Bison and Cattle Wars:

The Battle for Public Lands in Greater Yellowstone

By Mark McBeth, Ph. D.

Copyright 1998 © Mark McBeth

Abstract

During the winter of 1996-97, between 1000 and 1500 Yellowstone bison were killed by the Montana Department of Livestock as result of the "Interim Bison Management Plan" signed by Yellowstone National Park officials to settle a lawsuit filed by the State of Montana. Montana officials feared that the Yellowstone bison herd in which some bison have brucellosis would infect Montana cattle and Montana would lose its "brucellosis-free" status as conferred by the Animal, Plant, Health, Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture. The plan initially called for testing bison and slaughtering of infected animals. The policy soon spun out of control, however, as bison were indiscriminately corralled and shot on site regardless whether they tested positive for brucellosis. This study reports the results of the qualitative portion of a mail survey sent to citizens in the Yellowstone border communities of West Yellowstone and Gardiner, Montana. Respondents offered their open-ended answers to questions concerning problem definition and possible solutions. The results indicate that in regard to problem definition, 36% of the comments were directed against the management practices of the National Park Service (NPS) and 33% were directed against the trio of Montana ranchers, elected officials, and APHIS. Citizens who blamed the NPS for the problem overwhelmingly favored a carrying capacity for bison that will keep the bison in the park. The rest of the respondents offered several solutions including buffer zones, vaccination of cattle, and ethical hunting of bison.

Introduction

Yellowstone National Park (YNP) was established in 1872 as America's and the world's first national park. The majority of the park is located in the state of Wyoming but the communities that surround the park's boundaries are located in Montana. Yellowstone was created for the citizens of the United States and in order to protect the natural resources of the area including pristine rivers, rugged canyons, geothermal features, and wildlife. Just how to manage these features and simultaneously meet the needs of local tourist communities, recreationists, hunters, and local ranching interests has always been a source of controversy. Wildlife management in the park has vacillated between natural and human management.

The Yellowstone bison herd have always been caught in the middle of the National Park Service's (NPS) fluctuation between natural and human controlled wildlife management. According to Chase (1986: 18) only twenty five bison were found in the Park in 1901. Bison were then restored under the direction of the U.S. Army imported bison from the Great Plains into Yellowstone. These imported bison were bred with the few remaining native bison at "Buffalo Ranch" in the northern part of Yellowstone. By 1930 there were 1,000 bison in YNP. Until the 1960s, NPS officials selectively killed bison to keep herds within the area's "carrying capacity" (Keiter, 1997: 2). In the 1960s a "natural policy" was implemented which allowed only the harsh winters to control the bison population (Keiter, 1997: 3). Under this philosophy, the bison population peaked at 4,200 in 1994.

The Interim Bison Management Plan

The controversy over bison-infected with brucellosis and their potential impact on domestic cattle dates is not a new problem. Rather, according to Keiter (1997: 3), brucellosis was first discovered in Yellowstone bison in 1917. Bison contracted brucellosis from milk cows kept at "Buffalo Ranch." Since then ranching interests have believed that cattle can acquire the disease by coming into contact with after-birth from an infected female bison who have just given birth. Brucellosis causes female animals to prematurely abort calves. The United States Department of Agriculture's Animal, Plant, and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for classifying a state as "brucellosis class-free." Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have such a classification which allows a state's ranchers to sell cattle across state lines. APHIS has, in recent years, threatened to withdraw Montana's brucellosis free status because of its proximity to Yellowstone's bison (Keiter, 1997: 5).

In August, 1996, Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Mike Finley approved the "Interim Bison Management Plan" (IBMP). The plan settled a lawsuit filed by Montana against the National Park Service (NPS) and the United States Department of Agriculture's "Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The IBMP called for the corralling, testing, and possible slaughter of bison which migrated outside the Park or were prone to migrate. The plan replaced the "zero tolerance" policy that had guided Montana for several years. Under zero-tolerance, any bison that wandered outside the park was shot. According to the Yellowstone Journal (Glover, 1996, C-7) more than 400 bison were killed in the winter of 1995-1996 near Gardiner and West Yellowstone, Montana.

What made the IBMP unique was that under the plan, the National Park Service operated a capture facility inside the Park near Gardiner, Montana. Unlike the zero-tolerance policy in which bison were shot by State of Montana officials as they left the park, the new policy had Park Service personnel corral bison inside Yellowstone Park who were headed outside the park. In addition, the Montana Department of Livestock operated a capture facility at the park boundary near West Yellowstone. Under the plan both facilities were to test all bison and send those that tested positive for brucellosis and pregnant females to slaughter houses.

