Straying out: A bison herd near Stephens Creek in Yellowstone National Park, Wyo. (Yellowstone National Park)
In Montana, bison plan paused
Ranchers and conservationists are increasingly at odds, as Yellowstone herd numbers plunge.
By Todd Wilkinson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor/ June 3, 2008 edition
Reporter Todd Wilkinson discusses the steep decline in Yellowstone's bison population this year.
Reporter Todd Wilkinson
Gardiner, Mont.
On a knoll rising above this quaint Yellowstone gateway town, a pregnant bison, only weeks from giving birth to her calf, straddles an invisible boundary and feasts tranquilly upon a profusion of spring grass.
Although it’s early in the tourist season for America’s first national park, a carload of visitors halts and eagerly snaps photos of the great American wildlife icon.
In their exuberance, few onlookers seem to realize that the woolly beast is actually a survivor. More than half the park’s herd of 4,700 buffalo have perished over the last six months – the largest kill-off since the 19th century.
Some were hunted; others didn’t survive a bad winter. But most were captured and trucked to slaughter under a controversial plan aimed at preventing them from mingling with beef cattle once they wander beyond the park’s fenceless border into Montana.
Now the high death toll is prompting public outrage. Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and park officials abruptly suspended the killing two weeks ago. The governor says a compromise on the issue – a political quagmire that reaches back decades – is in the offing, one that would give the bison more room to wander. The cattle industry, however, vows to fight.
“What we’re witnessing are the battle lines of bison conservation in the New West,” says Tim Reid, Yellowstone’s deputy chief ranger. “It’s very contentious and very complicated. No victories for bison are ever easily won.”
The controversy stems from brucellosis, a disease that Yellowstone bison can carry and which affects fertility in domestic female cattle. If spread, it could jeopardize the Western ranchers’ ability to ship their animals to market.
The Yellowstone bison population is world-renowned, says Michael Scott, executive director of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, a conservation group. Not only are they direct descendants of the last wild buffalo herds that once populated the Great Plains, they are much beloved by the public and are the emblem for the US Interior Department.
Conservationists complain that even when no beef cattle have been near Yellowstone and the risk of disease transmission was very low, Montana under two Republican governors resorted to bison slayings as a primary management option.
Governor Schweitzer, a Democrat and the first cattleman-turned-Montana governor since 1915, shares the beef industry’s worries about disease, but he also has a soft spot for buffalo. “I favor a commonsense solution and frankly it’s common sense that has been lacking,” he says in an interview.
Schweitzer calls a bison management plan struck between the state and federal government seven years ago “a bad document.” His conclusion is partly shared by auditors for the Government Accountability Office, who said that while the plan aimed to balance cattle protection and wildlife conservation, it has overwhelmingly favored bison killing. The governor’s main focus has been to give bison more space outside Yellowstone’s northern and western perimeter by halting cattle grazing near the park.
Schweitzer says “a historic agreement” was reached in April when the federal government purchased a 30-year conservation easement, costing several millions dollars, from a rancher near Gardiner, clearing the way for safer bison passage along the Yellowstone River.
The Montana Stockgrowers Association opposes the governor’s plan because it could jeopardize their ability to export beef, says spokesman Jay Bodner. Ranchers instead want to eradicate the disease by using vaccines and killing all bison that test positive for the disease. However, because brucellosis is found in dozens of wildlife species, current methods can’t eliminate it completely without depopulating Yellowstone of its wildlife, experts say.
There are no modern documented cases of Yellowstone bison infecting Montana cattle. In neighboring Idaho and Wyoming, some cases have been linked to elk.
Typically, when bison wander out, helicopters, cowboys on horseback, and ATVs push them back into the park but often without much success. Recent mild winters have enabled more bison to survive than normal, causing huge numbers to leave the park. The dramatic drop in bison numbers this year will probably mean fewer animals leaving the park next winter.
Although Yellowstone’s bison are in no real danger of extinction, the loss of animals will affect the visual abundance that visitors normally encounter during the summer.
“It’s been a horrible, horrible year for bison,” says barb abramo, an activist (who does not capitalize her name) with the Buffalo Field Campaign that has protested the bison slaughter.
During a recent 30-mile drive to Old Faithful Geyser from her hometown of West Yellowstone, Mont., Ms. abramo says she recorded the fewest bison sightings in 14 years. “Every spring, we would usually see groups of between 200 and 400 animals at various locations,” she said. “The most we saw were 41 adults and four calves.”
