North-American

Bison Management
Within the Greater Yellowstone Area
Amelia Pfeiffer

I.

Abstract

This report presents findings from research aimed at the Management

of The North American Bison, within the Greater Yellowstone Area. The
purpose of this report is to document standpoints of multiple
stakeholders that hold interest in this public policy. The method used
within this report is one of stasis theory; I have provided components
such as conjecture, definition, value, and action, in order to conclude
an equal amount of data for each stakeholder. It is shown in my
findings, that there are some agreements between all stakeholders
within this public policy, yet overall the argument remains fairly
divided.

II.

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT
.. 2
INTRODUCTION
4
PUBLIC POLICY: 18641905.. 6,7,8,9

Conjecture.
6
Definition
7

Value.. 8

Action 9
PUBLIC POLICY: 1905-201610, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

Conjecture.10
Definition
12

Value.14

Action15
CONCLUSION
16
BIBLIOGRAPHY
...18

III.

Introduction

The North American Bison was nearly driven to extinction more than a
century ago due to the rapid settling of the Western United States.
Following the creation of Yellowstone National Park as an area of
conservation and preservation, it became a safe haven for North
American Bison, and their species began to replenish themselves
within the safety of its boundaries. However, considering the harsh
winters within the park, bison have a tendency to relocate themselves

5
to the outer borders of the preservation area and into parts of Montana
for the remainder of the season. This mass migration of bison proves
upset to many private landowners and cattlemen that call home to the
grazing areas.
In 1917, a disease known as brucellosis was discovered within a heard
of Yellowstone National Park Bison. This specific disease is easily
spread to other species such as elk and cattle; and can be transferred
to humans upon ingestion of meat from the infected animal. The
effects on the animals themselves are drastic, and can cause severe
weight loss, decreased milk production, induced abortion, and
infertility. This poses threat to ranchers who depend on the cattle
industry for a living.
In the year 2000, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, and the
Governor of Montana signed a court-mediated agreement to limit the
bison population within Yellowstone National Park, near 3,000 total.
This was done in attempt to find a middle ground with park officials
and the cattle industry, in order to keep bison herd numbers within a
range that keeps the amount of them that may wander off of park
grounds to a minimum. Since this agreement nearly nine thousand
bison have been captured and sent to slaughter.
The purpose of this report is to provide the stakeholders involved in
this public policy, with an objective analysis to help them engage in
dialogue as opposed engaging in a deadlocked debate.
The report is organized into sections that layout the public policy from
the year 1930 until present time. This helps to show the stages that
the public policy has gone through to get to the point that it is today,
and to help better analyze how each stakeholder formed their
standpoint.
IV.

Methodology

In order to form this report, an abundant amount of research was

gathered to form factual evidence for stakeholders and other viewers.
When doing so, it was pertinent that I managed my research and

6
organized it effectively. In order to achieve this, I used a tool called
Evernote to help organize the immense amount of information that I
gathered.
In terms of the way that the report was written, I utilized an alternating
pattern to organize the reports body. I adapted my report by using
stasis theory to help structure my report by conjecture, definition,
action, and value.
Within each sub-setting, I analyzed information from subject matter
experts, popular media, and public commentary.
The current stakeholders (1960-Present) that are involved with this
public policy are as follows:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.

The National Park Service (NPS)

Yellowstone National Park (YNP)
Montana Landowners
Animal Legal Defense Fund
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Wildlife preservationists and conservationists
The Montana Livestock Department

Considering the fact that this has been an ongoing public policy for the
last one hundred and fifty two years, stakeholders have varied and
constantly changed. However, the theme tended to remain the same.
I set the report as a timeline, beginning in 1864 and concluding with
the year 2016. With each generation, I included the stakeholders at the
time of conflict, and have fully developed a probable solution for the
most current situation.

V.

Public Policy 1864-1905

7
i.

