Bison in Indian
Country

Background
Domestication is the preponderant threat to persistence
of plains bison as wildlife. Captivity can lead to a variety
of effects that are deleterious to bison as a wild species in
the intermediate or long run. These effects include: reduced
genetic diversity, persistence of deleterious genes, inadvertent
selection for heritable morphology, and tameness or adaptation
to captivity (IUCN: Gates et al. 2010). Loss of wildness, the
ability to prosper despite challenges of a wild environment,
ensues. Small populations are particularly susceptible to such
effects. In the USA, hopes for restoration of wild bison have
depended upon about 50 “conservation” herds of plains
bison on native range. However, domesticating practices and
small population effects are common in these conservation herds
(Bailey 2013).
Several Native American
reservations have had bison herds of various sizes for decades.
Many have been periodically augmented with bison from federal
parks and refuges. Information about management of Native American
herds has not been widely available; but indications are that
at least most herds have been managed much as livestock in commercial
herds. These bison are being domesticated. Recently, some reservations
have established “cultural” herds, separate from
their commercial herds. Again, management practices for cultural
herds are not publicized, probably vary among Tribes, and could
change over time with Tribal needs and politics. A contribution
of Native American plains bison herds to restoration of wild
bison is, at best, uncertain.
Native Americans have unique
economic, nutritional and religious/cultural needs for bison.
As separate nations, management of their bison, according to
their needs, is their exclusive right. We wish them well.
Montana Fish, Wildlife &
Parks released a draft Environmental Impact Statement in
2015, proposing a “programmatic” plan for Bison
Conservation and Management. The EIS would determine whether
bison would someday be restored on lands of willing landowners,
on Tribal lands, or on a broader, more diverse landscape, nothing
more. The EIS languished for 5 years. Alternative 3, Restoration
of a publicly managed bison herd on Tribal lands, is described
in Chapter 3, available on the FWP website. It refers to developing
a FWP/Tribal Memorandum of Understanding on specific management
practices and responsibilities for a “public” herd
on Tribal lands. In a 2020
Record of Decision, FWP requested the public to submit proposals
for bison restoration.
Currently, several major
conservation organizations have been expanding their programs
to encourage and support plains bison restoration on Tribal
lands in Montana. In contrast, these organizations have been
reticent to support bison restoration on and near the Charles
M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. None have agreed to be
listed as supporting the two goals of the Montana Wild Bison
Restoration Coalition.
Concerns for Montana Wild Bison Restoration
Given that bison restoration in Montana has been halted and
opposed by politically powerful livestock interests, the above
converging trends could lead to an FWP decision committing to
bison restoration all or mostly in Tribal lands. Public ownership
and access to any of these bison is uncertain. “Restoration”
of bison on Tribal lands would be the alternative least opposed
by livestock interests. Depending upon negotiations, a selected
Tribe may receive outside support to establish and manage a
bison herd that suits its needs. FWP would have its embarrassingly
long-awaited decision for bison “restoration” in
Montana. Certain conservation organizations would declare another
“victory” to their patrons.
Such a decision would be based
mostly on political considerations. It would not be based on
which EIS alternative would provide (1) the most and broadest
distribution of diverse benefits from wild bison to all Montanans;
or (2) the best bison herd in the best location for conserving
truly wild plains bison.
Montana’s benefits from
a Tribal/public bison herd on a Reservation would depend upon
negotiations for a Memorandum of Understanding with the Tribe.
The EIS specifies only that “bison hunting and viewing
access would have to be allowed within tribal lands.”
It also commits the state to monitor for bison diseases. Details
such as herd size, sex-age composition, periodic handling of
bison, determination and distribution of harvestable surpluses,
hunting seasons, “any financial incentives for allowing
public access”, habitat monitoring and the lifespan of
the MOU would be negotiable. These details will determine benefits
to non-Indian Montanans and also the wildness of the bison herd.
Hopefully, the FWP EIS process will not irrevocably commit to
alternative 3 with all these uncertainties.
In contrast, restoration of
public, wild bison on and near the CMR National Wildlife Refuge
(alternative 4 of the EIS) has far greater potential for benefitting
all Montanans and for conserving truly wild bison.
With alternative 4, bison would
be big-game wildlife under Montana law. All management issues
would not be limited and complicated by negotiations with another
Nation. Benefits to Montanans could be maximized.
Also, opportunities to develop
a large, mobile, self-sustaining and productive wild bison herd
are far greater on and near the CMR NWR than on any Tribal Reservation.
A genetically-adequate herd requires at least 1000 animals,
probably more in the long-term. Mobility is a basic wild characteristic
of plains bison. A large, mobile herd requires a large landscape.
Fig. 3 in the EIS (below) clearly shows far more abundant potential
bison habitat on and near the CMR, compared to the Reservations.
Moreover, this area contains the most, contiguous public land.

The Coalition supports enhancing
cultural bison herds on Native American Reservations. Herds
should be established and managed according to Tribal needs.
Collaboration with the state for mutual public benefits is desirable,
but not necessary. But more bison in Indian Country likely will
not restore truly wild bison for conserving the species; and
it will not absolve Montana from our obligation to provide public,
wild bison on public lands for the use and enjoyment of future
generations of Montanans.
Bailey, J. A. 2013. American
plains bison” Rewildling an Icon. Sweetgrass Books, Helena,
Montana. 238 pp.
IUCN: Gates, C. C., C. H. Freese, P. J. P. Gogan and M. Kotzman.
2010. American Bison: Status Survey and Conservation Guidelines.
International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland.
134 pp.