American Bison - Buffalo Field Campaign

More documents

Recommendations

Info

was a lack of support by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the provincial governments. In July 2006, The Federal Minister of the Environment recommended that plains bison not be listed because of potential economic implications for the Canadian bison industry (http://canadagazette.gc.ca/ partII/2005/20050727/html/si72-e.html). There are several potential complications that would accompany the process of listing plains bison in North America. One complication regarding the legal status of bison is the issue of hybridisation with cattle. There is considerable uncertainty concerning if, and how, endangered species status should be applied to hybrids in Canada and the U.S. (Boyd and Gates 2006; Campton and Kaeding, 2005). Hybrids are exempt from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) when propagated in captivity, and when they are the progeny from one listed and one non- listed parent (O’Brien and Mayr 1991). A second complication is the consideration of commercial bison production in evaluating the numerical status of this species. A third complication is the legal distinction and status of wild and captive bison should listing be considered for the wild form (Boyd 2003). Bison often enjoy protected status in Canadian and U.S. national parks as a result of the legal status of the habitat. The Canadian National Parks Act protects bison and their habitat in national parks. In Canada, provincial and territorial governments can also use the federal Wildlife Trade Act to control the movement of bison across their borders. In the U.S., enabling legislation attached to each national park when it was established, typically protect bison as wildlife unless they are not considered native to the region. Where they are not considered native to a region, or are known to be cattle hybrids, national parks often consider them invasive and may consider removal or eradication. The United Stated Forest Service (USFS) classifies the American Bison as “Not Sensitive in Region 2 and Not of Concern” by its Species Conservation Program assessment (USDA Forest Service 2009). The rationale for this classification is that populations and habitats are currently stable or increasing. This USFS review suggests that while the species may warrant restoration as an ecological keystone species, it does not warrant sensitive status. Conservation and restoration programmes for American bison are confounded by socioeconomic challenges resulting from the confusing legal status for this species. The legal status of bison ranges from domestic livestock to wildlife among various federal, state, and provincial jurisdictions across North America (Table 8.1). The legal recognition of bison as wildlife is often impeded by their historic, or in many cases dual, classification as domestic livestock. Where they have attained their status as wildlife, they are routinely managed within fenced preserves where some, if not all, natural selective processes are curtailed. 66 American Bison: Status Survey and Conservation Guidelines 2010 Ten states in the U.S., four provinces in Canada, and one state in Mexico classify bison as wildlife (Table 8.1). All other states and provinces within their original range designate bison solely as domestic livestock. Plains bison are designated and managed as wildlife in Alaska, Arizona, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Chihuahua. Four other states consider bison as wildlife, but do not have free ranging populations to manage; Idaho (extreme rarity), Missouri (extirpated), New Mexico (no longer occurring), and Texas (extirpated). Plains bison are listed and managed as wildlife, but are considered extirpated, in Alberta and Manitoba. Wild bison are preserved, as a public trust resource, managed to protect natural selection processes, and hunted as free roaming wildlife in Alaska, Arizona, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. Wood bison are designated and managed as wildlife under provincial statutes in Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories. Wood bison enjoy protected status in all of these provinces. There are legal restrictions on hunting and other activities such as capture and harassment. Subsistence hunting by aboriginal peoples is allowed under strict regulation in Northwest Territories and Yukon. Under Mexican law, wildlife belongs to the nation. However, Mexico has only recently