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.

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.  

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.  

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.   

Federal Herds Critical To Preserve Wild Bison

 

Domestication is a major threat to wildness of plains bison. To retain wild genetics, a bison herd must be influenced by a preponderance of natural selection. However, herds are also subjected to genetic drift and artificial selection that replace or weaken natural selection, fostering domestication – a simplification and disorganization of the wild genome.

Genetic drift, the random transfer of genes across generations, is significant in herds <1,000 bison. Artificial selection includes interventions such as selective culling, vaccinations, and emergency feeding, and less recognized indirect effects from maintaining an unnatural herd sex-age composition, and a stable herd size at a relatively low ecological density on a small, uniform range.

In the USA, there are about 300,000 plains bison in private, public and Tribal herds, inciting beliefs that a future for wild bison is secure. But most herds are small with significant genetic drift; and are subject to many forms of artificial selection.

With over 250,000 bison, private commercial herds of livestock bison will contribute little to retaining the wild bison genome. Native American herds (about 20,000 animals) are touted as saving wild bison; but most are managed much like livestock. Tribes have important nutritional and economic needs for their bison. Intra-tribal support for wildness of bison has been uncommon or unclear, and inconsistent. Recently, the largest Tribal herd was cut from 2,000 to 200 bison.

About 30 “conservation herds” of bison owned by the Nature Conservancy or state or local governments are mostly small and subject to much artificial selection. Among these, only the American Prairie herd in Montana has goals for several thousand bison exposed to much natural selection. But these are legally private livestock and plans for American Prairie bison have been delayed and jeopardized by political opposition based in the livestock industry.

Consequently, only 15 plains bison herds in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges are managed under reliable, legal mandates to preserve wildness. The Park Service and federal refuges are mandated to retain the genetic integrity and natural ecological relations of wild bison. However, most these herds have only 300-500 bison. Only 2 herds have at least 1000 bison. These 15 herds will not suffice, in the long term, to provide a diversity of natural selection and retain the full suite of wild characteristics imbedded in bison genomes.

This emphasizes the need to restore public, wild bison on the Charles M. Russell Wildlife Refuge. It is the largest federal refuge within the historic range of plains bison. Unsuccessful efforts to reintroduce bison in this area go back to 1910. Bold federal action is needed to develop a truly wild bison herd in this, the best available location for reestablishing wild plains bison in the USA.

 

 

 

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

 

Ancient DNA Documents Lost Bison Genetics

 Before and during the 1800s, North American plains bison barely survived a severe population bottleneck, declining from about 30 million bison spread across much of the continent to a few hundred animals saved from 5 or 6 local populations. While the remaining bison seemed to contain considerable genetic diversity, the amount of diversity lost with the bottleneck remained largely unknown.

However, a recent Park Service study, in cooperation with the University of North Dakota, suggests, not surprisingly, that abundant genetic diversity has been lost. The incomplete study has not been peer reviewed. Preliminary results are available on the Theodore Roosevelt National Park website. Non-nuclear mitochondrial DNA was analyzed from 67 extant bison and from bones of 73 bison recovered from archeological sites, representing pre- and post-bottleneck bison from across the country.

Researchers identified 43 different genetic groups of bison. Of these, only 10 were represented in today’s bison. The indicated loss of 76 percent of genetic diversity will compromise the ability of plains bison to adapt to changing environmental conditions, and to respond effectively to future disease challenges.

For the past 140 years, plains bison have been living in relatively small, genetically isolated herds. Small herds have continued to slowly lose genetic diversity through a process called genetic drift. Recently elevated awareness of this dilemma has prompted much official concern for the management, not just of bison, but of bison genetics. Maintaining the remaining genetic diversity of plains bison will require restoration of some large bison herds on large, diverse and wild landscapes.

Restoration of bison on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, a goal of our Coalition, will greatly improve the national management and preservation of plains bison genetics. This National Park Service study demonstrates the urgency of that restoration.

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