Later this year, 25 bison fitted with radio collars will be allowed to venture farther from Yellowstone than any previous bison generation. Paradoxically, as they move, they’ll be more closely monitored – and killed, if they come too near cattle herds.
“There is room for cautious optimism that things will be better,” says Mr. Reid, the Yellowstone ranger. “But there is no silver bullet for stopping the conflict.”
( More stories )
Comments
2. Joe Don Kotrla-Chipps | 06.03.08
If there has NEVER been a case of transmission from a buffalo to a cow, where’s the risk?
If it had ever happened, maybe some of this would be justified, but it never has.
It has, however happened between elk and cattle. Why aren’t the elk captured and tested?
Kill the ones that have never infected cattle, (buffalo), and do nothing about those that have (elk). Guess that makes sense to someone, but not me.
3. Indamani | 06.04.08
It’s all about money, greed and the abuse of power. And the players are: the livestock growers, the montana department of livestock, and the federal and state governments. These are the powerful organisations that decide the fate of every bison in Yellowstone. Every aspect of bison management by the partners is corrupt. I have very little respect for America in the way wild animals are being treated in this country. To slaughter an iconic animal such as the bison based on lies, hysteria and greed is a travesty.
4. JB | 06.04.08
This was never about brucellosis. It’s about livestock growers not wanting another wild animal that competes with domestic cattle for forage; it’s about public lands being controlled by the interests of a few politically well-connected individuals. This whole thing reeks of political corruption and greed.
5. Fox | 06.04.08
Protest and boycott the livestock industry, adopt a vegan diet and save the bison!!! This nightmare will only end if ranchers are loosing money from sending cattle to slaughter and are forced off public lands.
6. Frank N | 06.04.08
“….killing all bison that test positive for the disease…”
Here’s the interesting thing about that statement, and the one that proves beyond a doubt that this killing has nothing to do with brucellosis: I have read over and over that half of the bison in Yellowstone are infected. Nearly half of the bison were killed this winter. Wouldn’t it make sense, if you are going to kill so many animals, and this is about eradicating brucellosis, to only kill those that test positive? This would increase the percentage of brucellosis free animals, and decrease the percentage of infected animals. Within a few years, brucellosis would be a none issue in Yellowstone bison. Its occurrence would likely be much lower than in elk, which HAVE been demonstrated to have infected cattle in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, but are well tolerated by Montana ranchers (who can charge big bucks for private hunts). YET, bison are slaughtered when they leave Yellowstone WITHOUT testing. In other words, no one cares if they have brucellosis or not! Then the meat is donated for human consumption, WITHOUT TESTING IT! Brucellosis is such a terrible disease that entire herds have to be destroyed if one animal is infected, yet apparently it is perfectly safe to eat the meat from an infected animal!
This has nothing to do with brucellosis. Not one single cow has ever been shown to have been infected from bison. It has EVERYTHING to do with grass (ranchers don’t want America’s wildlife eating grass on America’s public land that could be eaten by their cows); and POWER (it is important for the Montana Dept. of Livestock to clearly demonstrate who is in charge of Montana public and, for that matter, private, land. Hazing and slaughtering goes on even when there are no cattle for miles).
The good thing is that attitudes are changing. More and more ranches are being subdivided. Are a hundred “ranchettes” better than one ranch? In some ways, yes. If the livestock is gone, the parcels are of reasonable size and fences are kept to a minimum (like just around small, family gardens). Most folks who buy these parcels appreciate wildlife, rather than ranchers who look at wildlife as, at best, something to be tolerated; and, at worst, something that needs to be “controlled” or eliminated.
Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But mark my words, times are changing.
7. Timothy Border | 06.04.08
Todd, I am curious as to a couple things the Governor said and wonder if you asked for clarification.
Schweitzer says “I favor a commonsense solution and frankly it’s common sense that has been lacking,” but hasn’t he been leading this slaughter since he got in office – is he saying his plan lacks basic common sense – something groups like the Gallatin Wildlife Association has been saying long before he was elected, is he listening? Why does it take so many years to figure out it is a failed policy, when others have been trying to tell him for so long.
Schweitzer calls a bison management plan struck between the state and federal government seven years ago “a bad document.” Since Schweitzer and company bought into the IBMP whole-heartily and happily signed off on the Plan, did you happen to ask if the lack of common sense lead to the signing and backing of the Plan even as of today?
The governor’s main focus has been to give bison more space outside Yellowstone’s northern and western perimeter by halting cattle grazing near the park. Did you happen to ask why the USFS one of the other players in the IBMP would not consider not renewing a livestock lease on public lands that is in the prime heart of the area northwest of the park Schweitzer is spinning here? Is he working with his USFS cohort in getting these leases cancelled or is he spewing more cheep talk to be gobbled up by the media.