developed a wildlife conservation and management system that entitles a landowner to be registered in the programme (Unidades de Manejo y Aprovechamiento) and to receive the benefits of harvest and commercial use of wildlife. This programme has doubled the landscape available for wildlife protection in Mexico. In 1995, the federal government established a bureau managed by the Secretary of the Environment. Within this organisation is a department for the administration of wildlife conservation programmes. In 2007, the conservation of threatened species is becoming the responsibility of the National System of Protected Natural Areas. There is only a limited state or local wildlife management infrastructure to support federal wildlife conservation efforts in Mexico. Local communities are only now beginning to accept and appreciate the value of free-ranging wildlife on landscapes that they own and manage. Until a broader legal and policy infrastructure is established, federal law and policy will continue to direct wildlife management conservation in Mexico. Federal policy is primarily aimed at developing partnerships with landowners and cooperatively identifies conservation measures acceptable to individual landowners. In addition, federal conservation law and policy drives the protection of land to establish “Natural Protected Areas” to conserve species associated with those landscapes. Public interest has increased in developing wildlife programmes for economic and conservation purposes. Interest in conservation continued on page 73
Table 8.1 Current legal status of plains and wood bison (Excluding portions of bison range where large landscapes are no longer available). Country/ State Province United States Animal Classification Wildlife Domestic Yes Yes Alaska Yes Yes Arizona Yes Yes Colorado No Yes Protected and/or Wildlife Status Plains bison petitioned under ESA but denied; Managed as captive wildlife on USFWS Refuges; USFS R-2 classifies bison as not sensitive; Managed as wildlife (captive or freeranging) in several National Parks. Recent petition to downlist wood bison to “Threatened” is under 90-day review. 4 introduced plains bison herds are “Wildlife”; One plains bison herd on Popof Island; Maintain a hunting programme by permit only. Bison are wildlife, specifically big game, and are managed by AGFD on two state wildlife areas (House Rock and Raymond Ranch). Bison are exempt from the requirements of wildlife commission regulations. Today, captive herds are designated as livestock. Conservation herds exist in two Denver City parks, one USFWS Refuge and one TNC preserve. Long Term Conservation Goal No comprehensive strategy; Activity limited to and fragmented among NGOs, very few states, National Parks and USFWS Refuge System. Long-term goals being established for wild wood bison in State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) and reintroduction programmes; Management planning for the 4 introduced plains bison herds. Yes, in SWAP. Yes; On Two USFWS Refuges and one TNC preserve. Key Statutes or Policies Affecting Conservation NEPA; National Refuge Act; Each National Park has its own organic legislation- Interpreted by each Park Superintendent; Wood bison are listed as Endangered under ESA; Animal Health Protection Act (7#U. S.C. 8301 et seq.). ESA 10(J) status for wood bison - Minto Flats introduction; Title 16 in Alaska state statutes designates bison as wildlife; Delta Bison Mgt. Plan; Wood bison Conservation Plan in progress; Livestock manages captive bison under Title 3 in Alaska state statutes. Domestic bison governed under same rules as domestic cattle. Title 12, R12-4-401 Game and Fish Commission Rules for Live Wildlife; R-12-4- 406 Restricted Live Wildlife Section B9.d exempts restrictions on possessing captive bison (permit not required to possess); A.R.S 17-101 A22 defines wildlife and 101B defines bison as a game animal. Chapter 11, Section 406-8 Wildlife, Parks and Unregulated Wildlife; Wildlife Commission Regulation #1103 exempts bison from all wildlife commission regulations, as domestic animals Proposals for Restoration Major Legislative and/or Policy Obstacles American Bison: Status Survey and Conservation Guidelines 2010 67 No Yes; Yukon and Minto Flats Wood Bison Restoration is underway. No No Absence of strategic planning; Multiple jurisdictions and coordination of agencies; Management in captivity under refuge policy; Disease transmission to livestock; Limited involvement and interest by many state wildlife agencies; Confused regulatory status in many states. Plains bison outside their original range; Aboriginal hunting rights; USFWS interpretations of legal status of wood bison under ESA. Arizona is at the edge of bison original range; Current strategic plan limits conservation to two existing populations; House Rock population hybridised with cattle; Agriculture and forestry conflicts. Agriculture and forestry conflicts; Regulatory status.
