 |
Plains Bison - A new vision for conservation of a species |
Ranchers, for over 100 years, been the dominant force in the preservation of the plains bison and the restoration of native prairie bison habitat in North America. It was private ranchers who preserved the small herds that escaped the government sanctioned extirpation. These small herds were responsible for the range of genetics available today in plains bison. It was only through the efforts of private ranchers that the plains bison herd today numbers upwards of 500,000. Without the combined efforts and foresight of dedicated and determined ranchers, there can be little doubt that today there would only be a few small and isolated herds with very limited genetics, faced at best with an uncertain future and totally dependant on the prevailing conservation ethic of the day. In recent months, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), an agency that advises Environment Canada, recommended the designation of plains bison as a threatened species. COSEWIC’s recommendation was based on the flawed hypothesis (mindlessly repeated by certain special interest groups) that plains bison in the small public herds are somehow genetically superior to those in private herds, an hypothesis without empirical support. That hypothesis is based in part on the equally flawed premise that bison in domestic herds have cattle genomes, whereas those in public herds do not. By ignoring the existence of the private herd, COSEWIC had no choice but to consider the bison as threatened because the government only has about 1,000 healthy bison. However, by listing the plains bison as threatened, the entire private herd would have been decimated, because the only source of funds that private ranchers have to preserve their herds is meat sales. If listed as threatened, bison could not be exported nor would the Canadian public support eating bison. With no source of revenue, there could be no bison ranching. At that point, the plains bison truly would be threatened and COSEWIC’s approach would have been a self-fulfilling prophecy. The following points are relevant in testing COSEWIC’s assumption about the genetic superiority of the small government herd: 1. Private herds share the same ancestry as public herds. 2. Some public herds, because they have largely been isolated in very small groups have been subject to inbreeding and the corresponding loss of genetics. 3. Inter-breeding of cattle and bison was primarily a government initiative involving public herds and was abandoned many years ago. 4. In Canada, private and public herds have not been widely subjected to genetic testing; therefore, any conclusion about their respective genomes is highly speculative. 5. It is likely that the private herd in Canada represents a more complete bison genome than the Canadian government herd because the origins of the private herd include offspring from all of the original herds on the continent, whereas the Canadian government herd came from only one of those small private herds. 6. The limited testing done to date has demonstrated that there is a small amount of cattle DNA in some private and public herds. Until the bison genome is mapped, which is currently underway, it is unknown whether the small amount of cattle DNA makes any difference. More importantly, if the cattle DNA does make a difference, the offending animals can be culled from both public and private herds without losing the diverse bison DNA contained in those herds. The Honourable Stephane Dion’s decision not to designate the plains bison as threatened was based on science, not political or economic concerns as has been suggested by special interest groups. The Federal Environment Minister correctly recognized that based on current research, there is no reason to suggest that government and private plains bison herds are genetically distinguishable. The Minister acknowledged the critical role of private ranchers in the bison’s recovery through the restoration of bison habitat and the preservation of the broadest possible gene pool. In support of the Minister, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada noted that the domestic bison industry has contributed “to the genetic health of the plains bison species”. Economic concerns were only considered by the Minister to the extent that fallout would occur if the species was improperly designated as threatened when in fact it is not. The Minister recognized that those who truly care for the plains bison should work collaboratively with private ranchers, whose conservation ethic has resulted in the re-establishment of this magnificent animal and its native habitat. Remarkably, one environmental group said, “The Minister’s decision panders to decades ... of unsustainable agricultural use in Canada’s threatened grassland region.” What kind of nonsense is that? The bison didn’t ruin the native prairie grasses and landscapes; it created them. There are numerous private initiatives presently underway in both Canada and the U.S. where bison are being raised on private lands in free range natural environments. Those initiatives have demonstrated how the singular act of grazing bison can have an absolutely remarkable restorative effect on the native grasses and natural prairie landscapes. Why would any environmental group oppose bison ranching under those conditions and with those results? The Bison Specialist Group of the Species Survival Commission, a part of the IUCN (World Conservation Union), recently met to prepare a North American Strategy for Bison Conservation. Co-chaired by Dr. Cormack Gates of the Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, the Bison Specialist Group is comprised of the world’s pre-eminent bison scientists including geneticists, wildlife veterinarians, bison and wildlife biologists and wildlife managers. The key elements of the strategy are to establish a network of governments, private ranchers, experts and conservation interests, to develop a realistic continental vision for bison recovery and restoration of native grasslands