8. mary v jones | 06.04.08
When reading other articles about the Yellowstone buffalo a comment said, read “Buffalo for the Broken Heart” by Dan O’Brien, so I did. I learned a lot and recommend it to others. Montana must change it’s treatment of this animal. I hope it does so, starting this year with the strong leadership of a forward looking governor, Brian Schweitzer.
9. Bill O’Connell | 06.04.08
Todd, I have to question a few things about this article.
Foremost, the title. The bison plan is “paused”? How so? It appears to me Schweitzer has bought into (or been sold on, by his own “wildlife” agency, among others) the IBMP. At least his Natural Resource Policy Advisor Mike Volesky was all about the Plan, and damn sure didn’t call it a “bad document” last time we talked at their press conference rah-rahing the CUT buyout.
Region 3 Fish, Wildlife, and Parks head Pat Flowers got major kudos from Schweitzer at that affair for crafting that agreement, which is completely within the ridiculous constraints of the IBMP. And, the Plan sure didn’t appear “stalled” last week when DOL and “partners” hazed bison off Horse Butte, in direct defiance of wildlife-friendly landowners who had specifically forbade them from entering their property. It’ll be interesting to see what the FAA has to say on complaints lodged about low-flying helicopters.
And, they “abruptly stalled the killing”??
Good grief, that’s in the PLAN, too. Long as the buffalo are all back in the Park by May 15! Ridiculous…
Sorry if I come off a little cynical. Tim Border is right. The Gallatin Wildlife Association and others have presented common-sense suggestions for Schweitzer’s entire tenure. And this past winter, as barb mentions, we got the largest slaughter of wild bison since the 1800’s, which coupled with substantial winterkill put the population below 2000, it appears.
The Gallatin Wildlife Association suggestions completely support private property rights, protect our brucellosis-free status, and turn the situation into an asset. We’ve presented it to our worst enemies, and NO ONE has ever refuted it. In fact that’s where its power lies; the message doesn’t change with the audience. It doesn’t need to.
That’s more than can be said for the “Plan”. It’s been seven years of attempting to manage wildlife like livestock. It’s time to stop the BS. Past time…
10. Overlander | 06.05.08
Why did Democrat Schweitzer kill more buffalo than any Republican since Buffalo Bill this winter?
Because he’s a tool of ranchers, who think they have a BIRTH RIGHT to graze their cattle on public lands. They inherit their grazing permits from Mother and Daddy, and no damned buffalo is going to eat their grass or inconvenience them in ANY WAY.
Of course, that public land and the grass on it actually belongs to the public. So these ranchers can’t disclose that they’re merely trying to get publicly owned buffalo off of public land.
So? That means the buffalo are DISEASED, and that DISEASE is going to infect your hamburger, if you’re not careful. Hell, you might even get sick, unless we KILL a whole bunch of buffalo.
Republican governors have done a far better job of protecting Yellowstone’s buffalo when they migrate outside the park in the winter than has this purported Democrat now in office. Schweitzer is a butcher of wildlife and a destroyer of the environment.
11. James A. Bailey | 06.05.08
Bison numbers do not tell the whole story. Population genetics tells us that we need about 4000 bison in Yellowstone National Park to maintain the genetic diversity of this unique herd in the long run. The herd has been reduced be over 50% to about 2100 animals this year. No doubt, some genetic diversity has been lost to slaughter already. This has been a clear violation of National Park Service mandates and policy, and the Park Service has been assisting in the slaughter.
12. Craig Moore | 06.05.08
When bison economics replace cattle economics the problem will be solved.
13. Glenn Hockett | 06.05.08
Most importantly, the laws empowering the department of livestock to trespass onto private property to remove wild bison from areas where private landowners want them and where they pose no threat or conflict need to be changed. This is one area the governor and both parties could really help out. The Gallatin Wildlife Association is working with local communities, landowners and legislators on both sides of the aisle to draft such a proposal.
14. Ann | 06.05.08
It was stated in the article, that with the depletion of the Bison numbers, there may be fewer numbers of the Bison leaving the park next winter. Although that may be true, it is also true that the depth of the snow will have an effect on the migration out too. Too many times the focus is put on too many Bison/over grazing, as to why they leave the park, when 6,7,8,9, or even 10 feet of snow tends to make it a bit difficult for bison to reach the abundant grasses below.
