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. 

 

 

MONTANA REJECTS WILD BISON

 

 

In recent weeks, Montana – its legislature and governor – ignored majority public opinion and rejected any state participation in a bison restoration project within the state. Two bills signed by Governor Gianforte essentially make the rejection permanent, so long as they remain state law. Doubling down on the legislative position, Gianforte produced a pandering agreement with United Property Owners of Montana, scrapping 12 years of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, and public, efforts to produce an environment impact statement that merely concluded that bison restoration in Montana is still possible. Gianforte voided the impact statement and its Record of Decision and committed Montana not to restart an effort toward bison restoration for 10 years. More, it appears that his administration has removed the bison management page from the Fish, Wildlife & Parks website.

HB 318 redefined “wild bison” in a manner that disqualifies all possible bison for use in a transplant necessary to reestablish a bison herd. HB 302 requires approval of the local county commission for any such transplant, an action that is improbable in the foreseeable future.

Essentially, two challenging options remain for restoring wild bison on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Both require the federal government and its Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) to recognize the century-long obstinacy of Montana toward bison restoration and therefore to exercise federal supremacy in fulfilling federal statutory obligations on the Refuge. Gianforte has already suggested that such a move would violate states’ rights. But the courts have been clear in such cases. Federal law preempts state law when state cooperation and coordination has not been forthcoming, preventing federal lands and resources from being managed in the national interest. That said, federal agencies have used this authority sparingly.

Should the FWS decide to restore wild bison on the Refuge, two options are apparent. It may accept a Native American proposal for Tribal-trust bison, under Tribal management, on the Refuge. (See this option in the 29 April News.) Or, FWS may opt to restore public-trust bison, under FWS management, with equal consultations, coordination and benefits for all publics, including the Tribes.

In recent years, actions and inactions of major conservation organizations have indicated preferences for Tribal-trust bison on the federal Refuge. However, it seems they have not publicly addressed and analyzed the options for their members, nor polled them, on this issue. The Montana Wild Bison Restoration Coalition believes the majority of Montanans, and of all Americans, prefers public-trust, wild bison on the CMR Refuge. Important, precedent-setting decisions, hopefully with broad public awareness and discussion, are ahead.

 

Fish & Wildlife Service Considers Restoring Bison on CMR Refuge

 William Hornaday proposed a wildlife reserve where bison could
be restored along the Missouri River in 1910

 

In a recent release, the Associated Press cites an Interior Department statement that the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service plans to launch a “multiple-year” process to “engage Tribes and stakeholders” to consider restoring bison on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. The process, likely an environmental impact statement or an environmental analysis tiered to the current CMR Refuge plan/EIS, is expected to begin in July.

Almost immediately after the AP announcement, Montana Governor Gianforte was quoted as saying the plan “raises questions about federal intrusion into state wildlife issues.” Currently, there are no public-trust, wild bison year-round in Montana, where restoration of bison has been opposed for many decades. Recently, the 2021 Montana legislature passed two bills that would render bison restoration in the state impossible. One of these, already signed by Gianforte, provides any county commission with power to veto any bison transplant within a county, even on a federal refuge. Moreover, the Gianforte administration has attempted to commit Montana to not consider bison restoration for at least 10 years.

Under the National Refuge System Administration and Improvement Acts, the FWS is required to ensure the biological integrity and diversity of refuge resources to benefit all Americans. Restoration of species is encouraged “where appropriate”. In this, the FWS must “coordinate, interact and cooperate with state wildlife agencies. But, when state obstinacy and actions conflict with federal statutory obligations, courts have recognized a preeminent federal role.

In response to state opposition to bison restoration, Montana Native American Tribes have suggested placing Tribal bison on the CMR Refuge, under Tribal management to benefit Native Americans.

Although the details are yet unclear, the FWS intention to proceed toward restoring bison as a keystone species on the CMR Refuge is encouraging. However, the Montana Wild Bison Coalition opposes using Tribal bison and management as a solution to state opposition against bison on the CMR. FWS and Secretary of Interior Haaland have an obligation to restore diversity and integrity of biological resources on the Refuge for all American citizens - the many, not the few.

 

Montana Tribes Want Tribal Bison on CMR Refuge

 

  

 

The Montana American Indian Caucus (Native American legislators) has recently petitioned Department of Interior Secretary Haaland to initiate planning for restoring a large herd of bison “under Tribal management” on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge.

Their petition follows a similar December petition to the Biden administration from the Rocky Mountain Tribal Leaders Council. It echoes widespread Native American advocacy for increased Tribal influence over management of resources in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges.

The current petition notes that federal leadership is necessary due to recent actions by the Montana legislature and by Governor Gianforte to prevent any restoration of public-trust wild bison in our state. It advocates planning by a CMR working group consisting of Tribal representatives and federal managers. Notably, no non-Native American citizens would be represented until options have been developed for a decision under an environmental impact statement. A bison herd “that is cooperatively managed by several tribes” is envisioned.

In Montana, there are hundreds of bison on six Tribal reservations. These are tribal-trust bison managed to benefit Tribal members. Appropriately, cultural, spiritual, commercial and nutritional values have been emphasized. Now, the Montana American Indian Caucus requests “one of the largest bison herds in North America” on the CMR Refuge, “managed by Tribal wildlife managers and biologists” for “cultural, spiritual and economic” values to the Tribes.

In contrast, there are no public-trust wild bison, year-round, in Montana. Public-trust bison would be managed democratically to benefit all citizens, including Native Americans. On the CMR Refuge, under the mission of the federal Refuge System and the CMR Conservation Plan, ecological and biodiversity values of a bison herd would have precedence; but the recreational and economic values of tourism and public hunting would not be neglected.

Montana American Indian Caucus members are correct. Montana legislatures and administrations have failed to fulfill public-trust responsibilities with bison restoration for many decades. Recent actions by the legislature and Governor have been the most severe and blatant expression of this betrayal of trust. Thus, sovereign federal leadership is necessary to restore bison as a keystone species on the people’s CMR Refuge.

However, not more tribal-trust bison, but Montana’s first and only public-trust bison herd is needed on the CMR to accommodate the aspirations of all Americans for maintaining a truly wild bison herd and wild prairie ecosystem in the Northern Great Plains. Secretary of Interior Haaland should be petitioned to recognize this egalitarian national responsibility. It is time to fulfill federal statutory obligations by proceeding to restore public-trust wild bison on the CMR Refuge, if necessary under federal management without support of the state government.