using bison grazing, and develop a work plan. The Species Survival Commission recognized the key role of private ranchers in the attainment of the twin goals of bison and habitat restoration. Key among the conclusions of the group was that scale is an important variable in restoration. Geographically, most initiatives have historically been small scale and limited to parks and refuges. Only with the participation of private ranchers will large scale restoration of native landscapes to public (lease) and private lands as habitat for plains bison be achieved. Participation at a multiagency/ private partnership scale similarly offers a greater potential for conservation and recovery than with any single organization. Cooperative efforts among ranchers, governments, NGOs and others need and deserve public support. From a large scale ecosystem conservation perspective, bison play an important ecological role (such as restoration of habitat). The Species Survival Commission is developing guidelines based on science for population and genetic management and an emulation of natural processes in selected public and private herds. There may be many private ranchers who will not be able or willing to participate, but many have already expressed an interest in participating. Widespread adoption of guidelines will enhance the restoration of extensive populations of bison as wildlife in cultural and private landscapes. As custodians of by far the majority of the plains bison in North America, for these initiatives to succeed, private ranchers must be an integral part of the process. Notwithstanding the efforts of the Species Survival Commission, private ranchers and others with similar objectives, there are a number of barriers to the conservation and full restoration of bison to native landscapes. For example, some organizations have promoted fencing standards that would, by their limitations, preclude bison from affected lands. Those limitations primarily focus on fence height and purported aesthetic considerations rather than wildlife permeability. To the extent that fencing requirements don’t recognize the need to safely contain bison (while allowing for wildlife permeability), bison will not be present and native landscapes will not be restored, thus impairing efforts to ensure bison and habitat restoration.
As well, some parties in Alberta have objected to bison (as opposed to cattle and sheep) on government leased lands, offering a number of different reasons including potential danger to the public. Not to mention the danger presented by wildlife generally (bears, cougars and moose), no such concerns are expressed with respect to cattle which are less likely to flee human presence than bison. It seems odd that those who profess a desire to restore native prairie landscapes are prepared to allow all manner of grazing on public lands by domesticated animals (such as cattle, sheep, goats and horses), which in the past were responsible for its degradation and in the same breath complain about the presence of the animal that created and that can restore the landscape: the plains bison.
Bison
ranchers
have
no
desire
to
go
it
alone
and
are
prepared
to
work
with
all
those
who
share
the
common
goal
of
restoration
of
native
prairie
landscapes
as
habitat
for
the
plains
bison
and
who
are
prepared
to
recognize
the
critical
role
of
the
plains
bison
in
that
restoration.
In
earlier
times,
the
landscape
sustained
the
bison
and
the
bison
in
turn
sustained
the
landscape.
The
same
symmetry
should
be
the
goal
of
all
those
who
profess
to
support
the
restoration
and
conservation
of
both
the
bison
and
its
habitat.
Dr.
Thomas
Olson |
|
|
Cliff
Wallis |
|
| accepted
its
recommendation.
Here's
why.
The stated primary reason for not listing plains bison was the difficulty of telling wild from domestic plains bison. This is a red herring and is an economic argument in disguise. It is most important to distinguish genetically pure bison from cattle contaminated bison. This testing is relatively easy; however, few cattle genome-free plains bison herds have been identified. These total about 8,000 head globally. Most are located in the U.S., e.g. Wind Cave (375), Yellowstone (4,000), and Grand Teton National Parks (700), Henry Mountains, and the Turner's Castle Rock herd (300). There are some in Canada, e.g. Elk Island National Park (430) and Old Man on His Back Plateau Nature Conservancy area (60). Political interference in listing species at risk was identified as one of the AWA's concerns when we commented on early drafts of the Species at Risk Act, basing decisions about species on economic concerns, especially bad economics, rather than on scientific evidence. The other stated reason for not listing was "the potential economic implications for the Canadian bison industry." The game farming industry is in crisis in Canada and bison ranching has been suffering an economic downturn. About half of the 50 or so pilot bison ranching projects on public lands in Alberta are no longer operating. It is appalling that, in failing to list plains bison under SARA, Canada has chosen domestic bison and the concerns of a handful of bison producers over wild bison and thousands of Canadians who want to see wild plains bison back on the prairies. It flies in the face of common sense to let declining commercial operations hinder efforts to put the wild back in the west. The decision panders to decades of the type of unsustainable agricultural land use in Canada's threatened grassland region that has led to it having one of the largest concentrations of species at risk. It is part of World Wildlife Fund's Global 200 list of most threatened ecosystems. Canada's refusal to list plains bison under SARA limits our ability to use this keystone species in recovery efforts. Recovery of a species at risk means achieving viable, free-ranging populations over large areas within its original range. These populations must be subject to forces of natural selection, including predation; and protected under law. There are about 20,000 plains bison in conservation