The Future of Yellowstone Bison Management
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
POLICY REPORT
The Future of
Yellowstone Bison
Management
1
Table of
Contents
4 Executive Summary
10 Bison History in the
Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem
14 The Interagency Bison
Management Plan (2000)
18 Highlights of IBMP
Implementation
28 Catalysts for Change in
Bison Management
38 Policy Recommendations
42 Literature Cited
2
Bison in the
Lamar Valley.
© Neal Herbert
ON THE COVER:
Bull bison in the
Yellowstone River.
© Jim Peaco
3
Executive T he bison of Yellowstone National Park (YNP)
in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem comprise
the nation’s only continuously wild population
of the species—a symbolically and genetically important
Summary
remnant of the vast herds that once played a domi-
nant ecological role across the American landscape.
The survival of Yellowstone bison has been an ongoing
struggle, as the species barely escaped extinction only
to endure a changing series of management approaches
by the National Park Service within YNP and by state
and federal agencies on adjacent lands in Montana in the
ensuing decades. Much of the stringent management
approach to-date for bison has been driven by fear of the
animals transmitting brucellosis, a nonnative livestock
disease, to cattle found in areas adjacent to the park.
Bison in Yellowstone
National Park.
© Jonathan Eden/
Dreamstime.com
4
Within YNP, bison thrive as a population largely Fortunately, the opportunity exists today to create a
managed by natural factors such as weather and preda- new era in management for Yellowstone bison. The Park
tors. The park provides abundant seasonal habitat, but Service and the State of Montana along with cooper-
in the winter when snow within the park grows impen- ating agencies from Native American tribes and other
etrable, bison often migrate beyond park boundaries to federal agencies are in the process of developing a new
find suitable forage. Along the edge of the park and on Yellowstone-area bison conservation plan to replace the
public and private lands in Montana, bison face intensive outdated 2000 IBMP. The development of a new plan
management including hazing, a practice where bison offers the opportunity to set Yellowstone bison manage-
are driven away from areas where they are not currently ment on a better path that will ensure the long-term
allowed, and shipment to slaughter. Such management is survival of the herd, while limiting the risk of disease
guided by state and federal agencies and Native Amer- transmission to domestic livestock.
ican tribes under the direction of the 2000 Interagency
Bison Management Plan (IBMP). This approach to bison
management costs taxpayers millions and has created
consistent controversy.
Pre-Settlement and
Current Yellowstone-Area
Bison Distribution
(adapted from Plumb et al. 2009).
MT
Estimated
Pre-settlement
Distribution
Current
Yellowstone
North Bison Distribution
ID YELLOWSTONE
NATIONAL PARK
WY
0 5 10 20 30 40 50
Miles
Summary of
Catalysts for Change
in Bison Management
Bison in the snow.
© Neal Herbert
SPOTLIGHT The World Health Organization defines brucellosis
as a zoonotic disease found in cattle that is
transmitted through blood, placenta, fetuses, uterine
Brucellosis
secretions, or through consumption of raw animal
products. In humans it is known as undulant fever.
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S
ince the original IBMP was signed in 2000, managers have been incrementally moving
toward managing Yellowstone bison like other migratory wildlife, but controversy
and issues persist. The IBMP was designed to enable management adaptations based
on advancements in science, gained management experience, and changes in the legal
framework, social setting, and the landscape. Such amendments to the plan have led to
increased tolerance for bison on habitat adjacent to YNP during winter months. Some of the
key areas where change has occurred include our understanding of the risk of brucellosis
transmission, our understanding of viable alternatives to the yearly bison slaughter, and our
understanding of how we are managing the disease in other species.
Brucellosis evaluate alternative management of brucellosis seroprevalence in
The risk of brucellosis transmis- approaches for bison. We should Montana’s elk population were quite
sion from bison to cattle drives the consider options that are not as risk low, and found only in areas close to
management requirements under averse in the interest of reducing YNP. Over time, seroprevalance rates
the current IBMP. The seropreva- costs of current management efforts have increased in some Montana elk
lence rate of Yellowstone bison is and improving our ability to better herds and spread to a larger area,
approximately 50%, which indicates manage bison as wildlife. which has led to an expansion of the
exposure to the disease but does not DSA. Recent seroprevalence rates
necessarily mean an active infection Ongoing Bison Slaughter were reported at just over 50% in elk
or the ability to transmit the disease. found in the Paradise Valley north of
Shipping bison to slaughter triggers
However, the assumed risk is not YNP. That rate is similar to the rate
sharp criticism from the public. The
as great as once thought in terms of historically occurring in the Yellow-
traditional approach for managing
the length of time that the disease stone bison herd. While bison have
the distribution and population of
remains viable in the environment. been aggressively managed, Montana
wild game species in North America
This understanding can enable the elk have been more appropriately
has been through public hunting. By
use of targeted situational separation managed through tactics such as
providing more bison habitat outside
of the two species rather than broad situational spatial and temporal
of YNP, this model could be used to
separation. Additionally, advances in separation of elk and cattle.
more effectively manage the size and
science have indicated that oppor- distribution of the population.
tunities exist to use quarantine The many state, federal, and tribal
programs to reduce the need to ship interests that have been driving
The retirement of key grazing allot- decision making through the
animals to slaughter. These quaran-
ments over the last 15 years has IBMP specific to Yellowstone bison
tine programs could be utilized to
substantially reduced the risk of management should be applauded
relocate some Yellowstone bison to
brucellosis transmission from bison to for the advances they have made
new appropriate locations to estab-
cattle on lands adjacent to YNP. The to-date. We have come a long way
lish new conservation herds where
new Yellowstone-area bison conserva- from the bison management poli-
interest exists.
tion plan should recognize the value cies of the 1980’s. However, it is
of voluntary grazing retirements to time to adjust our approach once
The economic implications of brucel-
increase public hunting opportunities again and fully replace the outdated
losis infection in cattle have also
and reduce the risk of brucellosis IBMP. Simply put, we know much
dramatically changed in recent years.
transmission from bison to cattle. more today than we did when the
This is largely due to the adoption
of the Designated Surveillance Area original IBMP was developed, so the
(DSA), which is a defined geographic Brucellosis Beyond Bison opportunity exists to take what we
area where there is increased brucel- It is important to recognize that have learned and make a significant
losis testing and vaccination requir- brucellosis threats go beyond change in how we work to ensure
ments for cattle. Such risk-reduction bison in the Greater Yellowstone the long-term conservation of these
should substantially alter how we Ecosystem. For many years, rates iconic bison.
