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.

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.

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.  

Alaskans: On Indigenous Beliefs and Wilderness – Focus on Common Elements, not Differences

 

Artwork by Linsday Carron

 

A recent article from the Rewilding Institute, authored by a former U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service biologist and two Native Alaskans, cautions us not to focus on differences between traditional Indigenous beliefs and the “modern” wilderness concept. Rather, with the huge environmental threats that we all face, we should recognize what they have in common.

Roger Kaye worked for the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service in Alaska for 41 years, as Native liaison and wilderness coordinator. He notes that early Indigenous people had no concept of wilderness, but neither did EuroAmericans before they were exposed to environmental degradations that led to developing the wilderness ethic. He cites the notion that “Wilderness” implies such pristine conditions that it fails to recognize the presence of Indigenous peoples on the prehistoric landscape - as an unfortunate misunderstanding. The notion is currently common within major environmental organizations, often justifying their diminished emphasis on Wilderness, replaced by support for “working landscapes”.

Kaye cites the Wilderness Act: “a place where man is [currently] a visitor and does not remain”, a place that appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature. He states the idea of Wilderness was a reaction against environmental threats of the industrial age. “It was certainly not at variance with the Indigenous people or their sustainable lifeways.”

Polly Napiryuk Andrews is Cup’ik Eskimo, working for the SouthCentral Native Foundation. She says “Too often we focus” on differences between the traditional world view and the Wilderness concept, “whereas commonality is what’s important”. She finds Indigenous traditional ways of expressing the relationships upon which our mutual well-being depends are reflected in early justifications of the Wilderness Act, recognizing dependence and interdependence, indebtedness, and responsibility.

Bernadette Dimientieff is Gwitch’in Athabaskan, pursuing protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and environmental justice. Her people have a spiritual and cultural connection with caribou that need the Refuge as a birthing ground. She states, “More than any other land category or management system, Wilderness recognizes our way of relating to the land and the Earth. The Wilderness idea that humans are part of a larger ‘community of life’ has been known to my people for millennia. We can live as respectful, interdependent, and low-impact members of this Earth’s community of life.”

The message of these Alaskans, to focus on commonalities rather than differences, applies to our issue of restoring wild bison to the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Our view is that restored public-trust bison should be managed, to the extent practicable, to maintain the wild plains bison genome, the underlying basis for wildness – not domestication. Management would be based on concepts of modern evolutionary genetics. This goal is supported in law and policy of the Fish & Wildlife Service.

In contrast, some Montana Tribes, backed by the National Wildlife Federation, have proposed restoration with Tribal-trust bison and an uncertain management priority for retaining wildness vs. priorities for commercial and nutritional needs of Tribes.

The Indigenous spiritual/cultural view that humans are part of a larger community of life is consistent with modern ecological thought. The view that humans and other animals are “related”, as Plains Tribes considered bison to be “brothers”, is consistent with evolutionary genetics. These common, most basic principles, generating respect based on interdependence and interrelatedness, should lead all of us to support management of CMR bison that emphasizes accepting natural selection, including allowance for great bison mobility – which is the most basic evolved trait of plains bison. There is currently no greater opportunity for achieving this goal, for all the American people, than on the CMR Refuge. Rejecting divisiveness, we all can “let bison be bison”.

 

 

 

Interior and Agriculture Departments Will Fulfill Trust Responsibility to Indian Tribes in Managing Federal Lands and Waters

 

In November, Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture and Interior released a joint order to ensure that management of resources, including National Forests, Parks and Wildlife Refuges, and Bureau of Land Management lands, protects treaty, religious, subsistence and cultural interests of Native American Tribes. The wide-ranging order mandates Tribal collaboration in management priorities and activities for millions of acres of land, waters and their resources, including wildlife.

The order mandates “collaboration in co-stewardship” of Federal lands and resources, including wildlife and wildlife habitat. Notably, “co-stewardship” is a nebulous term. However, the order recognizes that activities must be “consistent with applicable law”. Laws include Congressionally mandated mission statements for agencies and for individual federal land holdings. Proceeding with some caution, the White House has ordered a legal review of land, water and wildlife treaty responsibilities, and a guidance document on the co-use of indigenous traditional ecological knowledge with science. These are to be completed within one year.

These directives could shape any action on the Coalition’s goal to restore public-trust, wild bison on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge (CMR), which is already in an uncertain legal-political quandary. Questions that must be addressed include:

Are states’ rights subservient to federal Tribal treaty obligations that are older than statehood? States claim primary authority to manage most of their wildlife, especially hunting, even on federal land. While federal agencies have superior rights on federal lands, the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) almost always yields to the state assertion. Might FWS use treaty obligations to justify restoring bison on the CMR and eventually to conduct federal hunting seasons, both without the state’s blessing?