herds (2,000 in Canada) and 500,000 in commercial ownership; few are genetically pure. Free ranging, predator influenced, disease free bison number less than 1,300 within the Plains region. Less than 700 of those are not subject to regular handling by humans. In other words, few bison in the Plains exist under natural conditions. This is well below the threshold of population viability. Genetic introgression with cattle and bison domestication has created a legacy of issues. The presence of cattle DNA has precluded listing under legislation, e.g. the U.S. Endangered Species Act and domestication is at least partially responsible for the failure of the Minister to list under SARA in Canada. The purposeful selection of traits favourable for human needs physiology and behaviour). This has been true for both cattle and bison. There has been selection for docility, e.g. cattle are poor defenders against predators; smaller pelvic girdle has created calving and walking difficulties; wild character tamed producing animals less adapted to the natural environment. The recovery of original genetic diversity is difficult once an animal is domesticated and wild stocks are extinct. Domestication leads to altered genetically-based behaviour, morphology, physiology and function and to the loss of the wild type and its genetic diversity. The goal of most commercial bison ranchers is to increase profit by maximizing calf production, feed to meat conversion efficiency and meat quality. Over time, they must select for traits serving this purpose, e.g. conformation, docility, growth and carcass composition. Selection for these traits reduces genetic variation and changes the look and behaviour over time. Many bison producers apply cattle husbandry practices and standards to bison, and this will not maintain the plains bison genome. Wild bison played an incredibly important functional role in grassland ecosystems. They were a keystone species central to the life cycles of what are now species at risk. Differential grazing, wallowing, trampling, and fertilization under wild bison grazing increase biodiversity. A growing body of literature comparing grazing behaviour of cattle and bison indicates that large scale bison grazing is more compatible with grassland ecosystems. It is not that cattle or domestic bison can't play any functional ecological role; it is just that wild bison are uniquely adapted to this semi-arid ecosystem. Domestic cattle grazing has been the replacement, but we have nothing that approaches the scale and intensity of wild bison herds as grassland ecosystem modifiers. Bison must be managed in their ecosystem role rather than as a product for market. We must not replace one second-best approach (livestock grazing) with another (cattle/bison hybrids, wildlife-proof fencing). Some people think that getting bison, any kind of bison, back into the plains is important, but it may have more drawbacks than benefits. As one of my friends noted, "We must keep bison wild and not have them genetically altered by producers who want to turn them into creatures with no humps, wide rumps, short legs, no jumping and no aggressiveness to domesticate them." Conservationists recognize that some private herds may have conservation value for various reasons, including: innovative management, genetic and cultural. It is not important who owns the bison, only whether they are providing the full range of ecological benefits. In almost all cases, bison raised like cattle are not "conservation" herds any more than cattle herds are. However, like cattle, some private herds may be able to provide some conservation benefit in the continuum between "wild" and "domestic". Conservationists are still working on defining the attributes of "conservation herds". Grazing, both wild and domestic, must be used in a full species conservation framework. It is our view, supported by considerable negative evidence of the game farming industry in Alberta and elsewhere, that we should not be domesticating wild species. Promoting non-conservation plains bison herds muddies the water immensely. Domestic livestock grazing can continue to be an important part of the economy and play a role in grassland biodiversity conservation; however, we also need to advance the wild bison model. That is the role the Alberta Wilderness Association feels comfortable playing. It is promoting a workshop next fall in Montana to engage ranchers, scientists and conservationists in a constructive debate to get to the next plateau where wild bison would once again play a major role in maintaining the diversity and character of the grasslands. It is the conservation community's strongly held and scientifically supported view that commercial bison production is at odds with the conservation of wild species. Given its opposition to listing plains bison as a species at risk, the bison industry is demonstrating its true colours and its threat to the recovery of this magnificent species and the grassland ecosystem. The conservation issues related to genetic diversity, hybridization and domestication all support plains bison listing. COSEWIC has the science, now we need the political will! Fortunately, the Minister has not closed the door on listing and will be working with the public to develop an approach for the recovery of wild plains bison. However, his decision ties one hand behind his back in recovery efforts. Groups like the AWA are committed to working with the Minister to find a path forward. The AWA is equally committed to securing a listing under the Species at Risk Act until we have recovered significant populations of plains bison in Canada's grasslands. This is where they rightfully belong, along with the whole suite of prairie species with which they evolved. Reintroducing plains bison to Grasslands National Park this fall is a small step in the right direction, but much more political resolve and adequate regulatory tools are needed to help conserve this species and to restore the natural biodiversity in the plains ecosystem. Cliff
Wallis
is
Past-President
of
the |
|