7
Development of the New
Yellowstone-Area Bison
Conservation Plan
Summary of • The management agencies should
evaluate different models for
Recommendations
stakeholder involvement to better
incorporate stakeholder
interests into the new plan and
for a
plan development. The selected
model should require, among
other things, input in plan
New Yellowstone- development from a stakeholders
group representing a broad set of
interests. For example the group
Area Bison should include: sportsmen,
livestock producers, wildlife
advocates, and local businesses.
Conservation Plan • The agencies should create an
independent science panel to
provide review and recommen-
dations on the science applied in
The development of the new development of the new plan.
bison conservation plan creates • The analysis of new alternatives
should include an explicit
an opportunity to set bison assessment of risk that
describes the probability and
management on a better magnitude of environmental
informed path that will ensure and economic impacts.
the long-term survival of the
Yellowstone herd, while limiting General Goals and Provisions
for the New Yellowstone-Area
the risk of disease transmission Bison Conservation Plan:
to domestic livestock in • Management of a wild bison
population in YNP and on adjacent
Montana. The important lands in Montana.
elements of this new approach • Manage Yellowstone area bison to
are outlined here and provided limit the risk of the spread of
brucellosis from wild bison to cattle.
in detail in the full report. • Manage for bison outside of YNP
under the principles of the North
American Model for wildlife
management.
• Provide for adequate conservation
measures to prevent the listing
of bison under the Endangered
Species Act.
8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• A wild population of bison should • The management unit definition owners that incur bison caused
be defined as: One that roams must reflect the goals of the new damage to personal property, or
within a conservation area that is plan as outlined here, and more economic loss due to brucellosis
large enough to sustain ecological specifically ensure that bison are infection in cattle.
processes such as migration and welcome on year-round habitat
dispersal, sufficiently abundant in Montana.
to mitigate the loss of existing Bison Population
genetic variation, subject to forces • The bison population addressed
of natural selection such as compe- Management Tools by the new plan should be
tition for breeding opportunities • Risk of brucellosis infection should managed to preserve the ecological
and food, predation, and substan- be primarily addressed through integrity of the population
tial environmental variability, and situational use of spatial and (as outlined in our definition of
not owned but managed for the temporal separation of bison and a wild bison population) and main-
public good (adapted from White domestic cattle. During high-risk tain or improve genetic diversity,
and Wallen 2012). periods the plan should prevent while not increasing the risk of
co-mingling of bison and cattle. brucellosis transmission.
• The new plan should focus on
managing the risk of brucellosis • The abundance and distribution of • Develop population objectives for
infection rather than targeting bison should be managed as much different habitat locations that
brucellosis eradication. Eradication as possible through state licensed reflect the unique human needs
of brucellosis in wildlife is not a hunting and tribal treaty rights and ecological characteristics asso-
realistic goal given currently avail- hunting outside of YNP. Bison ciated with the current or potential
able disease management tools. hunting should end by March 31st bison habitat in that location.
each year.
• The new plan should remain an • Use the Northern Wildlife Range
adaptive management plan that is • Pursue an ongoing and successful Working Group (i.e. the multi-
adjusted over time given changes quarantine program that would agency collaborative that currently
in relevant science, land manage- create the opportunity for YNP exists) to annually review bison
ment, the ecological environment, bison to be transferred to tribal harvest levels, habitat manage-
and the socio-political landscape. lands, federal lands, and other ment needs, and inventory needs.
potential habitat that meets
predefined standards.
Management Units Research and Education
• In extreme circumstances
• We expect there will continue • Research and Monitoring:
when bison numbers have far
to be a need to establish bison The new plan should include an
exceeded acceptable population
management units where different assessment of research and moni-
ranges it may be appropriate to
types of management techniques toring priorities and identify key
use the Stephens Creek capture
are appropriate or required. management questions that must
facility. However, all other
be addressed to advance the
• The management objectives and management tools and approaches
adaptive framework articulated
techniques should be tailored to should be attempted before use
by the plan.
different locations based on envi- is considered.
ronmental conditions, biological • Education and Public Outreach:
• Livestock vaccination should
needs, and social tolerance. The new plan should include
continue as prescribed under the
a communications strategy that
• Inside YNP, bison should continue current rules for the DSA.
articulates clear targets,
to be managed largely through Vaccinating bison is not a cost
strategies, and channels for
natural regulation. effective tool for managing risk of
communicating with the public
brucellosis infection and should
about bison management.
not be pursued.
• Develop a publicly funded
compensation program for land-
9
Bull bison near
Soda Butte Creek.
© Jim Peaco
Bison History in the
Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem
O
nce estimated at 30 million in North America From the early 1900s until the 1930s, YNP took a more
(Meagher 1983), bison roamed most of the hands-on approach to bison management in order to
continent, but the highest concentration of bison conserve the few remaining bison and increase the size
occurred on the rich Great Plains. Commercial slaughter of the herd. The park supplemented the herd with three
of the massive herds is well known and documented bulls from the Goodnight herd in Texas and 18 cows from
(Hornaday 1889). By 1889, total bison numbers had the Pablo-Allard herd in western Montana (Gates 2005).
been reduced to an estimated 1,091 in North America. The Park Service managed the imported bison separately
Most of those were under private ownership in captive from the wild herd until the 1920s. This was the period
herds and in zoos. Only YNP and Wood Buffalo National when brucellosis first appeared in YNP bison.
Park in Canada contained wild herds of bison by the turn
of the 20th century, and 23 were all that remained in The World Health Organization defines brucellosis as
Yellowstone. Finding refuge in the park’s high mountain a zoonotic disease found in cattle that is transmitted
valleys, the few surviving bison were protected from through blood, placenta, fetuses, uterine secretions, or
poachers by the U.S. Army. Those bison, in addition to a through consumption of raw animal products. In humans
small number later introduced from other herds, are the it is known as undulant fever. The infection in Yellow-
progenitors for the nearly 5,000 bison found in Yellow- stone bison most likely came from exposure to domestic
stone today. cattle infected with brucellosis, or from feeding infected
cow’s milk to bison calves (USDI, NPS et. al. 2000a).