Then we also have the excuse of competition for grass, on public lands. Well that is blown out of the water, too, when you look at the Horse Butte Peninsula, and the surrounding land. There are no public land grazing allotments , so cattle can’t be on it in the first place. THUS no competition for grass.
Then there is the use of ‘disease’ in order to trespass on private land where there are no cattle and will never be any cattle, in order to run Bison, (who I might add are a big help in fire reduction and weed control) off of an isolated peninsula that won’t have a cow within miles and is surrounded on three sides by water. Every Bison calf born on that Peninsula is one less that might have been born in a cattle pasture (no risk of transmission then)
All this time there is an awful lot of tax-money wasted, Bison lives wasted, when actually Bison could become a ‘Big’ game species.
Glenn is right the laws need to be changed, and APHIS needs to answer a few questions to both the Cattle Rancher and the Activists. For instance Why kill all the cattle, especially your beef steer? Why is it still treated like nothing was or is known about how NOT to contract the disease by both human and animal? Those policies need to be updated, to the 21st Century.
It’s getting to the point that I’m still going to eat beef, but it won’t be Montana Beef. The cost to Wyoming (if I remember right) was not that substantial to warrant such actions as the State of Montana is doing to the Bison.
I was in that haze off of the private property, and it was definitely a lot of money being blown around with those helicopter blades. An awful lot of fencing materials, and vaccinations, and test kits etc. etc.
15. Tom Heyes | 06.06.08
I’m not sure that it is fair to blame Gov. Schweitzer, or YNP. The Governor inherited a bad situation. The Park was forced into negotiating an agreement by the courts. The cattle industry has been sold a bill of goods by their association and APHIS. The ironic part of this whole controversy is that the current plan does nothing to proctect the cattle in the cattle industry, elk are the only wildlife that have been proven to infect cattle with brucellosis. In the spring you can drive down the upper Madison Valley and see thousands of elk grazing on land that will later be used for cattle. Had the money spent on hazing been used to develop an effective vaccine for cattle, the issue would be moot. Any plan whose end result is purging a disease from all the wildlife in the ecosystem is doomed to failure.
The plan currently has developed an entrenched bureaucracy, using millions of dollars, it has developed a life of it’s own. If APHIS would develop policies based on science rather that politics, the issue would disappear. The current policy is bad, education should be the answer. In our global market, changing the policy must start with the agency that certifies the States as brucellosis free. Then a dialogue based on good science must be used to educate beef markets both within the U.S. and abroad. Only then will the bison, and the cattle industry be served well.
16. Timothy Border | 06.06.08
Schweitzer sets squarely on top of this fiasco. True he inherited the Plan, but he had the option to denounce the Plan from his first day in office onward, instead he has actively supported it. GWA has been involved in the bison struggle for over twenty years, we have seen bureaucrats come and go, we know when they are blowing smoke. It is time for Montana residents to tell Schweitzer and company that these are not about bison that stray from the Park but bison that migrate into Montana just as the elk, bears, moose, antelope, etc do, and they are all considered Montana wildlife, except the bison. Time we claim and embrace the bison as our own.
17. Michael Leah | 06.09.08
“Schweitzer calls a bison management plan struck between the state and federal government seven years ago ‘a bad document’.” Even Governor Schweitzer attests to the lackluster and ineffective nature of the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP) created in 2000. As a resident of the “quaint Yellowstone Gateway town,” described in the article, it is clear that the plan created to manage wild bison is flawed beyond repair. The Interagency Bison Management Plan was created in 2000 largely in response to the massive bison slaughter that occurred during the winter of 97, and yet the numbers of bison shipped to slaughter in the winter of 2006 and now 2008 exceed the numbers that spurred this clumsy management plan.
The Governor has one thing right, the IBMP is a bad plan. The Interagency Bison Management Plan is not working. It is long overdue that we acknowledge the fact that the IBMP is not the solution. To continue with the plan simply because it is “The Plan” agencies agreed on is a blunder we can no longer afford. It is time for our Governor to lead the way he assured us he would when many of us supported his campaign largely because of our hopes that he would be an agent of change that put to rest the quagmire that is bison management in Montana. The first step is to go beyond admitting that the plan is a “bad document,” and bring the five agencies involved with the IBMP along with a collection of community representatives together and acknowledge that the IBMP failed and we must start over. If the Governor is going to admit that the plan is a bad one, he has to have the audacity to lead Montanans the way we expect our Governor to lead us. This plan is a black eye for my community and it is a black eye for the state of Montana. Many of us take great pride in being citizens of Yellowstone Country. For many of us, this is our identity. And one cannot think of Yellowstone and not think wildness. And for a great number of Yellowstone Country citizens, the bison is one of our greatest symbols of wildness. I urge Governor Schweitzer to abandon this heavy-handed, top-down approach where the interests of the few are shoved down the throats of Yellowstone Country communities and opt for a more democratic bottom-up discussion where everyone has an opportunity to come to the table and change the direction of bison management in Montana.