The winter of 1996-97 arrived later than normal in Yellowstone as October and November remained unseasonably warm. Snow arrived in late November and by early December deep snow covered the Park. Around Christmas, 1996, a warming trend hit Greater Yellowstone. Temperatures rose to 50 degrees and the snow inside the park thawed. The capture facility near West Yellowstone was already opened and by early January, 53 bison had been killed.

By mid-January, 1997, 52 more bison were killed in West Yellowstone and 113 were shipped for slaughter in Gardiner.

Cold winter weather returned to Yellowstone in January with heavy snow and severely cold temperatures. The melting snow in December created a thick block of ice on Yellowstone grazing lands. Bison, even in the thermal areas of the Firehole River Valley, could not break through the ice to reach forage. Bison began migrating by the thousands to better feeding areas. These migrating bison headed toward the Park boundaries and were corralled in Northern Yellowstone and in the Western boundary. Hundreds of other bison were indiscriminately shot by the Montana Livestock Department.

By late January, the West Yellowstone News (Mansfield, 1-23-97, p. 14) reported that over 585 bison had been killed. An article in the paper quoted Paul Pritchard of the National Parks and Conservation Association (NCPA). As an eyewitness to the slaughter, Pritchard stated:

"The scene at the northern border of the Park is tragic. Animals are goring one another as they are crammed into pens and trucks to be shipped to slaughter. Three calves had their horns broken off and were bleeding profusely. An adult female arrived at the slaughterhouse badly gored and with broken ribs. Meanwhile, more bison are stacking up near the pens so another 100 bison could be killed next week at the north entrance alone."

Over 700 bison had been killed by early February, 1997. The USA Today newspaper ran an advertisement paid for by the "Fund for Animals" which stated in part, "Boycott Buffalo Butchery...The State of Montana has zero tolerance for Buffalo so we need you to have zero tolerance for Montana." The ad asked readers to contact Montana Governor Racicot and "tell him that you won't spend a dime in a state that doesn't give a damn about the one animal, of all animals, everyone should have a conscience about." In response to the ad, Racicot blamed the bison incident on the federal government and accused the Fund for Animals of false advertising (Mansfield, 2-6-97, p. 1, p. 8).

Yellowstone National Park officials temporarily suspended the killing of bison at the Gardiner facility because of the harsh weather. Officials tried to haze animals back into the Park. By early, February, YNP officials resumed capture operations after hazing efforts failed. Montana officials continued to shoot bison near West Yellowstone during this period. The Interim Bison Management Plan, in reality, operated as a zero-tolerance policy and turned into a large-scale bison slaughter. Bison were killed indiscriminately without testing and hundreds of bull bison were killed despite the fact that bulls have no possible way to transmit brucellosis to cattle.

Spring finally arrived in Yellowstone in late March and early April. The surviving bison slowly returned into the Park. An aerial count of the herd in early April found the bison herd at 1089 compared to 3400 in the fall of 1996. There is great controversy over the number of bison that were left in the park after the 1996-97 killings. The revised interim bison plan, released in August, 1997, stated that there were 2,200 bison in the park in July, 1997.

There is also controversy over the number of bison killed under the auspices of the first bison plan. The revised plan in August, 1997 reported that 1,123 bison were killed. Note that some 800 to 1,000 bison also died of natural causes from the brutal winter conditions.

Elected officials, bureaucrats, and interest groups have vocally supported and opposed the killing of Yellowstone bison.

The Governor of Montana, in a 1997 newspaper editorial, declared that the shooting was a "tragedy" but that the State of Montana had no choice because APHIS has "threatened to revoke Montana's hard-won brucellosis free status if we allow one such diseased creature into the state to potentially infect livestock." The Governor also found a villain in the National Park Service (NPS): What we have here are too many unmanaged, diseased bison leaving an overgrazed park to mingle with protected livestock in violation of the Department Agriculture ban" and "The Park Service is responsible for the park's bison. Yellowstone refuses to manage its wildlife. This has resulted in a drastic overpopulation of bison who must flee the park" (Racicot, 1997).

Environmental groups argue that bison are important symbols of the American West and that the "Yellowstone herd is the last link to the last wild bison." Environmental groups also have argued that only 2,000 cattle are located in the 7-8 mile area of potential cattle-bison contact and that "these 2,000 cattle are not on the range in the winter time when bison are likely to be on the same public land" (Greater Yellowstone Coalition Presentation, 1998).

