'Bad' Bison Bills In Montana Set Back Conservation of America's Official National Mammal
Wildlife biologist, author and conservationist Jim Bailey sizes up what he calls "the full catastrophe" regarding Montana legislature's backward attitude toward bison. Will the controversial governor
Bailey writes: "Currently, there are no public-trust wild bison, year-round, in Montana. Two bills in the Montana legislature would prevent any restoration of the species, as wildlife, in the state. While touting 'protect public lands' as a smokescreen, Montana lawmakers are betraying their public trust responsibilities to manage a resource for all people. They are bulldozing a whole history of bison conservation efforts into the refuse pile of the 'once best place.'"
Opinion guest essay by Jim Bailey
Bison are the official land mammal of the United States. They are on the flag of the US Interior Department, they appear on the insignia of the National Park Service, they were featured on one side of the buffalo nickel and, in Montana, the skull of a bison, as portrayed by famous Western artist Charles M. Russell, was showcased on the Montana collectible 25-cent piece.
Bison were once the most abundant large land
mammal in the world. Their great numbers, their basis for a renowned Native
American horse culture on the Great Plains, and their demise are legendary parts
of American and Montana histories. But, two bills moving through the Montana
legislature and headed for the desk of Governor Greg Gianforte would undo years
of attempts to securely recover this iconic species, widely loved by the
American people, as a wildlife species.
The vast majority of plains bison are being domesticated in
private herds for commercial purposes. Many tribes have bison herds, managed to
fulfill important needs of Native Americans. American conservation herds in
parks and refuges are mostly small, on small ranges, and most are managed with
domesticating interventions, much like livestock. But, there are
no public-trust, wild bison year-round in Montana. (Yellowstone bison are only
seasonal visitors to Montana from most of the park encompassed by Wyoming.)
As wildlife, bison are a natural resource jointly and
cooperatively managed by state and federal legislatures and administrations
having trust obligations to benefit all the people, including future
generations.
A long history of federal and state legislation, policy and
planning, has been established to guide and constrain bison management – to
benefit and protect the people. These actions, listed below, have included
decisions under federal and state laws developed under agencies representing
over a million Montanans and over 300 million American citizens who own Montana
wildlife.
House Bill 302 would permit any county commission in
Montana to veto any publicly analyzed and examined proposal for local bison
restoration, even on federal land. House Bill 318, in narrowly redefining “wild
bison” in Montana law, would disqualify all possible plains bison for use in
restoring any population of public-trust, wild bison in the state.
Both of those bills 302 and 318 would
ignore, duplicate, violate or render meaningless the following Montana history
regarding bison restoration:
Mandates in Article IX of the
state Constitution to care for natural resources and objects of historic,
cultural and recreational value; and to preserve the opportunity to harvest
wild game.
Legislative guidelines in MCA
87-1-216, developed in response to the constitutional mandate, providing
requirements for restoring public, wild bison in Montana.
The Montana Environmental
Policy Act, MCA 75-1-103, for making difficult decisions. Abundant public
effort under MEPA could simply be vetoed and wasted, with little county
analysis or explanation.
Twelve years, (so far) of
effort and expense by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks to develop a statewide
plan for restoring at least one herd of public, wild bison in the state.
Three polls demonstrating that
70 percent of Montana voters support bison restoration on the Charles M. Russell
Refuge.
For
restoration of public-trust—getting wild bison established on the Charles M. Russell National
Wildlife Refuge—house bills 302 and 318 would ignore, preclude or render
meaningless the following federal mandates, plans and policies (again, set in bold for emphasis)
The mission statement of the
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
The mission statement of the Fish and Wildlife Service's cherished National Wildlife Refuge System.
The Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997.
The U. S. Department of
Interior's recent Bison Conservation Initiative.
The National Environmental Policy
Act, for use in decision-making.
The ability of the Russell
Refuge to achieve its overall goal of restoring natural ecosystems on the
Refuge, as stated in the Refuge Plan.
House
Bill 302 would duplicate existing requirements for notifying rural counties and
citizens of the details in any plan for restoring wild, public bison in
Montana.
Any proposal for bison restoration must be developed under
either or both the Montana and National Environmental Polcts and under MCA
87-1-216. These laws provide all citizens with detailed project analyses and
abundant opportunities to comment. Rural counties are not being discriminated
against in this public outreach.
"Domestication is the most serious threat to the future of bison as a wild species," Bailey writes. "The vast majority of North American plains bison exist in privately-owned commercial herds where they are being domesticated by replacing natural selection with human-determined selection, augmented by genetic effects of small population sizes."
