Holding that Yellowstone National Park bison should not be allowed to "reproduce prolifically beyond the capacity of its range," a federal judge ruled Monday that he would not stop park bison that roamed into Montana from being slaughtered.
More than 500 Yellowstone bison have been corralled in recent weeks in the park's Stephen's Creek holding facility after they roamed north of the park's boundary in search of winter range where they might escape winter's full fury. Any animals that test positive for brucellosis, a disease that can cause livestock to abort their fetuses, are being targeted for slaughter.
A handful of conservation groups and individuals -- Western Watersheds Project, the Buffalo Field Campaign, Tatanka Oyate, Gallatin Wildlife Association, Native Ecosystems Council, Yellowstone Buffalo Foundation, Meghan Gill, Charles Irestone and Daniel Brister -- sought an injunction from U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell to halt the slaughter. But in a 72-page opinion (attached below) released Monday the judge said slaughter and hunting long have been the accepted practice in the United States for managing wildlife populations.
"For those of us who admire the Yellowstone bison, it is easy to be sympathetic to an emotional appeal to 'stop the slaughter.' Yet it is clear that this population of wild bison – diseased and healthy – ought not be allowed to reproduce prolifically beyond the capacity of its range without the institution of scientific management," wrote Judge Lovell. "This has been recognized and authorized by Congress and well-implemented administratively in proper fashion. Distasteful as the lethal removal may be to some, it is clearly one of the foremost management tools – time honored – necessarily utilized to protect the species, the habitat, and the public.
"There is an annual season for lethal removal for wild animals in most of the United States and particularly in the states surrounding Yellowstone Park," he went on. "Deer, antelope, elk, moose, and others are removed annually as deemed necessary in order to scientifically control populations and accomplish these same resource goals. This is called 'hunting season,' and the phenomenon is widely accepted by the public."
In his ruling, Judge Lovell said the plaintiffs failed to show that the integrity of Yellowstone's bison herd, which numbered 3,900 last summer, would suffer from the slaughter of several hundred individuals, noting that "the herd has shown remarkable resilience following much larger culls in the winters of 2006 and 2008 (which were caused in part by the fact that the herd grew to an overabundance of more than 5,000 bison in 2005). It should emphatically be acknowledged that the Yellowstone bison is plentiful and reproductively prolific and, of course, is not a listed species under the ESA."
The judge also dismissed for lacking credibility an unpublished paper maintaining that the park's culling of bison would harm the genetic diversity of the herd. The paper, by Thomas H. Pringle, gained some recognition last week after a news service wrote a story about it.
Interior Department attorneys attacked the paper's credibility, noting that it was unpublished, had not been peer-reviewed, and was "prepared during the course of this litigation for the purpose of advancing Plaintiffs' interests in this litigation." Furthermore, Mr. Pringle was on an advisory board to the Western Watershed Project, they said.
In agreeing with the credibility issues, Judge Lovell admonished the plaintiffs for the way they presented the paper, calling it "litigation by ambush."
"The situation is further complicated by the manner in which the existence of Pringle’s study was brought into this case. It appeared as part of the last paper to be filed to submit the issue of injunctive relief to the Court. Plaintiffs first presented their motion and brief for injunctive relief. Defendants responded to that with an excellent answer brief," the judge noted. "Plaintiffs then had an opportunity to respond by reply to Defendants’ answer brief. Instead, what Plaintiffs did was to insert into the record a heretofore undisclosed secret study.
"Had Plaintiffs wanted to rely on the study, notice could have been given to the Defendants and the Court either during the administrative proceedings or after this litigation was commenced. This would not have deprived Defendants of an opportunity to respond, as occurred here," he wrote. "The Court was perplexed and disappointed by this because it indicates a failure to exercise a good faith application of the intent and spirit of the federal rules of procedure. It is litigation by ambush."
While he had not had the time to fully read the judge's ruling, Matt Skoglund at the Natural Resources Defense Council's Montana office disparaged the approach being taken to manage the bison.
“Sending wild bison off to slaughter is just an incredible tragedy. The only continuously wild bison population that remains in the United States, and yet, despite thousands of acres of habitat outside the park and recent massive changes to the brucellosis rules, our taxpayer dollars are sending these animals to slaughter," he said. "It’s so wasteful, and so tragic.”