10Extermination
of the American
Bison to 1889
Original Range 1870 Range 1889 Range
116000
Yellowstone
5000 Bison Population
4000
from 1901–2014
Figure 1. (USDI, NPS et. al. 2000a,
3000 White et.al. 2015)
NUMBER
OF BISON
2000
1000
0
1901 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2014
YEAR
Bison in the Lamar Valley.
© Neal Herbert
12BISON HISTORY IN THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM
The arrival of brucellosis in YNP bison proved Despite best intentions, developing a shared bison
seminal, setting the stage for modern bison management plan for multiple agencies in the
management in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem GYE proved difficult to achieve, particularly given
(GYE)—management that revolves around the their different missions, constituencies, and legal
perceived risk of brucellosis transmission from authorities. These complexities led to, among
bison back to cattle that range adjacent to the park. other things, four interim management plans
issued between the Notice of Intent in 1990 and
Bison numbers in YNP grew to over 1,000 in the the signing of the final plan in 2000. Two of the
1930s, when the Park Service began capping the interim plans were prepared by the Park Service,
population at 1,000 (USDI, NPS et. al. 2000). one by the State of Montana, and one was jointly
From the early 1930s through 1966, YNP main- prepared by the Park Service and the state.
tained bison numbers below 1,000 by shipping
surplus animals to slaughter or to private estates, All interim plans essentially called for removing
zoos, and public parks. In 1967, YNP adopted a bison at the park boundary to protect private
new reliance on natural regulation, an approach to property, provide for human safety, and to prevent
management that ended the practice of reducing the spread of brucellosis from bison to domestic
bison numbers through removal from the park. livestock. In the mid-80s, the Montana Legislature
The Park Service’s new approach was to manage authorized licensed hunters to take bison adjacent
YNP as an ecological entity, providing for resto- to the park. The hunters were guided by state
ration, protection, and maintenance of native employees, and the hunt had all the appearances
complexes (Gates 2005). With this change came of an administrative removal of bison rather than
a periodically fluctuating but generally steady a fair chase hunt. The hunt generated intense
increase in the numbers of bison in the park national media coverage and controversy, eventu-
(Figure 1) (USDI, NPS et. al. 2000a, White ally prompting the Montana Legislature to stop
et.al. 2015). bison hunting in 1990. After 1990, it fell to state
and federal employees to shoot bison outside the
In 1968, the Park Service began controlling bison park as needed for control of population numbers
movement across the park boundary to address and movement outside Yellowstone’s borders. In
concerns from the livestock industry that bison addition, the last interim plan in 1997 called for
could spread brucellosis to cattle in Montana. trapping bison as they left or attempted to leave
Bison movement was limited by redirecting bison the park, as well as slaughter of captured bison
back into the park using rangers on foot and horse- that tested positive for brucellosis. This provision
back (i.e. commonly referred to as hazing). became a key feature of the final adopted plan.
As bison numbers grew, the State of Montana The struggle to prepare a bison management
and federal agencies recognized the need for plan that all partners could agree on led to a
some type of comprehensive management plan lawsuit by the State of Montana in 1995. Montana
for bison. In 1990, a Notice of Intent was filed in claimed the conflicting actions of the Park Service
the Federal Register by the Park Service and U.S. and federal authorities governing brucellosis
Forest Service to prepare a bison management control—APHIS —were delaying preparation of a
plan along with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks long-term management plan for bison. The state
(MFWP). This was followed by a memorandum argued that the delay could lead to a downgrade in
of understanding (MOU) in 1992 that defined Montana’s brucellosis-free status, creating negative
roles and responsibilities for preparing the bison economic impacts. The lawsuit led to a settlement
management plan. That MOU was signed by the that resulted in an agreement on the last interim
Park Service, Forest Service, State of Montana, and management plan, and a re-commitment to coop-
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service erate to complete the final bison-management plan
(APHIS) (USDI, NPS et. al. 2000a). and associated environmental impact statement
(EIS). The Interagency Bison Management Plan
(IBMP) and EIS were completed in 2000.
13The Interagency
Bison Management Plan
(2000)
T
he IBMP record of decision The fundamental management Step 1 on the northern side calls
was signed in December approach prescribed in the IBMP for no bison on private or public
2000 by Montana’s Governor is to maintain temporal and spatial lands north of the park boundary.
and U.S. Secretaries of the Interior separation between bison and Hazing will be used to maintain
and Agriculture. Their signatures domestic livestock. This ensures that this boundary, along with capture of
reflected agreement among all the bison and cattle do not concurrently bison at the Stephens Creek capture
federal and state partners involved occupy the same area, although they facility in YNP when bison attempt
with development and implementa- may occupy the same area when the to leave the park. Captured bison
tion of the IBMP: APHIS, (i.e. agency other is not present. This is achieved testing negative for brucellosis (i.e.
with U.S. regulatory authority for in the plan by establishing three seronegative) will be held in the trap
livestock disease); Forest Service bison-management zones, each with and released in the spring, while
(U.S. agency responsible for manage- unique management requirements. those testing positive (i.e. seroposi-
ment of bison habitat on federal Zone 1 is within the boundaries of tive) will be sent to slaughter.
land outside of YNP); National Park YNP. Zone 2 is an area outside the
Service (i.e. U.S. agency responsible YNP boundaries where there is Step 1 on the western side calls
for bison and habitat management some level of tolerance for bison for no untested bison on private
within the boundaries of YNP); during part of the year. Zone 3 is an or public lands outside of the park
MFWP (i.e. state agency responsible area where there is zero tolerance boundary, with hazing used to
for wildlife management); and the for bison. maintain the integrity of the park
Montana Department of Livestock boundary. Escaping bison will be
(i.e. (MDOL) state agency with state The IBMP is adaptive so that “future trapped and tested for brucellosis.
