible Threat of CMR Bison Restoration to Nearby Landowners

 

 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.  

“Eco-cultural Restoration” of Bison: A Euphemism Disguising Incompatible Goals

 

 

“Eco-cultural restoration” has been suggested for returning plains bison to the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge in Montana. The term can be a slogan for proposed co-management of a Refuge bison herd by an Intertribal Council with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Such attractive slogans can develop public support without revealing conflicts inherent in the proposal.

We interpret ecological restoration of bison as fulfilling the mandates of the Refuge Improvement Act (1997) to restore biodiversity and biological integrity of the Refuge’s biotic community. More, we consider this mandate to be a restoration of “wildness”. Wildness is the opposite, in a continuum, from domestication. Here, wildness includes bison and their genome, and their relationships with their surrounding biota.

Cultural restoration refers to bison management focused on needs and goals of Tribal nations. Tribes would influence to what extent such needs and goals would be emphasized in co-management on the Refuge. However, recent history indicates that nutrition and economic benefits are overriding needs of the Tribes. A current publication (Shamon et al. 2022) concurs and suggests that management practices for wildness and for Tribal needs are not mutually exclusive and can be merged on federal lands.

However, restoring and maintaining wildness of a bison herd requires maximizing natural selection (to the extent practicable, a standard in the Refuge Improvement Act). This requires minimizing genetic drift and artificial selection that weaken and replace natural selection. Minimizing genetic drift requires a large herd. Minimizing artificial selection requires foregoing most management activities that increase annual production of animals. (Only human harvest of bison facilitates both production and natural selection. Human predation has been a major selective force in the evolution of the modern bison species, as discussed elsewhere on this website.)

Across existing Tribal bison herds, numerous management interventions constitute artificial selection. These are: much constrained bison mobility on monotonous ranges; pasture rotations; frequent capture and handling; selective culling; a skewed herd sex/age structure; forced weaning, frequent or emergency feeding; vaccinations and other disease management; lack or control of predators; and maintaining a stable herd at only a moderate ecological density. These diminish restoration and maintenance of wildness, for both the bison genome and its associated biota.

Co-management of federal bison is a false panacea. Efforts to enhance overriding Tribal goals will diminish achievement of “ecological” goals, as interpreted here. Efforts to achieve ecological goals will diminish attainment of important Tribal goals.

In contrast, Tribal goals for bison should be maximized on numerous Tribal lands; whereas biological diversity and integrity – wildness – is reliably mandated only on National Parks and Federal Refuges. Currently, there are only 13 such federal bison herds, and only 2 of these have at least 1000 animals to effectively limit genetic drift. The few opportunities to achieve these mandates on federal lands should not be compromised.

Shamon et al. The potential of bison restoration as an ecological approach to future Tribal food sovereignty on the northern Great Plains. Frontiers in Ecology & Evolution. 28 January 2022. 

 

 

Interior Department’s Bison Conservation Initiative May Accept Defeat Redefining “Wildness”

 This decade of the 2020’s, with a focus on endangered species, has brought what environmentalists describe as a “war on wildlife”. Centered in this war are two Department of Interior agencies, the Park Service and the Fish & Wildlife Service. The battles are politically difficult. Rather than lamenting defeat, and informing Americans of our continuing demise, the Department of Interior may simply redefine “victory”.

The Park Service is mandated to save ecosystems and species “unimpaired”. The federal Refuge System is mandated to preserve biodiversity and biological integrity on refuge lands. These mandates were generated by an American interest and passion for “wildness”.

But as our human population grows, requiring occupation and conversion of ever-more landscape, many components of the natural world either disappear or adapt to and become dependent upon domesticated environments. Wilderness and wildlife are disappearing. In public dialogue, failing to reveal and emphasize this trend fosters public indifference, allowing an ever-faster demise of natural resources.

We define “wild” as one extreme in a continuum from the other extreme of domestication. Wildness requires a preponderance of natural selection over the forces of artificial selection and genetic drift. As preponderance of natural selection declines, wildness is lost by degrees. “Wild” is a qualitative, not absolute, condition. The decline of wildness is a gradual, insidious process.

