American Bison - Buffalo Field Campaign

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