When Will Wild Bison Be Considered Wildlife In Montana?
Posted November 10, 2009 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places
Wild wolves? Wildlife. Wild elk? Wildlife. Wild grizzly bears? Wildlife. Wild bison? Livestock.
What the . . . ?
Yes, you read that correctly. Wild bison are considered livestock in the State of Montana, and thus the Montana Department of Livestock is the lead agency for bison management.
(Such an absurd system reminds me of an exercise I did in grammar school: the teacher would list a group of objects together, and the student's job was to pick out the object on the list that didn't fit. So, for a throwback to the days of recess and naptime, pick out the object that doesn't fit here: (a) domesticated sheep, (b) domesticated chicken, (c) domesticated pig, (d) wild bison, (e) domesticated turkey. Time's up. The correct answer is (d) wild bison.)
I got to thinking about this paradox after reading Ralph Maughan's comment on his Wildlife News website: "For all those in Montana [Fish, Wildlife and Parks] who say they want the wolf treated like other animals, why can't they say the same about bison?"
That's a damned good point.
Throughout the significant media coverage of the Montana wolf hunt, you continually read Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) personnel claiming that the time has come for wolves to be managed like all other wildlife in Montana:
Tom Palmer, FWP spokesman: "It really gives us a chance to show Montana can manage wolves smartly and carefully, like it manages all other wildlife in the state."
Carolyn Sime, FWP's wolf program coordinator: "I think this hunting season is very important from a symbolic viewpoint. It's an important benchmark in the timeline of wolves on the Montana landscape. Here's our first opportunity to manage wolves like other wildlife."
Such comments beg the question, "What about wild bison?"
To be fair to FWP, this asinine system was established by Montana statute. As such, classifying wild bison as wildlife and transferring management to FWP from the Department of Livestock would have to happen legislatively (e.g., "The Restoration of Sanity to Wildlife Classifications in Montana Act of 2011").
In fact, such a bill was introduced this past legislative session in Montana. NRDC supported the bill, which was developed and championed by the Gallatin Wildlife Association and formally sponsored by Rep. Mike Phillips. Unfortunately, however, scare tactics carried the day, and the bill failed to get out of committee.
The stated justification for wild bison being nonsensically considered livestock is brucellosis -- a disease that causes pregnant animals to abort -- and fear that wild bison may transmit the disease to domestic cattle in Montana. Yet no documented case of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle has occurred in the wild.
And elk, which can also have brucellosis, are (properly) considered wildlife and managed by FWP. As Rep. Phillips said, "If you argue for the continuation of the status quo, you can't argue against the notion the (livestock) department should have authority over elk." And that's something nobody wants.
The preposterous management scheme surrounding wild bison in Montana makes no sense and needs to change. Hopefully it will during the next Montana legislative session, which begins in January 2011.
In the meantime, the next time you read a quote from a FWP official celebrating the management of wolves like "all other wildlife in Montana," remember to translate that to:
"All wildlife but wild bison."
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Tom Woodbury — Nov 12 2009 11:41 AM
Matt: And remember at the wolf hearing recently, the MT attorney argued that Montana needs to be allowed to manage wildlife on an ecosystem basis, and the ecosystem is not complete without wolves. When someone asked Sime during a panel discussion how you can manage wolves as part of an ecosystem when you won't allow one of their primary prey species into the state, she responded that the question seemed to be stating an opinion! Apparently, she's never heard of wildlife ecology. This is the problem when humans play god, like trying to manage grizzlies without salmon, and trying to manage wolves without bison. I call it "zoo mentality", because we seem to want certain species available in a natural setting for our viewing pleasure, but we also want to limit their movements. We still haven't learned to think ecosystems. Maybe we should replace that old "Think Habitat" slogan with "Think Ecosystem".
Carol French — Nov 13 2009 12:45 PM
I agree totally! I guess more education and clear thinking is needed. I do not remember how the expression goes exactly, but isn't it true that you have a better chance of caring about something if you have some understanding of it? But you also have to WANT to understand. I do have in front of me Sylvia Earle's book, Sea Change, in which she quotes from The Lorax by Dr. Seuss, "Unless somebody like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not."
Matt Skoglund — Nov 16 2009 12:19 PM
Carol, thanks for your comment and the great quote. I couldn't agree more.
Tom, I really like the "Think Ecosystem" slogan. An ecosystem-level approach is the only way to successfully manage wildlife and wild places in the long term. Thanks for your comment.
Matt