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.)

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.

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?

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.

 

 

 

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