Environmental groups have noted that cattle grazing allotments do not open up until June 15 and APHIS had claimed that the brucellosis virus dies at least within 60 days. This sixty day window is important since bison were killed in December, January, February, and March a time line that is three to six months prior to cattle being on the range. The second Interim Bison Plan adopted by APHIS allowed "low risk" bison to remain on the ranges outside of Yellowstone before the sixty day window. Low risk bison included bulls, yearlings, calves and cows that had long ago disposed of afterbirth. The State of Montana, however, opposed this more liberal policy because Montana ranchers believe that other state veterinarians will still a risk and these vets would require Montana ranchers to test their cattle before shipping out of state. More importantly, environmentalists claim that only one flawed study has found that bison can transmit brucellosis to cattle. An Texas A & M study (Davis, et. al, 1990) demonstrated that a female bison that had been shot up with high doses of brucellosis transmitted the disease to a cow after the cow licked the after-birth left by the mother bison. The study is invalid, according to environmentalists, because the cow and bison were in a small enclosed corral and the bison was shot up with extremely high doses of brucellosis (Greater Yellowstone Coalition Presentation, 1998). Keiter (1998) writes similarly of the Davis, et al. study, "This experiment has been severely criticized for its use of an unusually large infective dose and for its limited utility in the Yellowstone setting, where bison and cattle are free-ranging and not confined in close quarters."

In addition, some environmental groups have called for the end of winter snowmobiling in Yellowstone Park since the groomed snow trails (which follow the Park's roadways) potentially provide an easy route for bison to migrate within and eventually outside of the Park and into Montana firing lines. Recreation groups representing snowmobilers have claimed that bison use rivers to move within the Park and that efforts to close snowmobile trails are simply part of a larger environmental movement to end motorized winter use of Yellowstone.

The Study

Elected officials and interest groups have helped define the scope of this controversial issue. The voices of citizens, however, have been stifled. Elected officials in Montana have strongly backed ranching interests. Despite economic diversification, ranching and other agricultural interests still dominate the rural West and do so because they believe their economic interests are tied to ranchers' and other extractive-commodity industries' use of the public lands.

Both pro-ranching and pro-environment groups in the bison policy controversy stressed that their respective views represented the views of the people. Ranchers argued that ranching is the most important economic asset in Montana and that if cattle were infected with brucellosis the industry and thus many families would suffer. Environmentalists, conversely, claimed that it is the wildlife and environment of Greater Yellowstone and not ranching that drives the economy and that Montana citizens support free-ranging bison. This study represents an attempt to examine the attitudes of citizens in two Montana "Yellowstone gateway" communities on problem definition and possible solutions for the controversy.

Methodology

Surveys were mailed to 225 citizens and businesses in the Yellowstone border communities of West Yellowstone and Gardiner, Montana. One hundred twenty three respondents returned the survey for a 55% response rate. Not all respondents, however, completed the qualitative section. In the qualitative section of the survey, respondents were asked to contribute their open-ended comments on the cause of the bison problem and solutions. This article reports the results of this qualitative section. Comments on each question were sorted into distinct categories and then analyzed. This type of analysis has distinct advantages over traditional survey research where respondents are given closed-ended questions pre-determined by the researcher. Open-ended questions allow the researcher to receive unfiltered and unbiased responses.

Results

Problem Definition

The National Park Service is not Managing Wildlife

Twenty-eight (36%) respondents believed that ultimately the bison problem rested with the National Park Service's lack of wildlife management. One respondent suggested, "The Park should regulate the size of the herd, make the Park Service take responsibility for the problem it creates." Another citizen offered the following metaphor, "if I starved my dog or horse I would go to jail, they (NPS) need to control the problem." Many respondents felt that the NPS had made the State of Montana the "bad guy" in the issue. One citizen offered the following, "decide upon a carrying capacity for the YNP ecosystem and then sterilize, slaughter, or transfer excess animals. This should be done by the Park Service, not by the State of Montana. The Park Service has given Montana a bad rap."

Most respondents in this category believe that Yellowstone is overgrazed and that the Park cannot sustain a large herd of bison.

One respondent argued, "Yellowstone is overgrazed and the herd size needs to reduced." Another stated, "the real problem is not disease but overpopulation, the Park Service needs to be responsible for the problems they create."