18. Michael Leach | 06.09.08
“Schweitzer calls a bison management plan struck between the state and federal government seven years ago ‘a bad document’.” Even Governor Schweitzer attests to the lackluster and ineffective nature of the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP) created in 2000. As a resident of the “quaint Yellowstone Gateway town,” described in the article, it is clear that the plan created to manage wild bison is flawed beyond repair. The Interagency Bison Management Plan was created in 2000 largely in response to the massive bison slaughter that occurred during the winter of 97, and yet the numbers of bison shipped to slaughter in the winter of 2006 and now 2008 exceed the numbers that spurred this clumsy management plan.
The Governor has one thing right, the IBMP is a bad plan. The Interagency Bison Management Plan is not working. It is long overdue that we acknowledge the fact that the IBMP is not the solution. To continue with the plan simply because it is “The Plan” agencies agreed on is a blunder we can no longer afford. It is time for our Governor to lead the way he assured us he would when many of us supported his campaign largely because of our hopes that he would be an agent of change that put to rest the quagmire that is bison management in Montana. The first step is to go beyond admitting that the plan is a “bad document,” and bring the five agencies involved with the IBMP along with a collection of community representatives together and acknowledge that the IBMP failed and we must start over. If the Governor is going to admit that the plan is a bad one, he has to have the audacity to lead Montanans the way we expect our Governor to lead us. This plan is a black eye for my community and it is a black eye for the state of Montana. Many of us take great pride in being citizens of Yellowstone Country. For many of us, this is our identity. And one cannot think of Yellowstone and not think wildness. And for a great number of Yellowstone Country citizens, the bison is one of our greatest symbols of wildness. I urge Governor Schweitzer to abandon this heavy-handed, top-down approach where the interests of the few are shoved down the throats of Yellowstone Country communities and opt for a more democratic bottom-up discussion where everyone has an opportunity to come to the table and change the direction of bison management in Montana.
19. Olivia | 06.10.08
Brucellosis is not the real disease. Greedellosis is.
Trace it all back to us consumers. If we want steaks and Big Macs, then, by golly, that’s what we get, and the ranchers make sure of it.
To ensure we’re satisfied, they’ll pressure their bought-and-paid-for government officials to not only round up and kill off bison (using the typical tools of the powerful: scare tactics, lies, deceit, right to make a living, etc.) but they’ll also round up and kill off the wild horses and burros who the vast majority of Americans want to be protected.
Anything for a profit.
And it’s not just the ranchers who are intent on pleasing us consumers and making a killing (pun intended) from our money.
Hunters are just as much to blame for the obliteration of harmless species of wildlife that aren’t typically eaten (like bison) and/or mounted as trophies (like deer with big racks). For example, in Big Bend State Park in Texas, two state wildlife officials went on a killing spree when no one was looking and surreptitiously shot 71 harmless burros (several died slow, agonizing deaths). The species has lived on that land for at least a century. Why shoot them? Seems it was too hard to trap them and move them, and they were threatening to compete for forage with big-horn sheep, who are going to be reintroduced to the park — for the pleasure of private hunters. Here we go, back to the greedellosis again!
“… the love of money is the root of all evil” (Tim 6:10).
20. Timothy Border | 06.11.08
Olivia - not all hunters are bad. Many respect the animal, the land, and the heritage of the hunt. They also show blessing toward their prey and respect in the treatment of the animal that will feed them and their family for the coming year. There are basically two camps of ‘hunter’. One is like the one I described, the other is a shooter often called Texas style hunting. The restoration of wildlife across the west is the direct result of hunters (not shooters who originally killed the wildlife) action to save and protect their habitat and numbers.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. Christian Science Monitor looks at the awful winter for Yellowstone Bison « Ralph Maughan’s Wildlife News | 06.04.08
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Andre | 06.03.08
Jay Bodner’s solution is “killing all bison that test positive for the disease”.
How low base of a human to make such claims. He knows that brucellosis myth is a scare tactic. He does not see any reason not to kill all the bison left in Yellowstone. He is truly a lowly scoundrel by every definition of the word.