American Bison - Buffalo Field Campaign

More documents

Recommendations

Info

stock, extensive testing and screening of source herds, health monitoring of herds, and regulatory involvement in the process of translocation (Table 8.2). Successful restoration projects will need to navigate the animal health regulatory process necessary to permit translocation of bison and to accomplish the eventual establishment of healthy conservation herds in North America (see Chapter 5). The key disease categories that need to be considered in bison restoration are: Foreign Animal Disease (FAD) events, regulatory diseases (across international boundaries and within country jurisdictions), and diseases of significance to livestock, but not regulated. A foreign animal disease will cause significant impact to bison restoration and agricultural activities in any jurisdiction. A significant response network is already available to address FADs within countries, states, and provinces. This response network typically involves federal, state, and provincial agriculture, wildlife, and public health agencies. Any such event involving source bison, or on a restoration landscape, would halt a restoration project and stop movement of individuals from an infected source stock. A bison conservation effort is at risk when a bovine FAD arrives in any country, and a subsequent federal response is required to immediately stop movement of all affected animals. Regulatory diseases on the other hand are typically more manageable, with regulatory steps required to allow movement after health standards are met. Although they are significant, there are established protocols to test, manage, and even control many of these diseases. Each disease has its Table 8.2 Some diseases that will or may have implications to bison restoration. Disease Restoration is Prevented Any FAD* X Anthrax X Bovine Tuberculosis X BSE** X Significant Impediment Brucellosis X MCF*** X Medium Impediment JD**** X Respiratory Diseases (e.g. BVD, IBR, BRSV, PI3, Bacterial) 74 American Bison: Status Survey and Conservation Guidelines 2010 own characteristics and subsequently the challenges of disease testing, management and control vary. There have been many historic efforts, some successful and some not, to control and eliminate these types of diseases in bison. This historic record is a good place to go to see what works and what does not. The science behind wildlife disease issues is improving, but more work is needed (Friend 2006). Considerable research is needed to establish quarantine and testing protocols required to ensure the safe movement of animals. To be certain that restoration projects will not introduce new diseases, or exacerbate existing diseases, it is important to accurately and reliably establish the health background of source herds and of the wild and domestic animals within restoration areas. There will be many agricultural interests examining bison restoration efforts, so during a restoration project, utmost attention should be given to communicating the health prevention measures taken, and testing information obtained. It is likely that agricultural conflicts will be one of the major impediments to restoration, but embracing modern approaches, with careful monitoring of population health and integrating regulatory health officials into the projects from the beginning, can mitigate most disease issues. Restoration efforts should establish and maintain regular communication with state, provincial, and federal animal health regulators and other appropriate public health agencies. General communications should also be established with key animal health organisations, such as the U.S. Animal Health Association or Wildlife Disease Association, to ensure that the Locally Significant X X Endoparasites X Ectoparasites X Other Bacterial/Viral infections * Foreign animal disease ** Bovine spongiform encephalopathy *** Malignant catarrhal fever ****Johne’s disease. X best health information is being openly discussed and shared with affected groups and individuals. Restoration projects that involve international transport of bison are subject to additional legal and policy considerations. For example, increased animal disease regulations due to any discovery and control of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) across the U.S.–Canadian or U.S.–Mexican borders will undoubtedly complicate trans- boundary movement of bison (APHIS, USDA 2007). Until these restrictions are eased there will be limited opportunity for international movement of bison despite any evidence that this disease actually exists in American bison. Restoration planning will need to include a thorough search of current international border restrictions related to disease control. Early discussions with animal health regulators will be essential to identify any disease regulations and specific testing requirements for transport of bison across an international boundary.
