American Bison - Buffalo Field Campaign

The problems of governance and scale have been well
discussed in the literature (Westley and Miller 2003; Wilke et
al. 2008). There typically is a wide range of actors associated
with the conservation of large landscapes and species with
large spatial needs such as bison. It is easy to underestimate
the complexity of ownership patterns on large landscapes
and to miss identifying key actors on this conservation stage.
Furthermore, different kinds of actors will have different rights,
interests, and capacities, and will need to be approached in
different ways (Wilke et al. 2008). The challenge of forming
complex partnerships at the appropriate scale is formidable and
often discourages efforts to consider large-scale initiatives.
8.4.1.1.4 Defining the social and economic value
of wild bison
Many legal and policy changes necessary for the ecological
restoration of bison are linked to social and economic factors.
Agencies and conservationists need to identify the economic,
social, and ecological benefits of restoring wild free-ranging
bison, while protecting existing cultural and economic interests
(Geist 2006). The value of restoring wild bison must be
expressed in a manner that does not necessarily diminish the
economic value of existing livestock and commercial bison
markets managed under an agricultural paradigm. This may take
creative approaches involving policy adjustments and paradigm
shifts among cooperating agencies/private sectors that optimise
complimentary land use strategies and mitigate identified
conflicts. This process could be supported by tax incentives,
payment for environmental services, ecotourism, incentives for
landowner cooperation (e.g., Colorado’s Ranching for Wildlife
Program), extension services, and training for a new generation
of landowners and managers.
8.4.1.1.5 Coordination of policies, rules, and
regulations by government
Coordination of management policies, rules, and regulations
(or the lack thereof) by various governments has also hindered
bison conservation efforts. Because no single government
agency owns or manages sufficiently large blocks of land to
sustain free-ranging bison, cooperation between agencies
is needed for restoration and conservation planning and
implementation. Many agencies’ missions are not readily
compatible with cooperative management strategies needed
for conservation of bison at large scales. Furthermore, many
land management agencies have directed missions and goals
that may not immediately support the types of policy changes
required to manage for the conservation of bison. In addition
to coordination among government agencies there is often a
compelling need to coordinate with and among Tribal and private
lands influenced by other policies and management objectives.
76 American Bison: Status Survey and Conservation Guidelines 2010
8.4.1.1.6 Agricultural conflicts among
mixed land ownership
The most significant conflicts associated with restoring wild free-
ranging bison are likely to be with agricultural neighbours living
near conservation reserves. Establishing free-ranging wild bison
herds in North America will undoubtedly lead to conflicts from
crop damage, forage competition with livestock, mixing with
livestock, possible interbreeding with cattle, disease issues, and
damaging private property. These agricultural conflicts are not
entirely uncommon with other large herbivores.
These six policy obstacles are quite common across
international, state/provincial, and public/private jurisdictional
boundaries within the original range of bison. Bison restoration
must occur at sufficiently large landscape scales that few, if
any, individual agencies will be able to implement an effective
management programme on their own. Coordination of agency
missions to conserve wild bison must in the long run be a
negotiated process to ensure joint conservation goals can be
established and implemented within the legal framework. In
addition, conservation goals must be established to encourage
privately owned populations of wild bison (as defined elsewhere
in this document) to be managed over the course of many years
in a manner that allows ranchers to build new markets that
provide economic benefits for conserving the characteristics of
ancestral bison herds.
Other obstacles to restoration include: long time scales,
institutional resistance, funding, and conservation mission
creep. Most large-scale conservation projects for long-lived
mammals need to play out across long time scales. It is easy
for conservation partners to fatigue, and for shifting political
and social climates to make extended time scales problematic.
Institutional resistance is inevitable within and among the
cooperating agencies and private sector partners involved in
a bison restoration project. Within agencies and organisations
there is likely to be some internal resistance to various aspects
of the project, so care will be needed to build reasonable
consensus. Although many agency or private groups may
support the concept of restoration, there is a fundamental need
for funding and contribution from all critical partners. Finally, with
every conservation programme, the implementation can creep
off target or move beyond intended goals. This has a tendency
to dismantle social and political support for a project by creating
a different type of management or objective than was originally
identified and agreed upon by stakeholders. For example as
landscapes become larger, and some measure of success is
achieved, there may be a tendency to move the conservation
focus. Conservation and restoration strategies and planning
efforts need to clearly articulate the conservation goal and be
able to measure progress and identify critical benchmarks for
meeting those goals.