American Bison - Buffalo Field Campaign

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
8.5 Overcoming Obstacles to the Ecological Restoration of Bison 8.5.1 Disease management considerations Animal health and disease issues can present significant obstacles to bison restoration efforts. The presence of regulated diseases in bison can prevent the transport of bison across jurisdictional boundaries and limits access to sources of bison. Potentially important sources of genetically reputable bison for restoration from WBNP and YNP are deemed unsuitable because of their disease status. However, recent research efforts are exploring methods of quarantining bison from these sources to determine if disease free status can be established for animals passing through strict quarantine procedures (Nishi et al. 2002b; 2006). The use of effective quarantine to release these genetic sources of bison could be extremely helpful for enhancing access to a broader source gene pool for restoration. Before animals can be translocated for restoration, each state or province and international border that would be crossed by bison will require specific health tests. When designing specific restoration projects, it is essential to contact State/Provincial or Federal Veterinarians so that required disease testing is a clearly articulated. Appropriate regulatory veterinarian(s) have the expertise to establish which disease(s) require screening, and which approved test protocols and diagnostic laboratories are acceptable/required for health clearance for specific jurisdictions. These health approvals need to be obtained before transporting any bison across jurisdictional lines. Good health monitoring of the source herd can provide important information to support the testing carried out prior to transport. A good health-monitoring programme will identify existing diseases circulating among the source herd, and include background information regarding the presence or absence of regulated diseases. Infectious disease is an emerging threat that conservationists may be ill equipped to manage (Woodroffe 1999). Despite these limitations there are several disease management models across the globe that could help support disease management planning in bison (Osofsky et al. 2005). Through careful planning, and research of existing disease management models, this issue can be substantially reduced in scope and impact. 8.5.2 Legal status and policy considerations In order to address obstacles to ecological restoration of bison, it is important to identify the strategic components of a continental conservation plan. The IUCN BSG has provided this strategic framework and associated technical guidelines for bison conservation to help agencies and the public accomplish ecologically relevant conservation projects. This framework can assist in resolving issues of international status and overcome legal/policy obstacles from a strategic perspective. While this continental wide strategy should be useful in advising some of the overarching legal and policy changes necessary to achieve conservation missions, federal state/provincial and local authorities will need to be involved, and supportive of significant local changes in policies, so that restoration projects can be accomplished. For most bison restoration projects to advance, changes in laws and policy will be necessary, but they must be designed to encourage bison conservation in an ecologically relevant manner with due consideration of the potential socio- economic consequences to countries, state/provinces or local communities. Laws, rules, and policies of governments can impede conservation. However, they may be transformed into supportive frameworks if there is social acceptance and a high value associated with restoration goals. Comprehensive policies and laws need to be developed that promote ecosystem conservation, without being overly prescriptive. There will be a need for negotiation, compromise, and cooperation in the process of changing laws and policies. Such processes are interdisciplinary in nature, requiring integration of the disciplines of economics, law, ecology, and sociology to be successful (Wilkie et al. 2008). 8.5.2.1 Role of the non-governmental organisations NGOs can play a key role advocating for the necessary changes to laws, rules, and policies that hinder restoration. NGOs can actively lobby for necessary legal/policy changes by federal, state or provincial governments to overcome identified obstacles. They can provide and secure or support government funding for conservation. Coalitions of NGOs and government agencies can be formed to advocate for specific conservation efforts. NGOs could also support the ecological, economic, cultural and spiritual interests of indigenous peoples with an interest in bison conservation. They can aid local community groups in negotiations and help these communities influence stewardship of natural resources in their area (Fraser et al. 2008). Finally, some NGOs could help to resolve international issues related to status and legal/policy obstacles associated with individual projects. While many agencies must operate within jurisdictional boundaries, NGOs can transcend these limitations and broker communication and cooperation among agencies. The historic model of the American Bison Society (ABS), as a consortium of individuals and groups, is an example of how conservation organisations can play a powerful role in species restoration. The ABS advocated for the formation of bison preserves in the west and supported new wildlife policy and legislation to preserve a species at the brink of extinction. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is an excellent example of a North American NGO employing land preservation and active advocacy to support conservation policies that create American Bison: Status Survey and Conservation Guidelines 2010 77
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 93: 8.4 Legal and Policy Obstacles Hind
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?