8.4 Legal and Policy Obstacles Hindering Conservation of Bison Bison conservation and restoration intersects directly with many laws, rules, and policies within a complex social-economic- ecological matrix. Isenberg (2000) detailed the historical relationships of social and economic change to preservation of the bison at the turn of the century. Bison were caught in a vortex of social, economic, and ecological change on the Great Plains, and were nearly exterminated (Isenberg 2000). These changes remain the central themes for an ongoing modern Great Plains drama. The continued expansion of the human population (except in rural areas of the Great Plains, where it is declining), the dominant use of prairie grazing lands for domestic livestock, and the conversion of native prairie to cropland, have led to persistent competition between wild bison and humans for primary use of grassland habitats. However, intermixed among these agricultural and urbanising landscapes are relatively intact islands of suitable prairie habitat with potential for bison restoration. These remaining intact landscapes are typically a mix of private and public land and are characterised by a mosaic of land ownership, land management regimes, socio-economic interests and land use policies. Excluding disease status of bison (see above section), we have identified six principle obstacles that are major impediments to conservation of bison within this social-economic-ecological landscape. Although there are many other minor obstacles, most of these are site specific in nature and can be addressed without efforts to shape law/policy or public attitudes in a range wide scale. The most significant legal and policy obstacles to wild bison restoration are indirectly derived from socio-economic concerns and persistent historical paradigms of bison management. The greatest impediment is social intolerance for a large grazing bovid that is perceived to compete with other interests adjacent to, or within, prospective prairie landscapes suitable for bison restoration. As a species, the biology, behavioural plasticity, and wide ecological scope of bison provide unlimited opportunity for restoration efforts with a high probability of success in recolonising available grassland habitats. 8.4.1.1.1 Confusing legal classification and status There are relatively few states and provinces where conservation bison herds are legally classified as wildlife (see Table 8.1). Other states/provinces have mixed status for bison and there is some confusion relative to the legal authority or policies of other bison herds. Many states/provinces within the original range of bison have classified bison as domestic livestock and management authority is vested within agricultural agencies. In addition, many conservation herds are managed by federal agencies, such as the National Park Service (NPS) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Refuge System, adding a federal layer of laws and policies upon bison. This confusing legal classification and status increases the difficulties in conserving the species in a comprehensive manner. Privately owned bison herds do not enjoy legal status as wildlife. Some bison owned by private producers may have conservation value (e.g., good genetics), but management is principally production oriented. Several privately owned bison herds managed by NGOs are managed in an ecologically relevant manner, but are also not legally classified as wildlife. In Alaska, wood bison were not considered native wildlife for many years by the USFWS, but plains bison herds were established by the State of Alaska and managed as wildlife. Federally owned bison herds are typically managed as wildlife, although behind high fences, but they are usually not recognised as native wildlife by state authorities. This confusion in the legal status of bison is probably the single most important obstacle impeding ecological restoration and hindering a nationwide conservation strategy for this species. 8.4.1.1.2 Historical management policies Adding to the confused legal status of bison is the consistent policy of establishing and managing bison behind high fences by state and federal agencies. This management paradigm, established in the early 1900s to protect the species, has persisted, further confusing the management policy framework and public attitude toward bison as a wildlife species. This confusing management approach to bison is not consistent with other wildlife and has produced the second most significant obstacle to ecological restoration. Few agencies or members of the public identify bison as native wildlife deserving the same status as other free-ranging wildlife. A public recognition for the need to manage bison as wildlife, in an ecologically sensitive way, is essential to successful restoration. Ecological restoration of bison will be hindered until this management paradigm shifts and social tolerance is developed to allow free-ranging bison on native prairie habitats. 8.4.1.1.3 Complex partnerships needed to manage large landscapes Bison populations managed on public lands are considered as the core of the wild herds being managed to conserve the species for the future (Boyd 2003; Knowles et al. 1997). However, few public land management agencies have a sufficient land base to manage bison populations in a manner that allows for natural selection processes. Bison need large landscapes to allow natural movements and express appropriate ecological function. Unfortunately, most wild bison are being managed as small populations on relatively small areas by single agencies or tribes. Forging the partnerships to manage populations across multiple jurisdictions on large landscapes seems to limit existing conservation efforts. Building partnerships to manage wild bison, as a public trust resource by a coalition of private and public interests, while theoretically feasible, has been limited in practice. American Bison: Status Survey and Conservation Guidelines 2010 75
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 and 84: administrations, and the increasing
Page 85 and 86: Table 8.1 Current legal status of p
Page 87 and 88: Table 8.1 (continued) Country/ Stat
Page 89 and 90: Table 8.1 (continued) Country/ Stat
Page 91: Table 8.1 (continued) Country/ Stat
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?