Conjecture

In the year 1864, the Western plains were beginning their transition
from being a place of little to no civilization, to becoming popular urban
areas. With this colonization, there was a utilization of natural
resources within the area. Settlers hunted bison for food, clothing, and
other textiles. Along with the introduction of the railroads, there was
even more need for the resource. At this time, the two main
stakeholders were settlers and congress who sought out to maintain
this resource An estimated two million bison were killed in the year
1870, due to the usage of bison bones for fertilizer and fine bone
china. Considering the amount of remains of these resources in their
final processing point, Kansas, there were more than 31 million bison
killed overall. . It seems in this stasis theory; stakeholders seem to
disagree on the fact that the bison should be better conserved. . It
seems in this stasis theory; stakeholders seem to disagree on the fact
that the bison should be better conserved. For example, in the year
1871, Territorial delegate R.C. McCormick of Arizona introduced a bill
that made it illegal for any person to kill a buffalo on public lands in the
United States, except for food or preserving the robe. The bill indicated
that the fine be $100 for each buffalo killed. Mysteriously, this
document disappeared. Wyoming also passed a law prohibiting the
waste of bison meat. Since such laws were not enforced, they did little
to protect the bison (USFWS, 1990). This further proved, that there
were existing disagreements between legislature who suggested
conservation of the resource, and those who harvested bison resources
for a living.

ii.

Definition

At the time, the idea of conservation and preservation was not widely
known. Those who relied on bison meat, bones, and canvas for a living,
did not consider preservation as a long-term beneficial value. Members
of congress attempted to reason with trappers, hunters, and
harvesters, and make it understood that the conservation was
ultimately for their benefit. Ultimately, stakeholders did not define the
issue equally. According to historians, most Americans at the time
assumed that the bison was a pre-historic figure and that it was natural
and necessary for them to go extinct. As explained by Andrew
Isenberg, There was a general belief in the 1870s that the bison were
wild animals, which were likely to eventually go extinct anyway,
Isenberg said that they further believed that, The eradication of bison
from the Great Plains and their replacement with cattle would be an
improvement that turned a wilderness into a productive landscape.
Conservationists realized that the bison were indeed not a pre-historic
animal that was meant to go extinct, however they were a resource
that could be conserved and utilized for years to come. Due to this
miscommunication and lack of agreement on the definition of the
situation, there was a very limited availability for conservationists to
enter the discussion.

iii.

Value

All stakeholders at the time between 1864 to the early 1900s agreed
on the value of bison as a resource. However, what was disagreed
upon was the management of that specific resource. For example, in
1884, there were around 325 wild bison left in the United States including 25 in Yellowstone. Congress made their best efforts to create
protection for the remaining bison, and stakeholders who relied on
bison resources for a living, agreed on these protections as well. With
more than half of the countrys economy relying on the export of bison
related products, 325 remaining bison would not last their businesses
for barely a month. It was no question at this point that the president,
congress, and the interested public, needed to take action in order to
regenerate the bison herds, and ensure their numbers for years to
come. Though most of the public and federal workers agreed on the
need for conservation, other stakeholders, known as hide hunters,
sought out to continue reaping the benefits of remaining bison. For
example historian Andrew Isenberg explained that, Hide hunters who
were responsible for destroying millions of bison in the 1870s were not
operating under the command of the federal government. They were
private citizens looking to make money, but many Army officers
certainly approved of what the hunters were doing. This rebellion by
the army officers, who were meant to be responsible for managing the
front lines of the bison conservation, did not hold the same value as
the other stakeholders within the situation. Though the item of value
was a point of agreement, how that valued item should be managed
was not a point of agreement by all stakeholders involved.

10

iv.

Action

At the end of the 1800s into the early 1900s, almost all stakeholders
involved agreed upon the fact that there needed to be steps taken in
order to help preserve the resource. Not only was congress involved in
this process, but the President of The United States at the time,
Ulysses S. Grant, including the public as well. In order to help maintain
and replenish the 325 remaining bison, upon the creation of
Yellowstone National Park, President Grant made the decision to
relocate 35 bison to the Greater Yellowstone Area, in hopes to re-grow
the bison herds in an area that was strictly no hunting. Following this
major move in conservation, In 1889, William Hornaday estimated total
bison population to be just over 1000 animals - 85 free ranging, 200 in
the federal herd (Yellowstone NP), 550 at Great Slave Lake (Canada)
and 256 in zoos and private herds (USWFS, 1990).
Following this mass restoration, in 1905, private citizens founded The
American Bison Society in order to promote the conservation of bison.
This was done by Ernest Harold Baynes, founder; William T. Hornaday,
president; Theodore Roosevelt, honorary president. Hornaday (director
of NY Zoological Park) gifted 12 of their bison to Wichita National Forest
Preserve. This became the first gift of bison to establish/increase
government herds (USFWS, 1990).