In addition, some citizens were concerned about the public safety and property damage issues raised by the large bison population. As one West Yellowstone citizen noted, "Bison are not like the other animals in the Park. They like to lay down in the roads, somebody is going to get killed. Bison also cause a lot of property damage that insurance does not pay for." Another stated, "I don't think it is fair to people driving down the road to have to put their lives at risk because you cannot see bison at night. I also do not like to have to see them starve to death in my front yard." This citizens do not want Yellowstone bison leaving the park. Many made comments about how they like the bison but only if they stay inside the boundaries of Yellowstone. A common theme running through all of this narratives is one of control (to be discussed in detail later). These citizens believed that the Park Service has a duty to control its wildlife and keep bison (and presumably other animals) inside the park.

Yellowstone has used a natural management philosophy since the 1960s. This policy has been severely attacked by many local citizens, elected officials, and in the controversial 1986 book Playing God in Yellowstone, by Alston Chase. From a wildlife standpoint, Yellowstone National Park is poor winter habitat with its high elevations that produce bitterly cold and snowy winters. Wildlife have always migrated outside the park in the winter for lower and better feeding ranges. The question of whether the Yellowstone range is overgrazed remains a controversial scientific issue. The National Academy of Science report concluded that the scientific evidence does not demonstrate that Yellowstone bison are starving (National Academy of Sciences, 1998: Section II: 25). Instead, the report cites studies which demonstrate Yellowstone bison are in excellent body condition and that range degradation is not occurring.

This conflict between the Park Service and local citizens is not a new one. For example, Bartlett (1989: 385-386) writes of the anger caused in the 1960s when YNP decided to eliminate 600 elk from its herd. Bartlett ponders the question why Montana and Wyoming would care about the loss of 600 elk when they harvest over 100,000 animals a year. Bartlett writes of the controversy, "It had something to do with the people, and something to do with hunting, and it involved regional resentment against some individuals in the service. Bureaucratic arrogance, 'tin-godism,' the attitude that the service, as part of the federal government, will do whatever it wishes and the natives be damned all entered into their hostility."

This historical attitude toward the Park Service could well be a major cause of the bison slaughter as indicated by respondents' heated comments toward the NPS. It is interesting and obvious that these citizens were upset not because bison were be killed (like the elk were) but because the Park Service was not maintaining a smaller bison herd.

The Problem Rests with Ranchers, APHIS and Montana

Twenty six comments out of 78 (33%) were directed against the trio of ranchers, APHIS, and the state of Montana. One respondent wrote, "it should not be a controversy, money is the highlight here." "Where's the problem," commented another citizen, "since cattle are vaccinated, the problem is coming from politics, people, and mis-information. There has never been a proven case of a cow contracting brucellosis from a buffalo." Another respondent suggested, "what we have here is a greedy (me first) attitude with the public lands."

The lack of scientific evidence was cited by many citizens. For example, "there is no scientific study saying bison can transmit brucellosis and "use real science, drop the pretense about brucellosis being the rancher's concern. Vets who are extremely intelligent have published works that state the bison/cattle brucellosis transmission is nearly impossible, it has never happened in the wild but instead only in corralled areas."

Still another wrote, "it is impossible for cows to get brucellosis from bison, experts need to bring out strongly the false ideas of Racicot, the Montana Department of Livestock, and the ranchers who senselessly killed thousands of bison." The environmental assessment conducted for the Interim Bison Management Plan (1996: 5) stated in regard to this issue:

There is considerable disagreement about the potential for brucellosis transmission from wild bison to domestic livestock. Current scientific information is insufficient to either quantify the risk or to resolve the disagreement. Brucellosis is endemic in this bison herd. Therefore, Montana has determined active management of bison distribution is required to maintain Montana's compliance with Title 9  [Code of Federal Regulations and UM & R].

Another citizen noted that "Montana has killed hundreds of young and marked (uninfected) bison and bulls--I have seen their guts in the snow." Another citizen wondered, "if the ranchers are so concerned about brucellosis infected bison on the cattle ranges then why do they leave bison entrails and remains all over the public lands?" The environmental assessment of the Interim Bison Management Plan (1996: 9) states, "gut piles will be allowed to remain on private and public property when no possibility exists of human-bear conflict, provided permission has been granted by the land owner or the USDA Forest Service."

Others commented, "the cattle aren't on the public range until mid-June so why did they kill bison in the winter?" Many respondents suggested that the Yellowstone elk herd have higher rates of brucellosis yet, "we ignore the elk because they are a source of revenue." The question of whether brucellosis or population control was the real cause of the killings dates back for the last two years. For example, on page 5 of the Interim Bison Plan environmental review, the Nez Perce and Winnebago Tribes questioned the risk of brucellosis transmission and also wondered if "this was disease problem or a population management concern?" The environmental assessment responded to the question on transmission but ignored the question about population control.