In its Bison Conservation Initiative, the Department of Interior commits to maintaining the wild character of bison, allowing forces of natural selection to operate – to the extent possible. But a recent Department release (Foundations for Recognizing Bison as Wildlife) emphasizes that “not all forces of natural selection” are necessary for bison wildness. It provides little discussion of how human-caused artificial selection and genetic drift diminish and replace natural selection, of the many management practices that comprise artificial selection, that loss of natural selection leads to domestication of the species, or that possibilities for natural selection are “impossible” only because of economic or political constraints. A commitment to maximizing biological wildness, to the extent practicable, is not emphasized. Gradual depletion of wildness is not recognized. The Foundations document allows federal bison managers to rationalize and accept artificially maintained bison as “wild”.

The Foundations document implies that what is politically possible in preserving wildness is “good enough”. We see too many non-government conservation organizations embracing this idea. The public, often unwittingly, gives government agencies mandates while also providing little decision-space for their fulfillment. The legacy of wildness to future generations is at stake.   

Article Recognizes Limitations of Tribal Herds for Rewilding Bison

 

 

A January article in Frontiers of Ecology and Evolution (cited below) reviews the potential of bison restoration for Tribal food sovereignty on the Northern Great Plains. Authored by Hila Shamon of the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, the article has 30 co-authors representing numerous Native American Tribes and three major public conservation organizations (Defenders of Wildlife, Wildlife Conservation Society, World Wildlife Fund).

Diverse values of Tribal bison herds are emphasized: nutritional, economic/commercial, spiritual/cultural/educational values, and the ability of bison herds to ecologically restore native ecosystems on the Plains. These values are emphasized due to overriding and vital needs for nutritional and economic benefits to Tribal communities.

Authors barely, and indirectly, recognize the ongoing domestication and genetic deterioration of wild plains bison.

Moreover, the article injects a semantic complication into the social/political issue of bison domestication vs. recovery of wildness. We have always defined “rewilding” as a condition in which the genome-effects of natural selection are predominant over combined effects of human-caused artificial selection and genetic drift. This article defines this condition as “true restoration”. It defines “rewilding” as an imperfect version of true restoration: “the reorganization and redevelopment of the species and its ecosystem under new environmental conditions”. This justifies the continuing domestication of American plains bison, branding it with a misleading euphemism.

The article offers three Tribal herds in Montana and one in South Dakota as examples in which “overarching goals are to enhance the cultural, economic and ecological health of the Tribes and their lands”. Presented data on sizes of herds and “pastures”, and other management practices, demonstrate the contribution of these herds to plains bison domestication.

We do not criticize Tribal emphasis on nutritional, economic and cultural values in their bison management and agree these are overriding needs. They are exacerbated by limits of available Tribal lands, intermingling of non-Tribal lands within reservations, and by social aspects of competition from Tribal cattle operations on reservations.

Looking to the future, the article suggests allowing bison on large federal lands under Tribal/federal co-management. It is stated that rewilding and Tribal economic/nutritional/cultural benefits from bison “are not mutually exclusive”, implying that each can be produced to a satisfactory degree within one large herd. We disagree and have suggested that wildness, forestalling domestication of bison, will only be adequately maintained in a few large National Parks and Refuges suitable for large bison herds, according to the mandated missions of these agencies. The future of these bison and Tribal bison should proceed on different parallel tracks.

While the article describes Tribal efforts as “leading the way” in overall bison restoration, it clearly demonstrates that restoring wildness of bison and of their grassland ecosystem is not occurring in Tribal herds – and makes the contention that this wildness can be achieved with Tribal/government co-management on federal lands dubious.

Lasting political constraints, generated by the livestock industry and involving perceived states’ rights, prevent the wider USA population from counteracting domestication of plains bison and their habitats. The continued success of this political opposition to bison restoration on federal lands depends a great deal on the indifference of major non-government conservation organizations, including those co-authoring this article.

It is past time for major non-government conservation organizations to work both sides of the bison conservation fence!

Shamon, H. et al. 2022. The Potential of Bison Restoration as an Ecological Approach to Future Tribal Food Sovereignty on the Northern Great Plains. frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2022.826282/full

 

 

“The Ecological Buffalo”: To be Available in July!

 

 

 

We have been anticipating publication of “The Ecological Buffalo” by Wes Olson and Johane Janelle. The University of Regina Press has released a pre-publication announcement and sale, expecting shipment on July 9 (much delayed by COVID-caused shortages of paper and ink).