regulatory authority for livestock and management actions could be Seropositive-tested bison are to be
bison diseases). adjusted, based on feedback from sent to slaughter and as many as
implementation of the proposed risk 100 seronegative-tested bison can be
The goals of the plan are to “main- management actions.” This adaptive released (i.e. “seropositive” means
tain a wild, free-ranging population management approach has been that blood tests show the animal
of bison and address the risk of applied over the past 15 years, and is has been exposed to the disease and
brucellosis transmission to protect also explicitly reflected in the form “seronegative” the opposite). This
the economic interest and viability of of prescribed management steps. step also includes detailed limita-
the livestock industry in Montana.” The IBMP identifies three manage- tions on seronegative bison that are
The plan clearly states that the ment steps for the northern side of pregnant. Any tested seronegative
eradication of brucellosis is not the the park and three for the western bison tolerated outside the park
target. Rather, the plan focuses on side. All steps link more tolerance under the terms of the IBMP must be
preventing transmission of brucel- for bison outside of the park to the hazed back into YNP by May 15.
losis between bison and livestock completion of efforts to limit the risk
(USDI, NPS et. al. 2000b). of brucellosis infection (Table 1).
14NORTH OF YNP WEST OF YNP
MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT
TRIGGERS TRIGGERS
ACTIONS ACTIONS
STEP At initial plan
implementation
1. Haze bison to keep
them in YNP.
At initial plan
implementation
1. Haze bison
exiting YNP back
1
2. When hazing into YNP.
ineffective, capture 2. When hazing
and ship seropos- ineffective, capture
itive bison to and test bison
slaughter, and hold exiting YNP; send
and release up to seropositive bison
125 seronegative to slaughter;
bison back into release up to 100
YNP in spring. seronegative bison.
3. Vaccinate eligible 3. All bison will be
bison in trap. hazed back into
YNP by May 15.
STEP When cattle
removed from
1. Same as step
1 with some
When a safe and
effective brucellosis
1. Haze bison back
into YNP.
2
Royal Teton Ranch tolerance outside vaccine is available 2. All untested
YNP in Zone 2. that can be remotely eligible bison
2. Initially tolerate 25 delivered to bison. outside YNP will
seronegative bison be remotely
outside YNP in vaccinated.
Zone 2 and up to 3. All bison back in
100 depending on YNP by May 15.
behavior.
3. All bison hazed
back into YNP by
April 15.
STEP When: 1. Same as step 2
except allow up
When: 1. Remotely
vaccinate bison in
3
1. Complete research 1. Complete research
on brucellosis to 100 untested on brucellosis and outside YNP.
persistence and bison in Zone 2 persistence and 2. Allow up to 100
disappearance. outside YNP. disappearance. untested bison
2. Initiate effective 2. Those untested 2. Initiate effective outside of YNP.
vaccination bison must still be vaccination
program in YNP back in YNP by program in YNP
using remote April 15. using remote
delivery. delivery.
3. Demonstrate 3. Demonstrate
ability to provide ability to provide
spatial separation spatial separation
of bison and of bison and
cattle to control cattle to control
maximum number maximum number
of bison in Zone 2. of bison in Zone 2.
Table 1. Summary of IBMP Management Triggers/Management Actions by Plan Step and Management Zone 15THE INTERAGENCY BISON MANAGEMENT PLAN (2000)
The trigger or prompt on the under the terms of the IBMP must be Creek/Bear Creek area northeast of
northern side of the park to go from hazed back into the park by April 15. Gardiner, the Absaroka Beartooth
Step 1 to Step 2 occurs when cattle Wilderness north of YNP, the
are removed from the Royal Teton On the western side of YNP, the Cabin Creek Recreation and Wild-
Ranch, which is a private ranch transition from Step 1 to 2 begins life Management Area, and in the
north of Yellowstone. The triggers when a safe and effective brucellosis Monument Mountain Unit of the Lee
to go from Step 2 to Step 3 on the vaccine can be remotely delivered. Metcalf Wilderness. There is also
northern side are the completion of The requirements to transition from some tolerance for untested bison
research related to persistence of Step 2 to 3 on the western side are in the Taylor Fork above the Gall-
brucellosis in the environment, the the same as on the northern side atin River, as long as they stay out
initiation of a vaccination program of YNP. of the cattle allotment in the Upper
in YNP using an effective remote Taylor Fork that was leased for cattle
delivery system, and demonstrated Although most of the area in and grazing at the time the IBMP
ability to provide for spatial sepa- around YNP where bison may be was adopted.
ration and to control the maximum found is labeled Zone 1, 2, or 3, a
number of bison in Zone 2 outside few areas have special management Other key provisions in the IBMP are
the park. Any bison that are toler- designation. Untested bison are important to note. The IBMP makes
ated outside of the park boundary allowed year-round in the Eagle a commitment that removal of bison
Bison cow nursing her
calf in the middle of the
road in Lamar Valley.
16 © Neal HerbertBozeman
THE INTERAGENCY BISON MANAGEMENT PLAN (2000)
Reducing Wildlife Livestock Conflict
Gallatin North
National
Forest
SlipNSlide
Royal Teton
Wapiti Ranch
Gardiner
Cache-Eldridge
NWF National Forest
Ye
Domestic Livestock
ll o
Grazing Retirement
Y ELL O WS T O NE
ws
Hebgen
Private Land Grazing
tone Riv
Lake N A TIO NAL PAR K
Rights Lease
Horse Butte er IBMP Bison
Management Zone
National Park
National Forest
West Yellowstone
Yellowstone
South Fork
Lake Montana
Mission River
Idaho Wyoming
0 5 10 20 30 40 50
Miles
under the terms of the plan “…will not jeopardize under the plan—less so when the population is
the ecological integrity of the bison herd within substantially under that target. The population
the park”. The plan includes specific recognition target of 3,000 bison was adopted in order to limit
that cattle vaccination and management of cattle the number of bison that would exit YNP during
on public lands are important tools for managing severe winter conditions (USDI, NPS 2000a).
the risk of brucellosis transmission from bison to When populations get beyond 3,000 bison, the
cattle. The IBMP directs the State of Montana to outmigration of bison is closely related to winter
encourage voluntary vaccination of eligible cattle in severity (NAS 1998).
the area that may be occupied by bison under the
plan and called for mandatory vaccination by 2001 The federal and state agencies responsible for
if 100% voluntary compliance is not achieved. implementing the IBMP have used the plan’s
adaptive language to make changes in the appli-
The IBMP identifies a population target of 3,000 cation on the ground. Those adaptive changes are
bison. When the population exceeds that level, summarized next.
agencies may lean more on lethal control measures
17Highlights of IBMP
Implementation
A
s we consider a new conservation plan for
managing Yellowstone-area bison, it is also
important to fully understand how bison
have been managed under the IBMP from
adoption in 2000 until 2015. To help chart
a new course, we must examine what has and has not
been successful over the past 15 years under the IBMP.