What would co-stewardship of a CMR wild bison herd look like? How will Tribes be represented and how will the rest of the general American public be represented. What, if any, priorities will be given to Tribal proposals?

To what degree can Tribal aspirations for bison be fulfilled while prioritizing the general American public and maintaining the genetic and ecological integrities of wild bison, as required in applicable law?

To what degree, must treaty, religious, subsistence and cultural interests of Tribes be fulfilled by CMR bison? Are these interests more properly fulfilled on multiple-use lands than on Refuge lands congressionally dedicated for natural ecosystems and wildlife?

National Wildlife Federation Report Promotes “Intertribal Bison Herd” on Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge

 

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. 

 

 

Open Letter to 2021 Montana Legislature

 

Thank you for your service in the Montana legislature. The 2021 legislative session will be unusually challenging, likely with COVID restrictions, and with many complex budget issues.

However, we are contacting you regarding an issue that is expected to receive less time and attention, yet has a degree of urgency. We expect one or more bills that may enhance, diminish, or even eliminate any future for restoring public trust, wild bison in our state. Past legislatures have produced some anti-bison bills that have required governors’ vetoes. Such bills may again be introduced.

In contrast, the Montana Constitution (Article IX) directs the legislature to provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion of natural resources; to provide for restoration of historic, cultural and recreational objects for their use by the people; and to forever preserve the opportunity of individual citizens to harvest wild game animals. A recent legislature responded to these mandates by enacting MCA 87-1-216 with guidelines for restoring bison while protecting private property rights. Then, in an 11-year-long process with abundant public input, Fish, Wildlife & Parks released a programmatic environmental impact statement, concluding that management issues of bison restoration can be successfully addressed at a landscape scale. This EIS requested the public to submit site-specific proposals for bison restoration.

The Montana Wild Bison Restoration Coalition has submitted a proposal for a test restoration that would grow to 400 animals within the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Three polls indicated that 70 percent of Montana voters favor this option. It is intended to have no negative effects on the Montana ranching industry. See our proposal elsewhere on this website.

In the 2019 legislature, bison restoration was a divisive partisan issue. This limited objective discussion and consideration of wild-bison opportunities for Montanans. It avoided misconceptions surrounding bison, and perpetuated a lack of awareness of MCA 87-1-216. In 2021, we encourage you to reject a divisive partisan approach and to encourage full and objective discussion of bison restoration among both legislators and the public.

 

Thank you,

Jim Bailey, Montana Wild Bison Restoration Coalition

 

Montana Politics Threaten any Future for Public, Wild Bison

Primary elections are over. Now, we move toward November elections that will finalize members of the Montana legislature to meet early in 2021. It will be a critical year, determining any future for restoring public-trust, wild bison in our state, particularly on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. The 2021 legislature could extinguish any possibility for public, wild bison in Montana, with little public awareness or input. With all the important competing political issues currently facing the state and nation, the issue of a bison future may be determined with little public understanding and attention. It is therefore imperative that we begin now to stimulate public discussion of the many issues, including truths and myths, surrounding bison restoration.

We have recently sent letters to each candidate for the Montana House of Representatives and Senate, requesting them to consider the issue of bison restoration and to promote public awareness and discussion. We noted the following justifications for restoring public, wild bison within the CMR Refuge:

The Montana Constitution mandates preventing unreasonable degradation of a natural resource, restoring historic, cultural and recreational objects for use and enjoyment by the people, and preserving the opportunity to harvest wild game. These mandates must include wild bison.

The national goal to restore and maintain genetically diverse plains bison is severely constrained by not allowing bison on the CMR Refuge, the largest federal refuge within the historic range of plains bison. Moreover, the Refuge goal of restoring natural biological processes cannot be fulfilled without bison restoration. The Refuge plan welcomes the opportunity to work with Montana in developing a plan and analysis for restoring wild bison on the Refuge.

Polls have shown that 70 percent of Montana voters support restoration of bison on the CMR Refuge.

Legislative guidelines protect and indemnify private property and resources in any bison restoration project.

There is a very large, unmet demand for hunting and harvesting bison in Montana. (There were over 18,000 applications to harvest a bison near Yellowstone Park in 2019.)

Restoring a public-trust, wild bison herd within the CMR Refuge can enhance and diversify economic opportunities in and near Phillips County.

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, with many years of diverse public outreach and inputs, concluded in a Record of Decision that bison management issues can be successfully addressed at a landscape scale and therefore solicited site-specific proposals from Montana citizens.

We encourage our readers to challenge their political candidates to address these issues in their election campaigns and in developing platforms for November. An important part of our wildlife heritage depends upon it. 

Jim Bailey