As reasonable citizens we must consider that if bison can only theoretically transmit brucellosis to cattle by dropping placentas in the spring then it would seem reasonable that the solution to the bison controversy would be to simply monitor bison after mid-April each year (when the birthing starts). These bison could be shot or captured and transported out of the area. Most Yellowstone observers realize that bison typically return to inside the boundaries of Yellowstone in early April and do not leave until the early snows in November (after the time in which cattle have left the ranges).

The stated goal of the IBMP was the elimination of brucellosis within the Yellowstone herd. A careful study of documents surrounding this policy issue makes us question whether brucellosis elimination was really the goal. The National Academy of Science report asserted, "A program to eradicate brucellosis entirely would need to include an extensive vaccination effort, as well as a test-and-slaughter component with simultaneous elimination of all infected bison, elk, and cattle" (National Academy of Sciences Report, 1998: 5). For effective elimination of brucellosis all infected elk would have to slaughtered also. Again, this option has never been discussed in a state where elk hunting is a major sport and source of income. Politics rules wildlife management policies and bison lack the interest group protection afforded Montana elk.

Problem Rests with Environmental Groups

Twelve (15%) comments indicated that the problem rested with environmental groups that according to these respondents wanted to use the bison issue to raise money, refused to recognize property rights, and wanted to stop snowmobiling. One respondent from Gardiner wrote a typical response in this category:

"Wildlife groups are unwilling to compromise, they spend a lot of money that should be used to manage wildlife. The rights of animals should not come before property rights."

This statement is interesting since environmental groups have offered dozens of compromise solutions and because this respondent seems to believe that local ranchers have a property right on public lands. Other respondents picked up on the theme of environmental groups using the bison issue to raise money. A West Yellowstone respondent suggested, "if the people trying to use the bison to raise money would get out of it the problem would solve itself."

Others viewed environmental interest groups as "outsiders" trying to push environmental agendas on local communities. One respondent commented, "the lack of wildlife management has devastated YNP and how these same people (environmentalists) want to do the same to surrounding states." Another respondent wrote in regard to the problem definition, "quit putting animals before man, read your Bible." Another commented, "we love this place like anyone but there are limits to what we can have shoved down our throats by outsiders."

Other respondents in this category believed that the real problem rested in environmental groups who wanted to use the bison issue to end winter snowmobiling in Yellowstone. As one citizen stated, "I believe the Fund for Animals and other groups will do anything to stop snowmobiling." The snowmobile issue has been controversial. Several West Yellowstone respondents noted that they had never seen a bison walk out of the front-gate of Yellowstone Park. This, of course, is not the issue. The issue is whether bison use the internal snowtrails of the park to move within the interior of the Yellowstone and towards its borders. Since the trails are on roadways and the roadways follow river drainages it is only natural to assume that bison use the trails to move in the winter. Unfortunately, the Park Service has no scientific data demonstrating how many bison use the trails and when and where they use them.

These findings are not surprising since intermountain-western rural culture is outright hostile to environmental groups. In fact, the 15% of total comments directed against environmental groups is surprisingly low. A study of neighboring Idaho shows that local elected officials from resource-dependent communities gave environmental groups a mean trust rating of 0.84 on a scale of zero to six. Elected officials from non-dependent communities gave the same groups the comparably low score of 1.74 (McBeth and Bennett, forthcoming). Similarly, Idaho citizens ranked environmental groups as the least trustful group in the policy area of transporting radioactive waste (Oakes and McBeth, 1998). This distrust of environmental groups seems to be peculiar to the intermountain west. In the same review of studies of citizen view of radioactive waste transportation, Oregon citizens trusted environmental groups more than any other information source, New Mexico citizens ranked environmental groups second and Colorado citizens viewed environmental groups as the third most trustful source of information. (Oakes and McBeth, 1998).

There have been several major environmental victories in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem in recent years. Most notably these include the stopping of a Canadian gold mine near Cooke City, Montana and the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park. Seething under the surface of the bison controversy is an anti-environmental backlash. The hostility, however, is directly only partly against environmental groups and mostly against the National Park Service.

Solutions

Respondents offered several solutions to the bison-brucellosis controversy (see Table 2). There were 96 comments made by citizens concerning possible solutions. Seven major categories are reported and analyzed here.

