American Bison - Buffalo Field Campaign

for an interagency environmental impact statement to develop
alternatives for the plan (USDOI and USDA 2000). A series
of interagency interim plans followed, which progressively
incorporated greater tolerance for bison outside the park in
certain areas, and enabled NPS and MFWP personnel to lethally
remove bison moving from YNP into Montana.
Legal and policy disagreements between the federal agencies
and the State of Montana inhibited the development of a long-
term interagency management plan until 2000 when court-
ordered mediation resulted in a final decision for a long-term
management approach. The long-term plan employs an adaptive
management approach with three phased steps for each of the
north and west boundary areas (USDOI and USDA 2000). The
plan incorporates several risk management strategies including
spatial and temporal separation of bison and cattle, capture,
test, and slaughter of sero-positive bison, hazing of bison back
into the park, vaccination, and radio-telemetry monitoring of
pregnant bison to locate possible sources of infection if a cow
gives birth or aborts outside the park (USDOI and USDA 2000).
The ultimate purpose of the plan is to maintain a wild, free-
ranging population of bison while, at the same time, protecting
the economic viability of the livestock industry in Montana
by addressing the risk of brucellosis transmission; it is not a
brucellosis eradication plan (Plumb and Aune 2002). Although
eradication of brucellosis from bison in the park is a possible
future goal, such an effort is complicated by retransmission
potential from elk in the GYA, which also harbour the disease
(Cheville et al. 1998). Development of more effective vaccines
and vaccination methods for bison and elk are required before
considering eradication alternatives (Cheville et al. 1998). Recent
research on genes that control natural resistance to brucellosis
may also provide future methods for eradicating brucellosis
(Templeton et al. 1998).
Recent transmission of brucellosis from elk to cattle and
the subsequent loss of Montana’s brucellosis status have
complicated management. Current initiatives are aimed at
managing the problem of brucellosis in elk and bison. Changes
in the distribution of bison, elk, and cattle will generate further
public debate and perhaps legal action. The GYA situation
illustrates the tremendous difficulty in managing wild free ranging
ungulates affected by a significant disease on a large landscape
where human livelihoods are at risk.
5.2.2 Grand Teton National Park/National Elk Refuge
(Jackson herd)
The Jackson herd of approximately 1,100 animals resides in the
southern end of the GYA (USFWS and NPS 2007), migrating
between Grand Teton National Park (GTNP) in the summer and
the adjacent National Elk Refuge (NER) in the winter (Cheville et
al. 1998). As with the YNP herd, the Jackson herd is chronically
34 American Bison: Status Survey and Conservation Guidelines 2010
infected with brucellosis. Williams et al. (1993) reported sero-
prevalence of 77% and infection prevalence of 36% for the herd.
Serology tests over the past five years indicate a sero-prevalence
of 80% (S. Cain, personal communication). A reduction of 8% in
fecundity has been estimated, however, the population has been
increasing since the 1970s despite the disease (S. Cain, personal
communication, Chapter 6; USFWS-NPS 2007).
The Jackson herd was founded in 1948 with the reintroduction
of 20 bison from YNP to a 1,500-acre display pen. These bison
were confined until 1963 when brucellosis was discovered in
the herd (Cheville et al. 1998). All but four vaccinated yearlings
and five vaccinated calves were destroyed. In 1964, Theodore
Roosevelt National Park (TRNP) provided 12 brucellosis-free
bison to augment the Jackson herd (Cheville et al. 1998). In
1968, the herd escaped from the progressively deteriorating
enclosure facility (Cheville et al. 1998; Williams et al. 1993). From
that point the park allowed the herd to roam freely. The bison
herd discovered the feed ground at the NER in 1980. Although
the herd was apparently healthy when released, it is suspected
that infected elk on the NER introduced brucellosis to the
Jackson bison (Cheville et al. 1998).
Similar to the YNP herd, the free-ranging nature of the Jackson
herd allows for the possibility of transmitting brucellosis
to domestic livestock in the area, although since the NER
excludes cattle, there is limited contact between Jackson
bison and cattle during the winter feeding period (Cheville et
al. 1998). There is potential for contact, however, when bison
move among private, USFS, GTNP and NER jurisdictions,
especially in summer, when cattle are maintained on grazing
allotments in GTNP, private ranchlands, and adjacent USFS
lands (Cheville et al. 1998; Keiter 1997).
A new bison and elk management plan for the NER and GTNP
was approved in April 2007. An earlier bison management plan
approved in 1996, after undergoing a National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) process, was subject to litigation by an animal
rights group that questioned the inclusion of a sport hunt to
manage population levels and the exclusion of an analysis of
elk management on the federal lands in the decision process
(Cain, personal communication; USFWS-NPS 2001). The court
ruled that destruction of bison for population control could not
be conducted until the involved agencies analysed the effects
of winter feeding on bison and elk through an additional NEPA
process (USFWS-NPS 2001). The feeding grounds attract 90%
of the Jackson bison and 6,000-8,000 elk to one small area,
creating zones of high animal density, where transmission
may be enhanced among and between elk and bison (Bienen
2002; USFWS-NPS 2007). GTNP and the NER determined
that a combined elk and bison management plan is needed to
address the interconnected issues of the two species, including
winter feeding and disease management. The Jackson bison