11

VI.

Public Policy 1906-2016

i.

Conjecture

Beginning in the early 1900s, bison management and conservation

was a widely known concept. The emergence of bison ranching
became an outlet for stakeholders who relied on bison resources for a
living. In terms of conservation of non-farmed herds, the government
was taking further advances to help protect the animals against
poaching. Once the poaching of free-range bison was brought under
control, there was a period of time that all stakeholders involved were
content with the current situation.
However, in 1917, the first case of brucellosis was detected in bison
located at Yellowstone National Park. This disease poses as a large
threat to cattle ranchers, due to the disease being transferable
between cattle and bison. Brucellosis causes extreme illness and
abortion of fetuses in female bison and cattle, this posing as a
detrimental threat to the cattle industry.
Thus evolved the newest complication within bison conservation, and
the emergence of several new stakeholders; the National Park Service,
Montana Livestock Department, Montana landowners, Wildlife

12
preservationists and conservationists, and the Animal Legal Defense
fund.
As described in The History of Bison in Yellowstone National Park,
Disease rapidly emerged as a predominant management concern for
bison under the stewardship of the NPS. With the likely commingling of
bison and cattle when livestock were maintained inside Yellowstone
National Park to provide dairy and meat products to early park visitors,
diseases of domestic livestock rapidly jumped from domestic livestock
to bison, and remain important conservation management concerns.
Between 1911-1922, several outbreaks of hemorrhagic septicemia
occurred in Yellowstone bison, killing between 9-15 percent of the
introduced herd.
In order to protect ranchers and their cattle that resided in the areas
surrounding Yellowstone National Park, the National Park Service began
the process known as culling in which hundreds of bison were
randomly selected and sent to slaughter, in order to eradicate the
disease. At times, these actions reduced the population to near 200
individuals prior to the disease being brought under complete control.
This process continued at a consistent rate until the late 1950s into
the early 1960s. This resulted in a dramatic population decline from
approximately 1,500 to near 200 bison by the winter of 1965-1966,
with seronegative animals still being detected (YNP 2000).
At this time, park managers decided to cease these management
tactics after it became apparent that eradication of brucellosis could
well entail elimination of wild and free-ranging bison. Arising from
continuing conflicts with the State of Montana over bison moving
outside the park, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
USDA Forest Service, and National Park Service recently completed an
Environmental Impact Statement for an Interagency Bison

13
Management Plan (IBMP) for the State of Montana and Yellowstone
National Park (NPS 2000).
Stakeholders that are opposed to the culling of bison have increased
their presence by creating things such as online petitions. According to
National Public Radio, On Feb. 15, Yellowstone National Park began its
annual bison cull, and its one of the largest in the parks history.
Through both slaughter and hunting, officials are reducing
Yellowstones 5,000-animal herd by nearly 1,000. Critics are
predictably furious. Close to 135,000 people signed an online petition
stop the cull. The New York Times published an op-ed claiming that
politics, not science, drive the yearly event, while the advocacy
organization Buffalo Field Campaign told Montana Public Radio theres
zero reason for any culling whatsoever.
On the opposite end of the debate, Montana landowners, ranchers, and
those of the cattle industry, believe that these practices must
continue. Mike Honeycut, the executive director of the Montana
Livestock Department, stated that, We need to preserve our
brucellosis-free status as a state, which is a huge deal for cattlemen. If
there were to be a brucellosis problem, it could shut down the
transportation of our animals out of state, which would limit their
marketability tremendously.
Concluding research, it is evident that all stakeholders involved agree
on the fact that this is a real issue.
ii.

Definition

Following research, it has shown that sources do agree on the fact that
it is an issue; however it is not agreed upon as to how it should be
defined. For Stakeholders such as The Montana Livestock Department,
Montana Landowners, and the National Park Service; all agree on the
fact that brucellosis is still a well-known threat and is a very possible
epidemic that could arise if the culling of bison is no longer continued.

14
As shown in the map below, the areas surrounding Yellowstone
National Park are home to several privately owned ranches. With their
proximity to the Park Lands, bison management must be intricate and
thorough in order to keep bison within their roaming range.