Control the Herd/Determine a Carrying Capacity

This solution offered 36 times (38%) was that scientists and experts needed to determine the carrying capacity of bison inside the park and then use "herd management" techniques to keep bison at this scientifically determined number. Not surprisingly, these solutions came almost exclusively from respondents who believed that the National Park Service is the source of the problem. These respondents believe that bison should be kept in the park and their statements demonstrate that they view Yellowstone as a "closed ecosystem. Consider the following responses:

1. "maintain the herd at numbers the park can handle."

2. "keep the bison in the park"

3. "regulate the size of the herd and make the Park Service responsible for the problems they create."

4. "control the herd, we don't need more than 1,000 head."

5. "the park must control its bison herd, the park is way overgrazed."

6. "sterilize the bull bison and cows, control the number of bison so forage can return."

7. "bison need to stay in the park."

8. "if the Indians and the environmentalists want them they can keep them, I am tired of fixing fences that they crash into."

An analysis of respondents who believed that the bison herd needs to be controlled revealed that respondents came disproportionately from West Yellowstone rather than Gardiner, they had lived a higher percentage of lives in their current community, and were more likely to be business owners.

The question of the "carrying capacity" of Yellowstone National Park is much more than a scientific question. While science may well be able to provide how many bison Yellowstone can sustain, science cannot determine the amount of land that is to be included in a carrying capacity equation. For example, if the lands inside the park are the only lands in which bison will be allowed to graze, the bison carrying capacity might would be quite small. The quantitative portion of the survey, however, demonstrated that 60% of citizens supported bison using national forest lands. If bison are allowed to graze on national forest lands outside of Yellowstone, the carrying capacity becomes much larger. Ultimately, the question of carrying capacity is a political question. Wilkenson (1997) writes of the bison killings:

"That slaughter has dramatized a fundamental conflict over the management of wildlife in and around Yellowstone National Park: Should the Park be sort of a zoo, in which bison, grizzlies and other animals are confined? Or is the park just one part of a larger ecosystem, with the animals  free to move onto neighboring national forest and private land? It is a question no one wants to confront, but that the bison slaughter raises starkly."

The environmental assessment of the Interim Bison Management Plan stated on page 57: "Bison carrying capacity for Yellowstone National Park and surrounding public lands outside the park is not quantitatively known." The determination of the carrying capacity will be far more than a scientific exercise. Interestingly, the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement" (DEIS) released in June, 1998, listed as its "preferred alternative" the management of specific bison for a population range of 1,700 to 2,500. Under this preferred alternative, agency controls over bison would cease as the number hits a low range of 1,700. Ultimately, how many bison should be allowed in Yellowstone is a political issue and it will ultimately answer the question "who will control the public lands?"

Since the early 1980s, environmentalists have worked to preserve the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem by arguing that the future of wildlife in the park depends on the successful preservation of migration outside the park. This has lead most recently to a proposal to create a wildlife corridor extending from Yellowstone through Montana and central Idaho all the way to Canada. The bison slaughter can been cynically viewed once again as a response to such attempts to extend wildlife habitat outside of the park.

Science and Research

Fourteen respondents believe that the solution rests in scientifically determining whether brucellosis can be transmitted from bison to cattle in wild settings. Again as stated earlier no scientific studies have documented transmission in the wild.

Serious students of this issue which has lead to the slaughter of over 3,000 bison since the mid-1980s must question why research has not been conducted on this subject. If bison cannot transmit brucellosis to cattle in wild settings, the problem disappears. At least the problem would disappear if the problem really was one of  brucellosis transmission.

Create Buffer Zones

Ten respondents favored the creation of buffer zones for bison and other wildlife around the park. This would include the acquisition of private lands and not allowing cattle to graze within a 20 mile radius of the park. Currently, there are efforts to buy private land. Most notably, environmental groups are trying to buy a large ranch north of the park that was formally owned by the Church of the Universal Triumph. Many local ranchers and Montana elected officials resist such efforts because they believe that these land purchases equate to the expansion of the park's boundaries.

Ethical Hunt

Fifteen respondents wanted Montana to re-establish a bison hunt. Most respondents noted that the hunt should be regulated and that most be ethical. Some environmental groups have supported the re-opening of a bison hunt. Currently, bison in the park are very docile but wildlife experts claim that if hunted bison would become more wild and ethical hunting would be possible.