Implementation was initially guided by interpretation of
the language in the IBMP, but the plan has been managed
as a living document that has evolved over time through
adaptive management. These adaptive changes were
triggered by changes in the knowledge base on bison
management through on the ground experience, research
findings, land management changes outside the YNP
boundaries and changes in the legal framework. The
details of implementation are summarized here.
182000 Interagency Bison Management Plan Adopted
2002 Operating Procedures Developed
2003 Horse Butte Grazing Allotment Retired
2004 Bison Quarantine Tested
Bison Hunting Reconsidered
2005 Tribes Asserted Their Right to Hunt
Based On Historical Treaties
Completed “A Status Review of
Adaptive Management Elements 2000-2005”
2006 Adaptive Changes Altered Operating Procedures
2008 Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Completes Audit of IBMP Performance
IBMP Managers Produce Adaptive Management
Changes Captured in a Format Responsive to
GAO Audit Findings
Royal Teton Ranch Grazing Rights Leased
Cache Eldridge Grazing Allotment Retired
2009 Tribal Representatives Added to the
IBMP Managers’ Committee
2010 Official Order Creates Designated
Surveillance Area for Brucellosis
Wapiti Grazing Allotment Retired
2011 Slip and Slide Grazing Allotment Retired
Citizen’s Working Group Presents
Recommendations to IBMP Managers
Adaptive Changes to Allow for Greater Tolerance of Bison
2012 Adaptive Changes With Detail on Bison Use
North of the Park Line
2013 Adaptive Changes to Address Hazing
Photo © L.C. Nøttaasen
Bison Away from Zone 3 Boundary
2014 Adaptive Change to Consistently Document
All Previous Adaptive Changes
19HIGHLIGHTS OF IBMP IMPLEMENTATION
2002 2003
Operating Procedures Horse Butte Grazing
Developed Allotment Retired
One of the key areas for bison/livestock conflict
on the west side of the Park was on the Horse
Butte peninsula where the Gallatin National Forest
(GNF) had issued a public land domestic livestock
grazing lease. This conflict was eliminated when the
National Wildlife Federation worked with the lessee
and the GNF to find other grazing opportunities
for the lessee outside of the Yellowstone area. This
allowed the GNF to then permanently retire this
grazing allotment. This action created more flexi-
bility for the IBMP managers to manage bison on the
western side of the park and better facilitate spatial
and temporal separation of bison and livestock.
Bison in winter. © George Peters/ISTOCKPHOTO
After the IBMP was formally signed and adopted
in December 2000, the five agencies bound by the
management commitments in the IBMP immedi-
ately began to implement the terms of the IBMP.
2004
They also began efforts to reach agreement on a Bison Quarantine Tested
set of operating procedures that would guide IBMP
implementation. That agreement was not completed The 2000 IBMP EIS and record of decision allowed
until December of 2002. It described the details of for the possibility of sending bison that test negative
the on-the-ground management tasks called for in (i.e. seronegative) to a quarantine facility. The signa-
the IBMP and assigned lead and secondary respon- ture agencies agreed quarantine was a legitimate tool
sibilities for completing those tasks to the various for removing bison from YNP, but more research was
agencies. For example, they addressed who would needed to explore whether quarantine procedures
have responsibility for hazing bison when the species could be effectively applied to wild bison.
migrates outside of YNP, who would have responsi-
bility for trapping and transporting bison, etc. The In 2004, APHIS and MFWP prepared an environ-
2002 Operating Procedures remained the guiding mental review that evaluated phase one of an exper-
document for management actions until they were imental quarantine (MFWP 2004). There were three
revised in 2007. Since then they have been reviewed objectives for pursuing experimental quarantine:
and revised several times. The reviews and revisions
have generally focused on necessary operational 1. Develop quarantine procedures that would allow
changes that respond to the previous year’s experi- Yellowstone bison that went through quarantine
ence in implementing the IBMP, or to reflect adap- to be accepted as brucellosis free and suitable for
tive changes agreed to by the IBMP management establishment or augment of other bison herds;
agencies. Those adaptive changes were typically a
response to new research findings, changes in the 2. Explore the possibility of conserving Yellowstone
legal framework, and changes in the social setting, as bison genetics by establishing new herds that are
well as experience in implementing the IBMP. also brucellosis free;
200 1.25 2.5 5
Miles
HIGHLIGHTS OF IBMP IMPLEMENTATION
Western Management Area for the Interagency Bison Management Plan
U .S . FO RE S T S E RV I C E YELLO WSTO NE NATIO NAL PAR K
Yellowstone National Park
Bison Conservation Area
Highway
ek River
Hebgen Duc k Cre
Lake Private Land
Cattle Ranch
Horse Butte
Co
ug
ar
Cr
ee
South k
Fork
Baker's Hole Cougar Meadow
North Barns Hole
0 1.25 2.5 5 Madison
Miles
Junction
3. Use a step-wise approach to examine the feasi- herds with brucellosis to produce brucellosis-free
bility of quarantine of Yellowstone bison and bison (Clarke et al, 2014). The next challenge was
whether that tool could be used to conserve bison determining the final location for those bison that
on larger grassland landscape outside of the GYE. graduated from the quarantine process. Neither
previous bison quarantine environmental reviews
Phase one was approved and implemented in 2005 evaluated a specific location for the bison that could
with the gathering of seronegative bison in a double come out of quarantine as brucellosis-free. This
fenced pasture near Corwin Springs, MT. A subse- decision was addressed in subsequent environmental
quent environmental review considered phases two reviews that led to those bison being transferred
and three of a quarantine, which called for more to Native American tribes in eastern Montana. The
breeding, testing, and culling as needed to estab- relocation decision became the focus of great debate
lish whether the quarantine process could produce in the court of public opinion, the legal system, and
brucellosis free bison (MFWP 2005). Those phases the Montana Legislature. However, court rulings
were also approved and the Quarantine Feasibility have upheld the transfer of bison to the Fort Peck
Study was then fully implemented. and Fort Belknap reservations in Montana. Those
transfers have now occurred, and bison are managed
Ultimately, the quarantine study demonstrated as wildlife by the Assiniboine and Sioux tribes of the
that the approved USDA quarantine protocol could Fort Peck Reservation and the Assiniboine and Gros
be applied to wild bison that originate from those Ventre tribes of the Fort Belknap Reservation.
