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Western Watersheds Project (westernwatersheds.org) has requested to be withdrawn from our website list of organizations and individuals that “support our 2 goals” (see list at mtwildbison.org, under “mission” toolbar).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

“Eco-cultural Restoration” of Bison: A Euphemism Disguising Incompatible Goals

 

 

“Eco-cultural restoration” has been suggested for returning plains bison to the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge in Montana. The term can be a slogan for proposed co-management of a Refuge bison herd by an Intertribal Council with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Such attractive slogans can develop public support without revealing conflicts inherent in the proposal.

We interpret ecological restoration of bison as fulfilling the mandates of the Refuge Improvement Act (1997) to restore biodiversity and biological integrity of the Refuge’s biotic community. More, we consider this mandate to be a restoration of “wildness”. Wildness is the opposite, in a continuum, from domestication. Here, wildness includes bison and their genome, and their relationships with their surrounding biota.

Cultural restoration refers to bison management focused on needs and goals of Tribal nations. Tribes would influence to what extent such needs and goals would be emphasized in co-management on the Refuge. However, recent history indicates that nutrition and economic benefits are overriding needs of the Tribes. A current publication (Shamon et al. 2022) concurs and suggests that management practices for wildness and for Tribal needs are not mutually exclusive and can be merged on federal lands.

However, restoring and maintaining wildness of a bison herd requires maximizing natural selection (to the extent practicable, a standard in the Refuge Improvement Act). This requires minimizing genetic drift and artificial selection that weaken and replace natural selection. Minimizing genetic drift requires a large herd. Minimizing artificial selection requires foregoing most management activities that increase annual production of animals. (Only human harvest of bison facilitates both production and natural selection. Human predation has been a major selective force in the evolution of the modern bison species, as discussed elsewhere on this website.)

Across existing Tribal bison herds, numerous management interventions constitute artificial selection. These are: much constrained bison mobility on monotonous ranges; pasture rotations; frequent capture and handling; selective culling; a skewed herd sex/age structure; forced weaning, frequent or emergency feeding; vaccinations and other disease management; lack or control of predators; and maintaining a stable herd at only a moderate ecological density. These diminish restoration and maintenance of wildness, for both the bison genome and its associated biota.

Co-management of federal bison is a false panacea. Efforts to enhance overriding Tribal goals will diminish achievement of “ecological” goals, as interpreted here. Efforts to achieve ecological goals will diminish attainment of important Tribal goals.

In contrast, Tribal goals for bison should be maximized on numerous Tribal lands; whereas biological diversity and integrity – wildness – is reliably mandated only on National Parks and Federal Refuges. Currently, there are only 13 such federal bison herds, and only 2 of these have at least 1000 animals to effectively limit genetic drift. The few opportunities to achieve these mandates on federal lands should not be compromised.

Shamon et al. The potential of bison restoration as an ecological approach to future Tribal food sovereignty on the northern Great Plains. Frontiers in Ecology & Evolution. 28 January 2022. 

 

 

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.