Five Step Approach: The Case

¶ … Five Step Approach: The Case of Bison in Yellowstone National Park

There is definitely a clear problem here. Every time the population of Bison would rise to healthy levels once again, citizens in near by Montana would reduce the heard again back down to dangerous levels through hunting. This constantly placed the Bison in danger because they were not allowed the chance to gain enough numbers to be able to suffer losses from hunting in near-by Montana. Although Yellowstone Park does not rest in Montana, it is close to its borders. As such, Bison often travel outside the safety of the park and on to Montana lands, where they are in danger of being hunted. Essentially, there was no effective cooperation between park officials and Montana fish and game officials to make sure that the number of Bison shot on Montana soil each year did not get too far out of hand. This problem was thus affecting a number of stakeholders on top of the actual Bison being slaughtered. For one, it impacted the environmentalists and park officials who were working so hard to protect the species. On the same note, it was affecting all of the American population who identify this great beast with a mythical image of the American past. Without the chance to see Bison first hand, many Americans will loose a sense of that past. Yet, still, the citizens of Montana who were slaughtering the Bison for meat, especially in harsh winters like the one from 1995 to 1996 would also be affected because they needed some source of protein out in the wilderness and protection of their grazing lands for their own cattle. Restricting the hunting of Bison too much might endanger them as well. As such, it is clear that a good middle ground was needed to ensure that safety and welfare of the Bison, without endangering the citizens who needed the food during harsh Montana winters. Also, the area has bear, mountain lion, and wolf populations that are also at stake. Hunting Bison too much might endanger a source of food for the bear species, and thus endanger more than one animal in the park proximity.

In order to find a solution for this problem, it is important to establish criteria to evaluate alternatives. First and foremost, the level of healthy Bison population needs to be understood. The numbers at which the entire population becomes at risk must be defined so that subsequent policy can enforce hunting restrictions that allows for a healthier hunting of the population without endangering the species, which has had such a tumultuous past. Additionally, the exact boundaries of the park must be clearly understood and marked, so that no citizens accidentally enter into the park lands and slaughter the Bison while they are protected by the federal government. At the same time, there needs to be some leeway so that the citizens in need can still take the vital source of meat and protein when in need, especially in the winter.

The current policy required NPS officials to try to corral Bison that left the park before they got to private lands. Yet, there is a major problem here because Bison are naturally migratory. Thus this plan is not the most appropriate because the Bison are always going to leave the park at some point in time. Thus, there are a number of policy alternatives here. First and foremost, the park officials can work with the federal government to persuade Montana to adopt stricter hunting regulations in regards to the Bison. Bison can also be tagged and tracked to ensure that NP has a better chance of catching them before they enter into public lands. Alternatively, the NPS officials can lobby to have the hunting of Bison banned completely through bringing national attention to the issue.