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

Coalition Promotes Two Equal Tracks for Interior Department Bison 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Montana Senate Opposes Bison for the CMRussell Refuge

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Western Watersheds Project Withdraws as Coalition “Supporter”

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recognizing the Threat of Bison Domestication: 75 Years Ago

 

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

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

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

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

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

Negligible Threat of CMR Bison Restoration to Nearby Landowners

 

 There is much, especially local, concern about possible negative impacts if public bison are reintroduced on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Predictions of region-wide negative impacts have been exaggerated as indicated by the lack of problems generating from about 800 livestock bison already on the American Prairie Reserve.

Nearby landowners would be most threatened by possible negative impacts from bison on the CMR. Rightfully, they are concerned. Discussion of proposals for public bison on the CMR must include an evaluation of the magnitude of risks and a realistic evaluation of costs and complications that could occur in preventing, or compensating for, any negative impacts to local landowners.

Here, we present data on the amount of private land near the CMR boundary for one possible test introduction of bison on the Refuge.

A test reintroduction of bison on the Refuge has been proposed in the past. However, much more than a “token” herd of display animals is necessary to evaluate the ability of the Fish & Wildlife Service to manage a large, mobile bison herd, in a manner respecting adjacent landowners.

We have chosen to evaluate an area with minimal northern boundary in private land, other than bison-friendly American Prairie, and with a southern boundary of Fort Peck Reservoir which bison may be reluctant to cross. This area extends from Beauchamp Creek in T21N, R28E, eastward about 31 miles to the Phillips County line in T22N, R33E. It is centered on the UL Bend. Its zig-zag boundary would require about 42 miles of fence, with the Reservoir as a south boundary. There would be about 190 square miles of diverse bison habitat, allowing mobile bison to strategically use and retain their natural habitat preferences.

Only 2 parcels of non-APR private land abut this boundary. One of these is a point in 22N 30E where land corners connect. The other in 23N 33E is a quarter-mile long.

We estimated the amount of land in 5 ownership categories within all square-mile sections abuting this refuge boundary. Of about 41 square miles abuting the Refuge, we estimated 6 square miles (15%) of state land, 3 square miles of American Prairie (8%), 2.5 square miles of other private land (6%) and 29 square miles of public, BLM land (71%). About half of the BLM land (14 square miles, 48%) is associated with APR deeded land; with 15 square miles, 52% associated with other private property.

Thus, for this proposed restoration site, there are only 17.5 square miles of private, non-APR, land and BLM land associated with such private land, within about a mile of the proposed boundary. The number of different landowners and BLM allotment permittees involved may be about 5.

Several years ago, opposition to restoring public-trust, wild bison in Montana began with fear-promoting images of brucellosis-laden bison, free-ranging like other wildlife. Since then, the Montana legislature required that such bison must be contained and may not be allowed on any land where they are not accepted. It has also become clear that the threat of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle was greatly overstated. Then, in 2021, new laws precluded any bison transplants by the state. Now, the Fish & Wildlife Service must unilaterally reintroduce public bison on the Refuge in order to fulfill a Congressional mandate for biological diversity and integrity of Refuge resources. Clearly, the early arguments against Montana bison restoration would not apply to such federal action.

Perceived negative impacts, from restoring public-trust wild bison on the CMR Refuge, to region-wide landowners in eastern Montana should not be exaggerated. Current law, experience with APR bison, and lack of evidence of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle indicate that impacts are unlikely. Moreover, geographic data indicate that the number of landowners that could possibly need special protection or compensation is small.