For example, the current MEPA process to develop a state
plan for restoring at least one herd of public, wild bison has been ongoing for
12 years, with abundant public outreach and input, including public hearings
around the state. A preliminary review by Adams and Dood, 2011) and the current,
interim “programmatic” plan and impact statement include abundant information
on diverse issues related to bison restoration. This information, developed by
professional biologists and others, has been widely available.
Likewise, under the NEPA process, the Charles M. Russell
National Wildlife Refuge Conservation Plan was developed with public outreach
and input. Public hearings were held in 6 Montana towns and cities.
House Bill
302 would allow a local government, representing perhaps only 1000-5000
Montanans, to preclude the needs and privileges of the majority of citizens of
the state and the nation, as these needs and desires are provided for under
existing statutes.
In contrast to the small numbers of citizens in many rural
counties, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks received over 21,000 public comments
in response to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for bison
conservation and management. Also, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service received
over 23,000 public comments during scoping and over 21,000 Public comments on
the draft conservation plan for the CMR Refuge.
Again, three polls of citizens have shown that about 70 percent of Montana
voters support restoration of public-trust, wild bison on the CMR Refuge.
House
Bill 302 would duplicate existing legal requirements for protecting private
property, while restricting private and public property rights for many
citizens.
Private landowners cannot be discriminated against with
restoration of wild bison. Existing law
(MCA 87-1-216) does not permit Fish, Wildlife & Parks to allow wild bison
on any property where the landowner does not accept them. Further, this law
requires Fish, Wildlife & Parks to compensate for any damage caused by
wandering bison. Among many other requirements, it minimizes possible transfer
of disease from wild bison to livestock and requires a pre-restoration public
hearing in any affected county.
In contrast, HB 302 could prevent any landowner who would
accept wild bison from enjoying that option, limiting private property rights.
Moreover, HB 302 could prevent the majority of Americans and of Montanans from
restoring a native species, with its important ecological functions, on their
public property.
House
Bill 302 would be an imprudent precedent in negating the role of the Fish,
Wildlife & Parks Commission to determine policy for conserving and managing
state wildlife.
House Bill 318 would disqualify all possible plains bison for any transplant to restore public, wild bison in Montana.
Aside from redefining “wild bison”, HB318 amends MCA
15-24-921 to clearly exempt tribal bison from the per capita livestock fee.
Redefining wild bison is not necessary for this purpose.
Under HB 318, a wild bison: has not been reduced to
captivity; has never been owned by a person; has never been taxed as livestock;
nor is the offspring of a bison once taxed as livestock. These proposed
redefinitions of “wild bison” have no basis in biology. There is no reason why
the past ownership of a bison, or its parents, should disqualify and animal
from initiating a new, wild herd.
In particular, HB 318 at least implies that a wild bison is
one that has never been in captivity. Since the vast majority of plains bison,
including conservation herds in public ownership, are fenced-in, mostly small
herds on small ranges, and the very few unfenced herds would have to be
captured for months or years of quarantine or inspection and for transportation,
HB 318 would disqualify all possible plains bison for use in restoring a public
wild herd in Montana. No bison, anywhere, would clearly qualify to be used in restoring
bison as wildlife in Montana.
House
bills 302 and 318 would expedite gradual disorganization and domestication of
the wild bison genome.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources has concluded that large herds of bison subject to the full
range of natural limiting factors must be of pre-eminent importance to the
long-term conservation, global security and continued evolution of bison as
wildlife. The Alternative is gradual domestication of the species (Gates et al.
2010).
As large, highly mobile grazing mammals, restoration of
bison as wildlife has been difficult. In the USA, most conservation herds of
bison are small, genetically inadequate, limited to small ranges, and managed
much like livestock. Gradual deterioration of the wild bison genome is underway
in a domesticating process including loss of genetic diversity.
It is a national goal of the US Department of Interior’s
Bison Conservation Initiative to forestall this deterioration of wild bison.
This will require restoring at least one large herd on a large, diverse
landscape. Realistically, this will require a large area of all or mostly
public land where conflicts with private interests, especially livestock
production, can be minimized. For plains bison, the best option, anywhere, for
such restoration of wild bison exists on the Charles M. Russell National
Wildlife Refuge in Montana. The CMR Refuge is the largest federal refuge within
the historic range of plains bison.
Seven rural counties include some of the CMR Refuge. HB 302
would allow one county commission, representing a few thousand citizens, to
prevent achievement of global and national goals for conserving bison as a wild
species.
Observes Bailey, "The Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge in east-central Montana is the largest refuge within the historic range of plains bison. But the refuge has no bison and lacks the diverse ecological effects of this keystone species. Despite mandates in federal law and policy, the Refuge Management Plan cedes the right to restore, or not restore, wild bison to the state of Montana."