Comments
The earth-shattering news from today that has us all scrambling to understand what this means is Governor Schweitzer's announcement that Montana, at least for the next 90 days, will not allow the importation of Yellowstone buffalo through Montana to slaughter facilities. Given the location of Stephens Creek, this essentially ends shipment to slaughter of all buffalo for that time. They could still be shot, they could still be hazed (and no doubt will be), but the ball is now in the Park Service's court. The reasoning the governor gave is slick as they come (using the livestock industry's own reasoning against them).
The questions I have are these:
1. Does the Governor's action today constitute pulling out of the IBMP? (there are reasons from a phone call received that this may be the case, but that's just a hint in his language)
2. Will the Park Service see this as an end to the IBMP?
3. Will the Park Service actually shoot buffalo inside the park?
4. What happens to the buffalo in captivity and the many hundreds more poised to come out of the park?
5. Does this mean that the Duck Creek Trap and any capture operations west of the park are now out of bounds?
After such a dark day for us yesterday, this is the best news I've heard in years, even if it remains unclear.
The full text of the governor's press release is at: http://governor.mt.gov/news/pr.asp?ID=878 .
Bison are a cattle species. To allow any bovine species to overpopulate their range, deplete the resources of that range, spill over into other ranges in search of food simply because we are sentimental about their "wildness" is as I said before irresposible. Once again, the carrying capacity of their range needs no be established and the herd population kept there. The perimiter fences of their range need to be kept adequate to hold the animals. The animals need vaccinated. It matters not whether we think they are wildlife or not, they are a cattle species and as such need to be managed according to modern rangeland and animal science practices.
Jamie, you open your comment by stating flatly that "Bison are a cattle species" and then go on to say "it matters not whether we think they are wildlife or not." The thing is, whereas cattle are domesticated animals by definition , bison are not. That's an important distinction. In the eyes of the law, the fact that some bison herds are maintained on private property under tightly controlled conditions confers no legal right or obligation to apply the same managerial techniques and methods to the wild bison on public lands.
There is not a lot of wiggle room in the difference between responsible rangeland and animal management and the lack of it. Bison are cattle, wild or not, that difference has no bearing on the responsibility of land managers be they government agencies or private.
One of the points, whether one accepts a rangeland view of wildlife management or not, is whether the current range is sufficient to support the species. New evidence is suggesting that the amount of actually wild bison that do not have cattle genes is much lower than previously thought and that Yellowstone may truly have one of the last reservoirs of wild bison. If the claims of genetic mitochondrial disease are true, some are arguing that it may be too late for the species no matter what we do.
For other reasons, I don't accept a rangeland wildlife management approach, but even if one does, the bison here in Yellowstone need more room (range) to roam; they need it outside of Yellowstone National Park (where public lands are abundant). The survival of the species may be at stake. Even if it is not, you cannot give the existing animals half a range. You'd basically wipe out the northern range herd and much of the central range herd. The elk in those herds roam well outside the park, so do the deer, the bighorn sheep, the pronghorn ... the bison can, too. It's not like the park boundary is teeming with cows and private landholders. In fact, they either are tolerant or are in such small numbers that they could be worked around. Most of the land is Gallatin National Forest with a fair number of friendly landowners sprinkled in.
In any event, Governor Schweitzer's order has blown open the relevancy of all these questions.
Rounding up 500 bison in a corral and sending them to slaughter does not a "hunting season" make. I don't know any hunters who will get a trophy out of that.
My step-father had a photo of the buffalo that he shot on the Arizona House Rock Valley range. He would not explain why it was leaning against a barb-wire fence. Later I found out it was part of the annual herd cull. I agree: some trophy.
Interesting comment from JS Mcdonald! So agreed, the yellowstone bison herd has been allowed to increase past what the rangeland within the park can sustain. What I advocate is managing this herd to a level that can be sustained. What you advocate is that the land around the park be made available for the bison so the the herd doesnt have to be reduced. The land around the park is either forest service, which is allotted to cattlemen for their livestock as part of the USDA's multiple use policy, or, private land. You say that these private landholders are so small that they can be "worked around". We know what that means, forced to give up their land against their will to accomidate what YOU want because of your sentimentality over the bison herd. Unacceptable!