This story is excerpted from the MT Lowdown, a weekly newsletter digest containing original reporting and analysis published every Friday.
One of the state’s most prominent proxy wars — the agriculture-vs-wildlife debate playing out vis-a-vis bison — is again making the rounds in national and state policy circles.
The Interior Department announced Friday, March 3, that it’s putting $25 million of Inflation Reduction Act funding toward bison restoration.
The agency characterized bison as a crucial species that is deeply interconnected with Indigenous culture, grassland ecology, and American history. Furthermore, it emphasized that endeavors to revive the previously abundant national mammal will enhance the health of grasslands, which have a significant role in mitigating climate change through the process of carbon sequestration.
Interior Department Secretary Deb Haaland further fleshed out her case in Order 3410, which lays out a framework for the department to work with tribes, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service to advance bison restoration.
According to the order, the most reliable scientific evidence suggests that reintroducing bison to grasslands can improve the formation of soil, revive indigenous flora and fauna, and aid in carbon sequestration. As a result, this restoration can bring advantages to agriculture, outdoor recreation, and Tribes. Additionally, the rejuvenation of bison populations and the restoration of healthy grasslands can serve as a crucial step towards healing and reconciliation at a national level, following centuries of federal policies aimed at eradicating Native people and their cultures.
Republicans in Montana argue that managing wildlife within the borders of the state is the responsibility of state policymakers, not the federal government. These arguments do not seem to resonate with them.
March 2, the day before the Interior Department’s announcement, the Montana Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 14 opposing bison introduction at the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, a central Montana refuge managed by USFWS. It passed on party lines, 34-16 and now awaits the consideration of the House.
The resolution claims that the combination of mixed ownership within the CMR and an open range management approach, which blurs the distinction between federal and state trust land, should discourage the federal government from reintroducing bison in the CMR. The CMR is the second-largest wildlife refuge in the Lower 48. The resolution argues that such an introduction would put the livelihoods of ranching families at risk and burden the state and landowners in and around the CMR with costs linked to bison-related damages.
Press time came and went without receiving a response from Paul Santavay, the CMR Project Manager, regarding the Interior Department’s March 3 announcement.
Tension over bison management is playing out in other arenas as well. Gov. Greg Gianforte, Attorney General Austin Knudsen and the Montana Stockgrowers Association announced in August that they’re appealing the BLM’s decision to expand bison grazing in central Montana. A year prior, the state agreed not to explore bison management on state-managed lands for at least a decade as part of a settlement with United Property Owners of Montana.
