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.