(Sierraclub.org)

However, for stakeholders such as wildlife conservationists and

preservationists, Wildlife biologists, and environmentalists, they claim
that the problem is not a definition of the disease itself, but rather an
issue of land-rights. For example, Mary Meagher a retired YNP Biologist
claims that, Brucellosis is a smoke screen. The real issue is that
ranchers dont want bison on their land.
Several popular sources have done investigation into the primary
reasons as to why the culling is still continuing at consistent rates.
For example, an environmentalist online journal known as Wilder
Utopia, have a story covering the issue, in which they describe, The

15
main justification given by the livestock industry for its continued
support of slaughter or hazing of wild bison is a disease known as
brucellosis. There are reasons to believe that brucellosis is a Trojan
Horse. First, only infected pregnant bison cows can potentially transmit
brucellosis during the last trimester of pregnancy (February April),
bison bulls and calves are regularly slaughtered, so the killing of these
animals demonstrates that brucellosis is not the primary reason for the
containment of buffalo in the park. Also keep in mind that other
animals also carry brucellosis. Some elk in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem (GYE) are also infected with brucellosis. Predators and
scavengers, such as coyotes, crows, vultures, and bears, are rarely
infected as well, though they are not at high risk for shedding the
bacteria.
A similar popular source that is involved with stakeholders such as
Wildlife Biologists, and Conservationists and Preservationists; known as
The Wildlife News, has similar definitions of the issue. Journalist Justine
Sanchez of The Wildlife News states that, There is a cultural
importance, not just genetic, that makes the Yellowstone buffalo
unique. They are the direct descendants of the 23 individual animals
that survived the mass slaughter and brought bison to the brink of
extinction in the 1800s. These buffalo have the behavioral memory of
being wild and migratory. They link our current culture to our past and
show us how to ensure our future. Most biologists and scientists agree
that the restoration of migratory bison to the Great Plains would ensure
healthy soils, robust bio-diversity, and clean waters. Wild free roaming
bison are a keystone species. If allowed to roam, they would restore
the American Heartland, biologically and culturally.
Alongside the Montana Livestock Department, many ecologists and
biologists agree with the annual bison culling. For example, Rick Wallen

16
a wildlife biologist who leads Yellowstones bison management
program, claims that, Id like to think that our culling is preventing
unnecessary degradation to the grasslands, he says. Nearly every
wildlife preserve that has bison has to do some sort of population
removal program, because predators arent enough to control
population, and we dont allow the fluctuations that would (naturally)
result from catastrophic events like drought or fire.
These differences in definitions severely inhibit the ability for all
stakeholders to have a leveled discussion; with opposing views on what
the issue itself means, finding a solution is a complicated doing.
iii.

Value

Though the public policy involves bison, all stakeholders within the
equation do not value bison. For stakeholders such as the Montana
Livestock Department and Montana Landowners, they value the cattle
that they are attempting to protect, vegetation, soil stability, and crop
protection. For stakeholders such as the Animal Legal Defense Fund,
Wildlife Conservation & Preservationists, the Buffalo Field Campaign,
and the Western Watersheds Project; they value the bison and their
wellbeing.
According to the National Park Service, the reason behind the culling is
not primarily for the sake of Montana landowners and ranchers. The
National Park Service claims that, A panel of expert scientists
reviewing Yellowstone bison and brucellosis issues concluded that
culling or removals of bison, along with hunting, would be necessary to
limit the size of the bison population for biological, social, and political
reasons. Going on to say that, Under-nutrition (starvation) only
contributes to high mortality when bison abundance is high and snow
pack is at or above average. Also, most bison migrate to lower

17
elevation areas in response to such severe weather events which
eventually brings them into conflict with agriculture and development.
For stakeholders on the opposite end of the spectrum, they claim that
bison culling is only done for political reasoning and there is no biology
or ecology behind it; further claiming that opposing stakeholders do
not value bison as the primary subject.
For example, an excerpt from Wildlife Utopia says that, Bison should
be permitted to roam on public lands year round just like all other
wildlife. There is no legitimate justification for the selective killing of
bison. The brucellosis threat is nothing more than a subterfuge
designed to garner control over our wildlife by livestock interests. Keep
in mind that we do not automatically shoot wolves that leave
Yellowstone. We do not automatically shoot grizzlies that leave
Yellowstone. We dont automatically shoot pronghorn, mule deer, or elk
that leave Yellowstone.

iv.