21HIGHLIGHTS OF IBMP IMPLEMENTATION
2004 2005
Bison Hunting Native American Tribes
Reconsidered Asserted Their Right
to Hunt Based On
Historical Treaties
The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the
Nez Perce Tribe asserted their rights under historical
treaties to hunt bison on public land outside of YNP
in 2005, and those rights were formally recognized
by the State of Montana. That formal recognition
involved a review by the Montana Attorney General’s
Office as well as MFWP agency counsel. The tribes
began hunting bison in 2005. Since 2005, two more
tribes, the Shoshone Bannock of Idaho, and the
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla from the State
of Washington, were recognized to have treaty-based
Cowbirds on bison. © George Peters hunting rights for bison, and they have exercised
those rights. Each tribe establishes and enforces its
own hunting regulations.
In 1991, the Montana Legislature took action to
eliminate bison hunting in Montana because of the
public controversy surrounding the hunt. Despite
that action the 2000 EIS considered several alterna-
Completed “A Status
tives that included public hunting of bison. The final
selected alternative did not include public hunting as
Review of Adaptive
a primary tool for managing bison. Management Elements
The 2003 Montana Legislature reinstated statutory
authority to conduct the public hunting of bison.
2000-2005”
MFWP responded to that legislative change the The IBMP partners conducted a 2005 performance
following year by completing an environmental review of their own efforts to implement the
review of public bison hunting, and the decision was IBMP. They concluded that management efforts
made in 2005 to once again allow public hunting of had allowed the responsible agencies to fulfill the
bison that leave YNP. The hunt that began in 2005 fundamental goals of the IBMP to-date. However,
was structured differently than earlier attempts. they documented slow progress to advance to
The number of hunters allowed on the landscape management Steps 2 and 3. They also introduced
at any one time was very limited, and hunters were and endorsed the first adaptive change in the
left to their own skills to hunt bison in an effort to IBMP that allowed for public bison hunting to be
make the hunt similar to other big game hunts. The used as a management tool when bison migrated
restructured approach to hunting was successful into Montana.
in avoiding the controversy of previous hunts, and
allowed for a modest hunter harvest of bison.
22HIGHLIGHTS OF IBMP IMPLEMENTATION
2006 2008
Adaptive Changes U.S Government
Altered Operating Accountability Office
Procedures (GAO) Completes Audit
The IBMP partners agreed to three adaptive of IBMP Performance
changes in the form of signed adjustments to their
operating procedures: The management of bison in YNP has been the
focus of GAO reviews in 1992, 1997, 1999, and
Strategic hazing: Under this agreement bison could 2008. The GAO is an independent non-partisan
be hazed away from high-risk areas to low-risk areas agency that works for Congress to investigate how
where cattle are not found or bison are not likely the government is spending taxpayer dollars. The
to otherwise come in contact with cattle. This was 2008 GAO review concluded the management
a shift from previous routine efforts to haze bison agencies needed to “…improve their accountability,
all the way into the park even at times with high transparency, and management of Yellowstone bison
snow pack. These previous efforts were an exercise by developing measurable objectives and reporting
in futility as bison would often come right back yearly on progress, among other actions” (U.S. GAO
out of the park after hazing. This practice resulted 2008). These conclusions led to a dramatic change in
in expensive hazing efforts, and increased the risk how the IBMP managers approached their respon-
of wildlife-vehicle collisions as bison moved more sibilities to implement the IBMP. They developed a
frequently across Highway 287 north of more well defined approach to adaptive management
West Yellowstone. that included measurable objectives and monitoring,
a comprehensive website to increase transparency,
Tolerance of bull bison: This provision allowed for and an annual report to also increase transparency
more tolerance of bull bison outside of the park. and accountability.
It was an attempt to allow for more hunting
opportunity of bulls. It was based on the
acknowledgement that there was generally less
brucellosis risk associated with bull bison, although
that was not explicitly stated in the adaptive change.
Bison Population: Identified a population of 3000
bison in YNP as a trigger for risk management
actions rather than a goal to be achieved.
Bison in winter.
© George Peters/
ISTOCKPHOTO
23HIGHLIGHTS OF IBMP IMPLEMENTATION
2008
IBMP Managers Produce
Adaptive Management
Changes Captured in Herd of bison in
a Format Responsive to Yellowstone National Park.
© imagebroker/Alamy
GAO Audit Findings
In response to the 2008 GAO audit the IBMP
managers released several adaptive changes that Royal Teton Ranch
listed a goal, objective, management actions, moni-
toring metrics, and management response for each Grazing Rights Leased
adaptive change. A similar format for subsequent
adaptive changes has endured through the present In order to go to Step 2 as prescribed in the IBMP
implementation of the IBMP. the grazing rights had to be purchased from the
Royal Teton Ranch (RTR). The RTR is located a few
Some of the important 2008 adaptive changes were: miles north of the park boundary and they have
routinely run domestic livestock on their
• Increased tolerance for mixed groups of bison property. The cattle on their property were
during winter and spring in Zone 2; essentially a bottleneck for any bison movement
to the north out of YNP. After years of negotiation
• A commitment to apply the results of the research the grazing rights for the Royal Teton Ranch were
on brucellosis persistence in the environment; purchased under a 30-year lease agreement. This
• Tolerance for bachelor bull groups in Zone 2; lease was negotiated and purchased by MFWP
on behalf of the IBMP partners and was funded in
• A commitment to work with private livestock part by MFWP, YNP, and non-government organi-
producers and private landowners to create zations including National Wildlife Federation and
conflict-free habitat for bison; National Parks Conservation Association.