House
bills 302 and 318 would prevent diversification and enhancement of rural
economies with opportunities from bison-based hunting and tourism.
Thirty-three contiguous counties in eastern and
north-central Montana have been losing population for many decades. Most lack a
critical population necessary to support a comprehensive county government,
adequate health care, emergency services, quality education, communication
facilities and other infrastructure. Poverty levels are the highest in the
state. Livestock production has remained the primary economic foundation for
these counties, and this industry has opposed any projects that might compete
with cattle production.
Under the requirements of MCA 87-1-216, a large herd of
public-trust, wild bison could be restored with minimal or no negative impacts
on the livestock industry, especially if bison are reestablished on the CMR
National Wildlife Refuge.
Bison restoration has potential to augment and diversify
local economies by enhancing tourism and with monies spent during months-long
hunting seasons for lodging, meals, supplies and outfitting services (Sage,
2017). Either HB 302 or HB 318 would prevent bison restoration in these
counties, perpetuating an economic strategy that has failed for decades.
House bills 302 and 318 would justify and encourage independent federal action to restore
wild bison on the CMR Refuge.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and its refuge system are
mandated to collaborate and cooperate with the states in the management of
wildlife on federal lands. However, the states’ trust responsibilities for
wildlife are subordinate to the federal government’s statutory and trust
obligations over federal lands and their integral resources (Nie et al. 2017).
Federal agencies have often abdicated this responsibility and authority to the
states. HB 302 could be an ultimate expression of Montana’s obstinacy and lack
of cooperation for restoring bison, a keystone species, on the CMR Refuge.
This
may lead the Fish and Wildlife Service to fulfill its legal mandates by exercising
its ultimate authority and proceeding with bison restoration without state
approval.
Bison conservation and the future of bison as wildlife are not merely a local or state issue. The state of Montana, especially the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, have a unique and important role to play in preserving a future for public-trust, wild bison. Under HBs 302 and 318, Montana will fail to fulfill an irreplaceable opportunity to conserve a wild resource that is a unique component of global biodiversity.
In conclusion, any proposal for a Montana bison restoration
project must be developed by professionals and abundantly vetted under MEPA and
MCA 87-1-216. HB 302 adds nothing to this comprehensive process. However, a
county veto of a professionally developed and vetted bison restoration plan
could be based upon a narrow sample of public goals, by commissioners having no
staff to evaluate complex biological issues.
Either house bills 302 or HB 318 would
almost certainly prevent any restoration of public-trust wild bison in Montana,
preempting economic opportunities in many rural counties, ignoring the desires
and statutory privileges of most citizens of the state and nation, and
disregarding a host of state and federal legal mandates and policies.
Bison conservation and the future of bison as wildlife are
not merely a local or state issue. The state of Montana, especially the Charles
M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, have a unique and important role to play
in preserving a future for public-trust, wild bison. Under HBs 302 and 318, Montana
will fail to fulfill an irreplaceable opportunity to conserve a wild resource
that is a unique component of global biodiversity.
In 1910, William Hornaday of the Smithsonian Institution
proposed a preserve for wild bison on the south side of the Missouri River in
Montana. In Congress, he was thwarted by the Montana Woolgrowers Association.
Now, 111 years later, we still have no herd of public, wild bison in the state.
Citizens of Montana and the nation must be heard. If Montana’s obstinacy toward
bison restoration offends you, contact Governor Greg Gianforte at mt.gov, phone
406-444-3111, or write him at PO Box 200801, Helena, MT 59620-0801.
Silence is
complicity.
EDITOR'S NOTE: For more information, visit the Montana Wild Bison Restoration Coalition and the Buffalo Field Campaign. Mountain Journal welcomes a rebuttal to Bailey's essay provided it is based upon science and established fact. Make sure you never miss a MoJo story by signing up for our free weekly newsletter. Click here: https://bit.ly/3cYVBtK
About Jim Bailey
Dr. James Bailey is a retired professor of wildlife biology and management who taught at Colorado State University, where he specialized in big-game management and nutrition. Today he is coordinator of the Montana Wild Bison Restoration Coalition. Prior to Colorado State, Jim had taught at the University of Montana, he worked at the Illinois Natural History Survey, and participated in projects with the New Mexico Game and Fish Department. Early experiences in Montana led Jim and his wife, Nan, back to the Bozeman area where he became involved with the Yellowstone bison controversy. He is author of the recent book American Plains Bison: Rewilding an Icon in 2013, published by Sweetgrass Books and available at local bookstores
