Management
of Wildlife on Federal Lands
Abundant state and federal policy advocates a federal –
state dichotomy for wildlife management on federal lands, even
on wildlife refuges. Handbooks, regulations and plans endorse
state supremacy in managing wildlife populations, while federal
prerogatives are limited to providing and managing federal habitat.
For non-marine
wildlife, only two exceptions recognizing supremacy of federal
authority over wildlife populations are commonly noted:
for federally listed threatened and endangered species and
for migratory birds. These exceptions are clear in the Endangered
Species Act and in the Migratory Bird Treaty with Mexico
and Canada. |
However, Nie et al. (2017), in an extensive
review of the U. S. Constitution and of laws governing federal
land-management agencies, concluded “the states’ trust
responsibilities for wildlife are subordinate to the federal government’s
statutory and trust obligations over federal lands and their integral
resources” including wildlife.
The National Wildlife
Refuge System
Since the Coalition’s goal includes restoring public-trust,
wild bison on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge,
discussion of the federal refuge system is emphasized here.
The National Wildlife Refuge Administration
Act clarifies that actions on a refuge must be compatible with
the mission of the Refuge System and with the refuge’s purposes
stated in its establishing legislation. Refuge actions shall provide
for conservation of fish, wildlife and plants, and their habitat
and ensure biological integrity, diversity and environmental health
of the Refuge System, for the benefit of present and future generations
of Americans. A refuge may “restore wildlife where appropriate.”
Notably, a federal refuge must “ensure
effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation” with
adjacent landowners and with the state in which the refuge is
located. However, this instruction does not absolve the Fish and
Wildlife Service from fulfilling its mandates, noted above. A
refuge must cooperate with state and local dictates only “to
the extent practicable”.
Restoring bison on the CMR would contribute
to the mission of the Refuge System in that the Department of
Interior’s Bison Conservation Initiative’s goals include
the maintenance of wildness and genetic diversity in large, wide-ranging
bison herds on large landscapes. “Perhaps the greatest conservation
challenge that bison face is the lack of large blocks of habitat.”
(NPS 2020).
C. M. Russell Refuge
Plan
The CMR Plan notes that, without bison, “progress in restoring
ecological processes would remain incomplete”, that “bison
restoration would bring back what was once a dominant herbivore
and keystone species in the refuge landscape”, would be
“a positive move toward restoration of natural ecological
processes” and “would present the opportunity for
wildlife-dependent public uses.”
There is no indication that that restoring
bison would be biologically inappropriate.
In the Department of Interior’s Bison
Conservation Initiative, its goal and need for large bison herds
on large landscapes would be greatly enhanced with restoration
of bison on the CMR. The CMR is the largest federal refuge within
the historic range of plains bison.
Despite these potential contributions to refuge
goals and to the mission of the Refuge System, the CMR Plan concludes:
“The Service will not consider reintroducing bison on the
refuge unless Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks initiates an
effort.” and that “any proposal for bison restoration
would be conducted by a public process led by Montana Fish, Wildlife
& Parks.” This is an abdication of federal statutory
and public trust responsibilities for federal lands and resources,
despite the state’s long failure, in not restoring wild
bison, to fulfill its own Constitutional mandate and public trust
responsibilities to the people of Montana.
Federal/state wildlife
management dichotomy is biologically illogical
Modern wildlife biology and conservation recognize the innumerable
interactions among animals, plants and the physical environment.
It is impossible to manipulate any part of an ecosystem, let alone
a keystone species, without influencing many other species in
many interrelated ways. Thus, habitat and populations may not
be manipulated separately.
Allowing the CMR to manipulate its habitat
without bison is a disingenuous proposition. The Refuge is denied
one of its most important “habitat managers”. The
habitat impacts of wild bison cannot be duplicated by human activity.
For examples, the CMR cannot produce thousands of bison wallows
as habitat for plants and animals, cannot seasonally distribute
shed bison hair for use by nesting birds, cannot duplicate the
effects of bison grazing distributed across space and time in
natural ways.
Thus, the federal/state dichotomy for wildlife management on federal
lands is unreasonable policy, grounded in political expediency.
CMR 2010. Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement, Charles M. Russell National
Wildlife Refuge, UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge. (The Draft
version is cited here.)
Nie, M., C. Barns, J. Haber, J. Joly, K. Pitt
and S. Zellmer. 2017. Fish and wildlife management of federal
lands: Debunking state supremacy. Environmental Law 47 (4): 1-126.
NPS 2020. The quote is from: nps.gov/subjects/bison/what-we-de.htm.