Capture, Testing, Slaughter

Seven respondents wanted a return to the original idea of the Interim Bison Plan which is to capture bison, test them for brucellosis and then kill pregnant bison and those testing positive for brucellosis. Montana has not abided by this however and instead have followed a zero-tolerance policy. One respondent mistakenly wrote, "they only kill bison testing positive for brucellosis."

This is highly disputed by environmental groups. In 1997, the activist group Buffalo Nations videotaped the round up and eventual slaughter of bison. An interview with the slaughterhouse owner revealed that only 2 out of 200 bison slaughtered that day had tested positive for brucellosis.

Vaccinate Cattle

Six respondents believed that ranchers should take responsibility for vaccinating cattle. In reality, cattle around the park are already vaccinated for brucellosis. The IBMP stated:

"Approximately 95% of the ranchers who graze their cattle in the Yellowstone area during summer vaccinate their cattle. The vaccine for brucellosis is only 65% effective however."

Vaccinate Bison

Four respondents favored the vaccination of bison. Currently, there is no effective bison vaccine for brucellosis but research is on-going. The Interim Bison Management Plan (1996: 38) stated that currently tests on being conducted on RB51 for use on bison.

Conclusion

At the heart of the Yellowstone bison controversy is the cultural conflict between the new and old West. Bison, cattle, and brucellosis are only a minor part of this controversy. Instead, the conflict revolves around the future of the West. The question that is implicitly being asked is: "who will control the Western United States in the next century?"

The economic composition of the Western United States has already fundamentally changed. The extractive-commodity industry is no longer as dominant as it once was. Politically, however, ranching, timber, mining, and agriculture has been able to retain local political control. Environmentalists have succeeded in the region by using large national coalitions of citizens and the national importance of Yellowstone Park to bring about major environmental victories. The bison slaughter was more than anything an environmental backlash by local ranching elites and their elected official allies.

Observers need to look at the bison controversy with political insight. For example, environmental groups have offered dozens of compromise solutions but the solutions have not been accepted or seriously discussed. APHIS has loosened its standards in the revised Interim Bison Plan of 1997 allowing low risk bison on public lands but Montana has retained a zero-tolerance policy, Scientists have been unable to establish a scientific linkage between bison and brucellosis transmission to cattle. In the end, the issue was and is mostly symbolic. Rvandal writes in this regard that bison are not being killed because of brucellosis but because: "Bison represent the pre-cattle (and perhaps the post-cattle) West. They are the symbol of the environmental movement and the emblem of the equally unpopular (in the eyes of many stock growers) federal Department of Interior. Yellowstone bison are 'owned' by the federal government, the same entity that is blamed for hardships resulting from restrictions on livestock grazing, predator control, water rights, and more recently, for reintroducing the wolf."

The issue is one not only of control but also hatred of the federal government and its bureaucracies on the part of Montana elected officials, ranchers, and special interest groups. In 1997, Montana chief veterinarian Arnold Gertonson wrote the 49 other state vets and asked them to reject the new federal proposal (the Second Interim Bison Plan) which allowed low risk bison to leave the park. Gertonsen was quoted in High Country News as saying that if bison are allowed to leave the park, this equals a "de facto expansion" of the park's borders (McMillion, 1998).

Public problems arise fundamentally out of a conflict of values. Ultimately, the decision must be made whether Yellowstone Park is a "closed zoo" or an "open ecosystem." In our pluralistic system of democratic government, environmental groups that want the open ecosystem are bound to win as local states become more economically diversified and eventually gain political as well as economic control. The ranching community seems to want to play a zero-sum game. Unfortunately for them it is a game that they will almost certainly lose.

Daniel Kemmis has argued convincingly that rural Western citizens, free from bureaucratic agencies, can learn to reach accommodation. Kemmis (1990: 126) writes that if allowed to solve their own problems themselves citizens "would soon discover that no one wants local sawmills closed, and no one wants wildlife habitat annihilated. If encouraged to collaborate, they would learn to inhabit the place on the place's own terms better than any regulatory bureaucracy will ever accomplish. But this kind of collaborative citizenship is withheld from them by a combination of proceduralism and imperialism." Kemmis is correct. The use of symbolic politics is often the outgrowth of decades of distrust, anger, and feelings of helplessness. The re-establishment of citizenship and the discovery of core values is the only way that a win-win solution can be reached. Unfortunately, in a political environment dominated by rhetoric and symbolic manipulation, core values and shared interests are difficult to find.