• Pursue a better understanding of bison population
dynamics and genetics;
• Minimize use of shipping bison to slaughter as a
management tool;
Cache Eldridge Grazing
• Re-commitment to vaccination as a risk manage- Allotment Retired
ment tool for both bison and cattle;
The Cache Eldridge allotment was one of two the
• Re-commitment to spatial/temporal separation Gallatin National Forest (GNF) livestock allotments
of bison and cattle (i.e. essentially continued use leased in the Taylor Fork drainage near the north
of hazing, trapping, and ship to slaughter) with boundary of YNP off of the Gallatin River drainage.
a change of the haze back date on the north side The Taylor Fork grazing allotments were mentioned
from April 15th to May 1st. in the final record of decision as a rationale for
limiting the presence of bison in that area.
24HIGHLIGHTS OF IBMP IMPLEMENTATION
2009 2010
Tribal Representatives Official Order Creates
Added to the IBMP Designated Surveillance
Managers’ Committee Area for Brucellosis
The Salish-Kootenai and Nez Perce Tribes along The Montana Board of Livestock approved an official
with the Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative requested order that created a designated surveillance area
representation on the Managers’ Committee for the (DSA) for brucellosis. The order addressed live-
IBMP. The five existing agencies represented on stock testing requirements, animal identification,
the Manager’s Committee agreed and those entities and vaccination requirements within the boundary
were welcomed to the table as voting members at of a defined geographic area (i.e. the DSA). This
the IBMP’s November meeting. This critical change important change limited the financial and logis-
brought an important perspective and voice to the tical impacts of brucellosis on livestock producers
bison management discussions. to a portion of a four-county area (i.e. those coun-
ties with known reservoirs of brucellosis in elk
and bison—portions of Park, Madison, Gallatin
and Beaverhead counties). Prior to this order, the
entire state’s livestock industry could be affected by
the state’s loss of brucellosis-free status caused by
multiple livestock infections with brucellosis.
Wapiti Grazing
Allotment Retired
The Wapiti Grazing allotment was the only
remaining allotment on the GNF in the Taylor Fork
Drainage and the upper Gallatin in general. So with
this grazing allotment retired there were no more
cattle grazing on public land in the entire upper
Gallatin area.
Bison walking through deep
snow near Tower Junction.
© Jim Peaco
25HIGHLIGHTS OF IBMP IMPLEMENTATION
Northern Management Area for the Interagency Bison Management Plan
Yankee Jim Yellowstone National Park
Canyon Bison Conservation Area
Highway
River
Cutler Meadows reek
dar C
Ce Private Land
Capture Facility
Cattle Ranch
Ye
llo
ws
ton
eR
iver
North
g le Creek
Ea
U . S . FO R E S T S E R V IC E
Stephens Creek
ek
Capture Facility Y E L L O W S T O N E N A T IO N A L P A R K
Re e Cre
0 1.25 2.5 5
Miles
es
2011
2.5 5
Miles
Slip and Slide Grazing Citizen’s Working
Allotment Retired Group Presents
The Slip and Slide Grazing allotment is in an area Recommendations to
north of Gardiner and south of Yankee Jim Canyon
on the eastern side of Highway 89 in Montana. It is
in an area of the GNF that could be frequented by
IBMP Managers
bison if allowed. There were two separate sections Since the adoption of the IBMP, the managers strug-
of this allotment leased by two different livestock gled to effectively involve the public in deliberations
producers. This retirement only affected one of regarding implementation. After much discussion in
the two leases. The other section of the allotment 2010, the managers endorsed the idea of a self-
remains active. formed citizen’s group and offered to provide funding
26Bison calf. © Neal Herbert
for its facilitation. The Citizen’s Working Group was
formed and following a year’s work, presented its
recommendations to the IBMP managers in 2011.
The managers chose to adopt some but not all of the
recommendations. Their recommendations focused
on brucellosis risk reduction, bison population
management, and bison habitat.
Adaptive Changes
2013
Adaptive Changes to
to Allow for Greater
Address Hazing
Tolerance of Bison
Bison Away from
The IBMP managers agreed to allow for greater
tolerance of bison on approximately 70,000 acres Zone 3 Boundary
in the Gardiner Basin. The original language in
the IBMP only allowed for very few bison north of Bison found their way across the Zone 3 boundary
YNP after the RTR grazing rights were leased. This north of Gardiner on the east side of Highway 89
adaptive change allowed for bison to migrate north when the IBMP managers began to implement the
of the park boundary but they would be limited on 2011 Adaptive Change that allowed for bison
the northern extent of the Gardiner Basin by the tolerance in the Gardiner Basin. To address this
Yankee Jim Canyon. This important adaptive change concern the Managers agreed to a further adaptive
allowed the managers greater flexibility in managing change that allowed for strategic hazing of bison
bison in years where a large out-migration from YNP as they approached the Zone 3 boundary to avoid
occurred. Bison outside of the park under this adap- further breaches.
tive change would still be hazed back in the park by
May 1 as agreed to in the 2008 adaptive changes.
2014
2012 Adaptive Change to
Adaptive Changes with Consistently Document
Detail on Bison Use All Previous Adaptive
North of the Park Line Changes
The 2012 adaptive changes simply provided more In 2014 the IBMP Managers chose to format all
detail with monitoring metrics regarding the 2011 previous adaptive changes in a consistent manner.
adaptive changes that allowed for tolerance of bison The Managers did not agree to any additional
north of the park line in the Gardiner Basin. adaptive changes in 2014.
27Catalysts for Change
in Bison Management
Adaptive changes in the current IBMP occurred as
a result of advancements in science, changes in the
legal framework, changes in the social setting,
changes on the landscape, and management experience
gained by implementing the IBMP. Those changes
are further reviewed and considered here as we
embark on developing a new Yellowstone-area bison
conservation plan and consider
fundamental changes in bison management.
Bison in the
Yellowstone River.
28 © Jim PeacoAdvancements
in Science
When the IBMP was established, agencies recognized that future research find-
ings could be cause to reconsider elements of the IBMP, and make appropriate
management changes based on those findings. Here we focus on a limited number
of research efforts that should be further considered in the development of a new
Yellowstone-area bison conservation plan.
