It seems like an absurd twist of fate that the majestic American bison has been reduced, in some respects, to a symbol of bureaucratic gridlock. But, absurd or not, the reality is that today’s bison inhabit a tiny fraction of their historic range, and the largest remaining wild herd is subject to intense wrangling—of the literal and the political sort—that keeps these roughly 3000 animals from roaming or migrating freely.

The bison herd in Yellowstone National Park is not only the largest wild herd in the country but also the only herd that has continually occupied its native range. It is also one of just a handful of genetically pure herds left today. As such, Yellowstone’s bison are enormously valuable for the ecological health of the landscape, the long-term conservation of bison, and the economic and spiritual wellbeing of the people who live and recreate in this area.  Not only do bison have value as a keystone species for the ecosystem, they also are culturally valuable as an icon of the American West, economically valuable through the millions of tourist dollars spent to visit the area each year, and spiritually valuable for the tribes who have lived with and depended on bison for thousands of years.

But these days Yellowstone’s buffalo are the subject of a heated debate stemming from the fact that some of the animals carry brucellosis, a disease that can cause pregnant animals to abort, and many ranchers fear that buffalo will transmit brucellosis to their cows. Never mind the fact that brucellosis was originally brought to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) by introduced cattle, the fact that wild buffalo have never transmitted brucellosis to cattle, or that the recent brucellosis outbreaks in cattle herds have been traced to elk rather than buffalo.

In the name of protecting cattle from brucellosis, thousands of Yellowstone bison have been slaughtered in Montana over the past two decades, including 1,600 just in the winter of 2007-2008. As part of a controversial plan coordinated by the five state and federal agencies that make up the Interagency Bison Management Plan committee, many of these bison are captured and slaughtered as they migrate out of Yellowstone into Montana, in search of greener grass in the winter and spring. The lucky ones that are not slaughtered are quarantined for years or “hazed” (an agency term) by wranglers on horseback, on snowmobiles, and in helicopters, as part of an attempt to herd the animals back into the Park sooner in the season than they would naturally return.

The status quo is a lose-lose-lose situation. The hazing, capture, and slaughter of bison—obviously a “lose” for the bison and for the integrity of our oldest national park—has not helped cattle ranchers in the GYE states maintain their brucellosis-free classification. Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have all had at least one brucellosis outbreak in a cattle herd in the past few years, though none of these outbreaks have been traced to bison. And taxpayers also lose, as the federal government spends $2,000,000 –  $3,000,000 each year on these ineffective and inefficient bison management practices. This situation doesn’t serve anybody’s interests effectively.

Unfortunately, conflicting interests within the Interagency Bison Management Plan committee can make it nearly impossible for the group to effect any positive change. It is easy for the agencies to get dragged into bureaucratic haggling over whether to allow 0 or 15 or 30 of Yellowstone’s roughly 3,000 bison onto a small section of public land outside the Park. (To put these numbers in context, keep in mind that tens of millions of bison roamed across the continent a century and a half ago. The word “absurd” comes to mind again.) Needless to say, this type of conversation does not lend itself to creative problem-solving.

But there are a few bright spots on the horizon. As my colleague Matt Skoglund recently discussed, the U.S. Forest Service just retired the cattle grazing allotment on the Horse Butte peninsula just west of Yellowstone, clearing the way for potential year-round bison habitat there. Furthermore, the Veterinary Services (VS) division under the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently released a concept paper laying out its plan for broad changes to the national brucellosis eradication program, which now opens up the possibility of region-specific—and bison-specific—policy changes. Here again, bureaucratic details can have huge implications for the fate of America’s largest land mammal.

The VS concept paper is far from perfect, but there are some signs of positive change. The key with this type of proposal is to focus on measures that protect free-roaming bison while simultaneously mitigating the risk of brucellosis transmission to cattle. The concept paper makes some progress in this respect, primarily by reducing regulatory and financial burdens on livestock producers. By reducing the burden of brucellosis on producers—for example by allowing a rancher to remove a single infected animal rather than slaughter the whole herd, as is the current standard—these proposed changes should reduce ranchers’ fear of brucellosis and therefore increase tolerance for wild bison.

The concept paper also proposes to establish a “brucellosis surveillance zone” in the GYE, which allows for more region-targeted policy and regulation. This change could again reduce regulatory hurdles and increase bison tolerance compared to the existing system, which currently penalizes an entire state for brucellosis outbreaks anywhere in that state. In addition, the Concept Paper acknowledges that elk were the likely source of the recent brucellosis outbreaks in cattle herds within the GYE; we hope this information will increase bison tolerance and promote rational dialogue about the role of bison in the GYE.

But, in contrast to these positive steps, some of the other proposals in the Concept Paper are unrealistic, vague, or harmful to wildlife.  At the broadest level, VS’s goal of “eliminating the disease from wildlife reservoirs” is currently not possible or realistic. The risk of transmission from bison to cattle in the GYA is extremely low, as studies such as Kilpatrick et. al. (2009) have found, so focusing on mitigating this small risk is more effective and more practical than futilely trying to eliminate every shred of risk.

The VS proposal is vague regarding potential strategies for brucellosis mitigation and elimination efforts, but there exists an increasingly promising array of win-win strategies that VS should consider.  All of these strategies must start from the basis of recognizing the value of native wildlife, and treating wildlife as wildlife—not as livestock.

Specific mitigation strategies VS could immediately support include increasing strategic fencing to protect ranches outside the park, continuing frequent cattle testing, allowing only steers in critical areas (since bison pose no disease threat to steers), and requiring rigorous calfhood and adult vaccination of all cattle in the GYA.  Achieving greater temporal separation, by asking producers to turn their cattle out after the high-risk period of bison calving has passed, could also reduce the risk of transmission without jeopardizing either wildlife or livestock interests.

Voluntary vaccination and strategic cattle rotation in the Jackson, Wyoming area have allowed bison to roam freely there for decades with no brucellosis transmission to cattle. Expanding these practices to Montana could go a long way toward protecting both livestock and wildlife.

VS should also work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of Wyoming to begin phasing out all elk feedgrounds in Wyoming, where artificially high animal densities are known to create an extremely high incidence of brucellosis transmission among wildlife – and are likely a major cause of the recent incidents of brucellosis transmission from elk to cattle.

Finally, VS can also improve its program and build public support by allowing bison to roam more freely in low-risk areas outside Yellowstone National Park.  The livestock industry must not be allowed to override the interests of the broader public, which supports free-roaming bison in one of the last intact ecosystems left in the lower 48 states.

By finding common ground and creating solutions that help both wildlife and livestock, it is possible to make progress on bison management. The gridlock won’t be broken overnight. VS has taken an important step in recognizing the need to overhaul its outdated brucellosis regulations; now we hope the agency will listen to the public in our call for the new regulations to bring positive change for both livestock and wildlife.  The great herds of bison in Yellowstone certainly deserve more room to roam.

Moving forward one step at a time, we have hope that the bison will one day reclaim the freedom they deserve.

Photo by Dana Leonard