Wes Olson, now retired, has worked with and managed bison in Canada for 35 years. Johane Janelle provides stunning full-color photographs. UR Press describes the paperback book: “An expert on the buffalo tells the history of this keystone species through extensive research and beautiful photographs – a story that takes the reader on a journey to understand the myriad connections this keystone species has with the Great Plains.” The intricacy of relationships bison once had with thousands of species is the subject of this book.

This important work will inform and help justify efforts to restore public, wild bison herds to the Great Plains, including on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. In the USA, the Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act directs the Fish & Wildlife Service to restore, to the extent practicable, the biological integrities of wildlife and their ecosystems on our federal refuges. However, “biological integrity” is a term easily passed over by all but the most informed readers. We believe Olson’s book will, with numerous examples, demonstrate that the biological integrity of ecosystems of the Russell Refuge cannot be restored without bison. With occasional wildfire, bison were once the most important “managers” of what is now the Russell Refuge, including its native plants and other wildlife.

The Ecological Buffalo is a must-have reference for individuals and organizations that promote restoration of truly wild bison as a keystone species in some historic plains bison habitats.

We’ve ordered our copy of The Ecological Buffalo. Cost, including shipping is $51 Canadian dollars. To see more, visit uofrpress.ca/Books/T/The-Ecological-Buffalo.

Fish & Wildlife Service Manual Requires Federal Restoration of Biological Diversity and Biological Integrity on Charles M. Russell Refuge

 

 

In previous Coalition News items, going back at least 9 months, we have noted that restoration of public-trust, wild bison on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge has been mandated, supported and confirmed by Congress in the Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act (1997), by the Department of Interior’s 2008 Bison Conservation Initiative (recommitted in 2012), and by goals of the Refuge Conservation Plan (2012). Here, we add the Fish & Wildlife Service Manual (2008) as a source for these clear commitments.

The FWS Manual summarizes policy, and guides employees in the management of resources under Service supervision. Appropriate sections are based largely upon mandates of Congress in the Refuge Improvement Act. The Act mandates maintaining and restoring, where appropriate, the biological integrity and diversity of the federal Refuge System.

The Manual defines biological diversity as the variety of life and its processes, including genetic differences and the ecosystems in which they occur. It defines biological integrity as the composition, structure and functioning, at genetic, organism and community levels, comparable with historic conditions, including the natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms and communities.

These mandates cannot be fulfilled on the CMR Refuge without restoring a large population of bison, as a keystone species managed for wildness and influencing habitats for other plants and animals over a large and diverse landscape. Despite persisting opposition to bison restoration in Montana, the Service has never claimed that such restoration is “not appropriate”.

The Manual states “biological diversity and integrity are critical components of wildlife conservation” and “We will restore lost or severely degraded elements of integrity and diversity at the refuge scale.” Despite these mandates and repeated commitments, the Service has been waiting many decades for the state of Montana to reintroduce public bison on the CMR Refuge.

That said, the Manual states that the Service will coordinate with the state wildlife agency in a timely and effective manner and will ensure that federal management plans are, to the extent practicable, consistent with state laws. Clearly, Refuge coordination with Montana on restoring bison to the CMR has not produced timely or effective results. Moreover, any such restoration of bison cannot be consistent with recent state laws and therefore could not be practicable.

It is time for the Fish & Wildlife Service to proceed, without Montana’s blessing, with restoration of bison on the CMR Refuge -- obeying Congressional mandates and fulfilling the Service’s stated commitments. No doubt, the current Montana administration would appeal to the courts. But past courts have established a federal prerogative over management of resources on designated federal lands (Nie et. al 1917), and the Refuge Improvement Act should supersede state laws.

For many years, federal natural resource agencies have ceded most of their management authority and obligations for wildlife population management on federal lands to the states, even to the extent of ignoring Congressional mandates. Restoring bison to the CMR Refuge is a clear and extreme case and deserves bold action that would result in a landmark court decision. The legal door to bison on the CMR is open; only a closed political door prevents federal action to fulfill federal mandates and, so far, empty written commitments of the Fish & Wildlife Service.

Nie, M., C. Barns, J. Haber, J. Joly, K. Pitt and S. Zellmer. 2017. Fish and wildlife management of federal lands: Debunking state supremacy. Environmental Law 47 (4): 1-126.