Brucellosis • “…the brucella bacteria can persist on
fetal tissues, soil and vegetation from 21
Persistence/ days to 81 days depending on month,
temperature and exposure to sunlight.” So
Disappearance the bacteria persist longer (i.e. 81 days)
in colder temperatures with less exposure
Study to sunlight that occurs for contamination
events started in February, and that the
length of time the bacteria persists grad-
The current IBMP called for a study of the ually declines (i.e. 21 days), as days get
persistence/disappearance of brucellosis longer and warmer into May.
when shed in birthing materials in natural
settings. Agency managers wanted to know • No brucella bacteria persisted beyond
how long the brucellosis bacteria would June 10th.
persist in the environment when shed by • Fetuses were more quickly scavenged
bison in birthing material. That information within YNP than outside the park
could better inform them on how to provide boundary, and by a variety of both birds
for adequate temporal separation of bison and mammals. They attributed the differ-
and cattle that could occupy the same land- ence to higher numbers of scavengers
scape, and thereby reduce the risk of brucel- within YNP.
losis infection to cattle. For example, the
IBMP managers wanted to know whether it
was appropriate to haze all bison back into MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
YNP by May 15th in order to reduce risk of The IBMP managers did not feel the need
brucellosis infection to cattle (i.e. as called to significantly alter the haze back dates
for by current IBMP). in the current IBMP in response to the
completed research on persistence/disap-
Aune et.al. (2012) key findings pearance. No change was made in the date
regarding persistence/disappearance of when bison must be hazed back in YNP on
brucellosis were: the west side (i.e. remained May 15th). The
haze back date on the north side of YNP
was extended from April 15th to May 1st.
29CATALYSTS FOR CHANGE IN BISON MANAGEMENT
There is an opportunity to better • Provide a source of bison with the country with expertise in wildlife
apply the research results and unique genetics to supplement disease management. There were
fine tune efforts to manage for or develop conservation herds representatives from academia, the
situational separation in high of bison in other locations in private sector, and government agencies.
risk locations (i.e. where cattle North America.
currently occupy or where they Some of the expert panel’s key
will be for spring/summer pasture) findings were:
and during high risk periods rather
than the broad stroke management
Bison Bull • Remote vaccination of bison would
techniques applied in the current
IBMP (e.g. all bison must return to
Semen Study not be cost effective in reducing
the risk of spread of brucellosis;
the park by May 15th on the west
The IBMP managers have generally • Encourage more incentive based
side of YNP).
considered bull bison to provide approaches to managing brucel-
less risk of brucellosis transmission losis in bison that could be
Quarantine to cattle than cow bison. This was
evidenced by the 2006 and 2008
explored through work with stake-
holder groups. For example, these
Study IBMP adaptive changes that allowed
for more tolerance for bull bison as
approaches could include financial
incentives for cattle producers
described previously. These manage- who take steps to reduce the risk
As described in the previous section,
ment actions were supported by of brucellosis infection through
the current IBMP also called for
Frey et.al. (2013) in their research animal husbandry techniques, etc.
a study of whether a quarantine
that tested whether bull bison could
protocol could be developed that
shed an infectious dose of brucella
produced brucellosis free bison.
in their semen. They concluded that MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
That study successfully demon-
although bull bison can shed brucella The expert panel’s findings
strated that operational quarantine
in their semen it is at concentration discouraged use of remote
could be used to identify brucellosis
levels that are not an infectious dose. vaccination of bison as a tool
free bison from the Yellowstone
to effectively (both costs and
herd. In 2014 all of the bison that
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS operationally) reduce the risk of
successfully emerged from quaran-
spread of brucellosis from bison.
tine were transferred to tribal lands It is clear now that bull bison pose
They pointed out how ineffective
in eastern Montana. almost no risk of brucellosis infec-
current vaccines are in bison, and
tion for cattle. That reality should
the tremendous expense of a fully
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS allow managers more flexibility in
implemented vaccine program.
managing bull bison, and eliminate
YNP is reviewing the establish- Remote vaccination of wild bison
any disease related requirement
ment of an operational quaran- was a key feature of the current
for spatial and temporal separation
tine program through a National IBMP and it now appears to be an
between bull bison and cattle.
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ineffective management alternative
review process. If the Park Service for reducing risk.
is successful in creating that
program, then quarantine could:
Brucellosis The panelists described the
• Become one tool for managing
Science Review potential value of stakeholder
involvement in the development
the size of the bison population and implementation of a bison
In 2013, the Park Service and MFWP
in and around YNP; management strategy. Their
sponsored a workshop to review the
recommendation suggests a
• Reduce the reliance on ship science of brucellosis and to inte-
different approach to how the
to slaughter to cull the bison grate that science into disease-man-
agencies approach public
population when it exceeds the agement strategies for bison (NPS
involvement in the development
acceptable population target; and MFWP 2013). They assembled a
of the revised IBMP.
panel of eight experts from across
30CATALYSTS FOR CHANGE IN BISON MANAGEMENT
Bison in Yellowstone National Park.
© Lorcel G/Dreamstime.com
Changes in the
Legal Framework
Bison management in YNP and on adjacent lands in Montana is guided by federal laws and regulations
as well as Montana laws and rules. Important changes have occurred with both since the IBMP was
originally adopted. These changes provide significant opportunity to improve how we manage Yellow-
stone bison in the new bison conservation plan.
Legal Authority for Some tribal governments began to assert their right
to hunt bison under existing treaties shortly after the
Bison Hunting Reinstated State of Montana reinstated its hunt. Both the state-
licensed hunters and tribal treaty hunters participated
and Tribal Treaty starting in 2005.
Hunting Recognized MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
Although bison hunting was considered in the 2000
As mentioned previously, the Montana Legislature IBMP EIS and record of decision, hunting was not a
reinstated the authority for MFWP to offer a public key feature of the final IBMP. Hunting began slowly
hunting opportunity for bison in 2003. This authority as both Montana and tribes explored methods to
had been revoked in 1991 by the Montana State establish fair-chase and culturally acceptable hunts.
Legislature as a result of controversy surrounding State-licensed and tribal treaty hunters harvested
bison hunting in the late 1980s. only 46 bison in 2005, and by 2014 that harvest
31You can also read