Table 1 Citizen's Problem Definition

______________________________________________________________

Problem Definition Freq. %

-Problem rests with environmental groups 12 (15%)

-Problem rests with ranchers, APHIS, Montana 26 (33%)

-Problem rests with the National Park Service and the non-management of bison 28 (36%)

-Problem rests with media coverage 3 (04%)

-Problem rests with the lack of scientific studies 8 (10%)

-Problem rests with snowmobile trails 1 (01%)

____________________________________________________________

Note. There was a total of 78 comments from respondents offering problem definitions.

Table 2 Citizen Solutions to the Bison Controversy

______________________________________________________________

Solutions Freq. %

Keep bison within a carrying capacity/herd management 36 (38%)

Science and Research on whether Brucellosis can be transmitted 14 (15%)

Create Buffer Zones 10 (10%)

Ethical Hunting 15 (16%)

Capture, Testing, Slaughter 7 (07%)

Vaccinate Cattle 6 (07%)

Vaccinate Bison 4 (04%)

Leave Bison Alone 3 (03%)

Feed Bison Inside Yellowstone 1 (01%)

________________________________________________________________

Note. There were a total of 96 comments from respondents offering solutions to the crisis.

Literature Cited:

Bartlett, R.A. 1989. Yellowstone: A Wilderness Beseiged. The University of Arizona Press.

Bennett, K. and M.K. McBeth. 1998. "Contemporary Western Rural USA

Economic Composition: Potential Implications for Environmental

Policy and Research." Environmental Management, 22(3): 371-381.

Chase, Alston. 1986. Playing God in Yellowstone. Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press.

Davis, D.S., J.W. Templeton, T.A. Ficht, J.D. Williams,, J.D. Kopec, and L.G. Adams. 1990. "Brucella abortus in captive bison. I. Serology, bacteriology, pathogenesis, and transmission to cattle. Journal of Wildlife Dis. 26(3): 360-371.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Interagency Bison Management Plan for the State of Montana and Yellowstone

National Park, June, 1998. http://www.nps.gov/planning/yell/eis/summary.htm 
Glover, John. 1996. "Interim Bison Management Plan Approved."

Yellowstone Journal, (September/October), p. C-7.

Greater Yellowstone Coalition. 1998. Presentation by GYC field representative, Pocatello, Idaho, February 17, 1998.

Interim Bison Management Plan. August 6, 1996. Department of Livestock. State of Montana.

Keiter, Robert B. 1997. "Greater Yellowstone's Bison: Unraveling of an Early American Wildlife Conservation Achievement." Journal of Wildlife Management, volume 61, no. 1: 1-11.

Kemmis, Daniel. 1990. Community and the Politics of Place. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Mansfield, Gayle. 1997. "Number of Bison Killed Surpasses record of '88-89. West Yellowstone News, 1-23-97, p. 14.

Mansfield, Gayle. 1997. "Bison Plan Revisited." West Yellowstone News, 2-6-97, p. 1, p.8.

McBeth, M.K. and K. Bennett. forthcoming. "Rural Elected Officials, Environmental Policy, and Economic Composition." Unpublished but in review.

McBeth, M.K. and A.S. Oakes. 1996. "Citizen Perceptions of Risks Associated with Moving Radiological Waste." Risk Analysis, 16(3): 421-427.

McMillion, Scott. 1998. "Bison Sleek but Suspect." High Country News, 5-11-98: 8.

Oakes A.S. and M.K. McBeth. 1997-98. "Citizen Views of Transporting Radioactive Waste in Oregon, Idaho, Colorado, and New Mexico." Journal of Environmental Systems, 26(2): 147-161.

National Academy of Sciences. 1998. "Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area." Norman F. Cheville, Principal Investigator, Dale R. McCullough, Principal Investigator, Lee R. Paulson, Project Director. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Rvanda, Virginia. 1998. "Eradicating Brucellosis is Feasible." Yellowstone Net Newspaper. Monday, February 2, 1998, vol. 2, no. 12. http://www.yellowstone.net/newspaper/news020298.htm 

Racicot, Marc. 1997. "Shooting Bison Tragic Reality." Guest Editorial by Marc Racicot, Governor of Montana. West Yellowstone News, March 20, 1997, pp. 4-5.

Bison and Cattle Wars:

The Battle for Public Lands in Greater Yellowstone

Mark K. McBeth
Campus Box 8319

Idaho State University
Pocatello, Idaho 83209

Phone: 208-236-2740

Email: mcbemark@isu.edu

Keywords: wildlife policy, politics, Yellowstone