Action

A widely shared concept of solution would be to extend the roaming

range of bison into more areas of Montana and Wyoming. This would
enable herds to be more spread out and evenly dispersed. Thus
allowing grasslands to re-generate appropriately and avoid overgrazing. Alongside this, natural selection would once again come into
play in regards to managing the bison herds. There would be an
increase in predators, and the impacts of catastrophes such as flooding
and forest fires, which would naturally fluctuate their population. For
the benefit of landowners and ranchers, the possibility of open season
hunting of bison would become a reality.

18
However, as Yellowstone Bison Biologist Rick Wallen claims, The
answer is that Montanas landscape is already heavily influenced by
people. Allowing bison populations to grow unchecked and roam at will
would also mean re-establishing landscape-wide populations of wolves,
allowing wildfire to burn freely, and training drivers, ranchers and
municipalities to live with a new wild animal in their midst. Its
theoretically possible, but it wont happen overnight.
It is known that this is all becoming a very real proposal, considering
the fact that last December, Montana Governor, Steve Bullock released
a plan that will allow bison to roam on 250,000 more acres of land
outside of the park. The National Park Service will also soon release a
plan to quarantine bison without brucellosis, and then ship the diseasefree animals to establish other herds, instead of going to slaughter.
However, stakeholders and supporters of The Montana Livestock
Department, Ecologists, and biologists, all agree on the fact that it will
not be as simple as extending the roaming range. As Cristina
Eisenberg, chief scientist with the environmental group EarthWatch
Institute says, There are people who think that we should just protect
everything and we cant ever have too many, Eisenberg says. But
nature had its own balance, and weve removed the ability of systems
to function within that equilibrium. Now we have to play god.
With the further development of factual evidence and intricate
planning, it is a possibility that a solution between all stakeholders can
be found. With further advancements by governmental agencies and
the State of Montana Legislatureit appears to be that a solution is in
the making.

VII.

Conclusion

Prior to completing research; it appears that all stakeholders hold an

equal amount of factual evidence and reasoning as to why they hold
the viewpoint that they do. Biologists and Ecologists all stay within the

19
same realm of viewpoints; they agree that the bison do have both
positive and negative affects on their surroundings if not managed
correctly. Some scientists differ on their viewpoints as to if bison should
be allowed to freely roam the areas surrounding Yellowstone National
Park, however they all do agree on the fact that it will not be an easy
transition. In the case of the Montana Livestock Department and bison
protection agencies, the viewpoints are mostly on opposite ends of the
spectrum. With the assistance of scientific evidence, legislative and
governmental agreements and reasoning with all parties, it is highly
possible that a solution will be found. As stated in section iv. Action,
the governor of Montana has already made advancements in the
solution of allowing bison to be once again free roaming; showing that
there is an outcome in sight.

20

Bibliography

Adams, S. M., & Dood, A. R. (2011). Background information on issues

of concern for Montana: Plains bison ecology, management, and
conservation. Helena, MT: Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife & Parks.
Isenberg, A. C. (2010). The destruction of the bison: An environmental
history, 1750-1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jawort, A. (n.d.). Genocide by Other Means: U.S. Army Slaughtered
Buffalo in Plains Indian Wars. Retrieved April 14, 2016, from
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/05/09/genocideother-means-us-army-slaughtered-buffalo-plains-indian-wars-30798
Ketcham, C. (2016). The Bison Roundup the Government Wants to
Hide. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/opinion/the-bison-roundup-thegovernment-wants-to-hide.html?_r=0
Langlois, K. (2016, February 17). The science behind Yellowstone's
bison cull. Retrieved April 14, 2016, from
https://www.hcn.org/articles/the-science-behind-yellowstones-bison-cull
SKINNER, CURTIS K., and WAYNE B. ALCORN. 1942-51. History of the
bison in Yellowstone Park. Yell. Natl. Park Library. Typed report.
Timeline of The American Bison. (n.d.). Retrieved April 8, 2016, from
https://www.fws.gov/bisonrange/timeline.htm

21
United States. National Park Service. (n.d.). Frequently Asked
Questions: Bison Management. Retrieved April 14, 2016, from
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/bisonmgntfaq.htm
Wild Yellowstone Bison Conflict with Cattle Ranchers, Lose. (n.d.).
Retrieved April 17, 2016, from
http://www.wilderutopia.com/environment/wildlife/wild-yellowstonebison-conflict-with-cattle-ranchers-lose/