Page 1 and 2:
American Bison Status Survey and Co
Page 3 and 4:
American Bison Status Survey and Co
Page 5 and 6:
Table of Contents Acknowledgements
Page 7 and 8:
6.3 Demographics ..................
Page 9 and 10:
9.6 Active Management: Handling, He
Page 11 and 12:
This manuscript is the product of m
Page 13 and 14:
ABS American Bison Society ABSG Ame
Page 15 and 16:
The publication of this IUCN Americ
Page 17 and 18:
and foothills. Bison have a profoun
Page 19 and 20:
Chapter 1 Introduction: The Context
Page 21 and 22:
composition and function, as well a
Page 23 and 24:
Chapter 2 History of Bison in North
Page 25 and 26:
Figure 2.1 Original ranges of plain
Page 27 and 28:
Charles Alloway (Manitoba), Charles
Page 29 and 30:
nomadic “Plains Indian Culture”
Page 31 and 32:
Chapter 3 Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Page 33 and 34: demonstrate that Bison and Bos were
Page 35 and 36: from their original habitat near th
Page 37 and 38: Chapter 4 Genetics As a science, po
Page 39 and 40: Selection for diversity in one syst
Page 41 and 42: cross, however, the latter is more
Page 43 and 44: the conservation of the wild specie
Page 45 and 46: Chapter 5 Reportable or Notifiable
Page 47 and 48: one) followed by its widespread dis
Page 49 and 50: cattle at similar levels to S19 (Ch
Page 51 and 52: long as 156 days post-infection. So
Page 53 and 54: and elk herds migrate across severa
Page 55 and 56: These concepts are being developed
Page 57 and 58: Chapter 6 General Biology, Ecology
Page 59 and 60: leave the herd prior to calving or
Page 61 and 62: historically dependent on a combina
Page 63 and 64: 6.2.1.2.1 Northern mixed grasslands
Page 65 and 66: woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus
Page 67 and 68: season: Wolfe and Kimball (1989) re
Page 69 and 70: Table 6.4 Age-specific reproductive
Page 71 and 72: 6.3.4 Population growth rates The r
Page 73 and 74: Chapter 7 Numerical and Geographic
Page 75 and 76: Sixty-two plains bison and 11 wood
Page 77 and 78: Figure 7.4 Representation of plains
Page 79 and 80: Plate 7.3 Male plains bison sparrin
Page 81 and 82: Chapter 8 Legal Status, Policy Issu
Page 83: administrations, and the increasing
Page 87 and 88: Table 8.1 (continued) Country/ Stat
Page 93 and 94: 8.4 Legal and Policy Obstacles Hind
Page 95 and 96: 8.5 Overcoming Obstacles to the Eco
Page 97 and 98: indigenous peoples’ land (Dudley
Page 99 and 100: 3) Develop outreach to state and fe
Page 101 and 102: 8.5.5.3 Mexico Since the original r
Page 103 and 104: Chapter 9 Conservation Guidelines f
Page 105 and 106: animals are proportionately removed
Page 107 and 108: 6. Maintenance number and growth ra
Page 109 and 110: 4. Health and disease All attempts
Page 111 and 112: Table 9.4 Important considerations
Page 113 and 114: northern bison herds, managers shou
Page 115 and 116: may not have been validated. Testin
Page 117 and 118: 2) A tendency to flee if approached
Page 119 and 120: 2. Determine the required scope of
Page 121 and 122: Chapter 10 Guidelines for Ecologica
Page 123 and 124: • Creating education, awareness a
Page 125 and 126: 10.3 The “Ecosystem Approach” f
Page 127 and 128: anywhere without engaging stakehold
Page 129 and 130: Interventions (e.g., supplemental f
Page 131 and 132: Agabriel, J. and Petit, M. 1996. Qu
Page 133 and 134: Byerly, R.M., Cooper, J.R., Meltzer
Page 135 and 136:
Dragon D.C. and Rennie, R.P. 1995.
Page 137 and 138:
Gilpin, M.E. and Soulé, M.E. 1986.
Page 139 and 140:
Joern, A. 2005. Disturbance by fire
Page 141 and 142:
Matthews, S.B. 1991. An assessment
Page 143 and 144:
Possingham, H.P., Davies, I., Noble
Page 145 and 146:
Shaw, J.H. 1995. How many bison ori
Page 147 and 148:
van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1986. A Syst
Page 149 and 150:
Appendix A North American conservat
Page 151 and 152:
Plains bison (continued) State/Prov
Page 154:
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATIO
show all

American Bison - Buffalo Field Campaign

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?