Yellowstone and the Greater Yellowstone area and bison are all idealistic parts on the American West and the Great Plains. But, bison are the animal that symbolizes it. In the 1870s they were heavily killed for their hides to be made into leather for boots and machine belts in the end of a decade millions of animals turned into under 1,000. Intervention from ranchers, conservationists and government officials alike recovered the number to nearly 500,000. But, most bison hold a small number of genes from cattle except for Yellowstone’s American Bison who remain pure.
With wild bison in Yellowstone and ever expanding ranches, ranchers are beginning to worry about Brucellosis which is a bacterium that causes not only cattle, but elk and bison to spontaneous abort calves, as well as make them infertile and reduce milk production with cattle. The fear of the disease being passed from bison to cattle can cause an expensive endeavor costing around $400 million in the mid-twentieth century nationally, now it is limited to less than $1 million. Though that is not much nationally for a rancher if their cattle get infected it is equivalent to throwing money into a fire, because their livelihoods depend on it.
Another issue that is being battled is the culling and the tactics to reign in bison back into Yellowstone if they wander out. Culling is the idea of selective slaughter to manage animals. Luckily for the ranchers they have their interest group, the Montana
Department of Livestock and local elected representatives. On the other side of this coin is the Native American tribes, and environmental groups and to mediate the policies these groups desire is the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. With all these different stakeholders believing in their claim of management of wild spaces and wildlife, but also maintaining a major industry in Montana is a “wicked problem” this term expresses the idea that there are social system problems which the information is confusing and there are many clients and decision makers with conflicting values, and the ramification in the whole system are confusing (Churchman 1967, p. B-141).
All the individual groups and organization show the strength in American Pluralism and democracy, showing that many people can have interests and ideas about an issue to influence the laws that are created. For what can be done for bison in Yellowstone is something to be overcome. There is a management plan in place named the Interagency Bison Management Plan(IBMP), this policy was crated with the National Park Service, the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the U.S. Forest Service, the Montana Department of Livestock, and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Section Two
John Kingdon’s ideas of agenda setting and theory of “streams” for public policy agenda setting, “problem stream”, “policy stream”, and “political stream” (Kingdon, 1995, p. 109). The “problem stream” is the idea where problem(s) that are considered public and that the government needs to fix them in this case it is the management of bison in the Yellowstone Park and surrounding areas and minimizing contact between the possibly infected female bison and cattle. As well as how to keep populations healthy within the space and keep the bison corralled within the park.
Then idea of “policy streams” starts with an issue or problem getting attention about being a problem that hinders more than just an individual but the entire group. This has started many conversations amount the native tribes whose ancestral ties relied on bison creating the Inter Tribal Buffalo Council(ITBC), along with advocacy groups such as the Buffalo Field Campaign (BFC). The BFC have a fair argument of public lands that could house more bison the issue is that those public lands are grey spaces because ranchers can also use those lands for cattle because of what public lands are and to limit public lands for bison, we are limiting use for recreation access as well if we almost privatize it for bison population. Policy streams gives it a more reliable chance of being seen and heard within a community and dealt with sooner and in a reliable manner within every layer of a community to nationally.
Then in the final stream is the “political stream” which is the influence of the political mood, such as a change in the presidential administration, a change in the legislator, or an interest group campaign. With the Department of Livestock having their interest group, along with the BFC and ITBC both having their own. And national organization controlling all the policies including the National Park Service and Montana Game, Fish, and Parks. Both groups get a piece of the IBMP that is in place the DOL may have an advantage because they have capital to influence others and familiarity not only with the area, but representatives in the area. Not to say that the BFC or the ITBC don’t have capital or familiarity to the land and people the DOL is more effective with those advantages. Though these “streams” may move independently from one another when they overlap in a policy window, then advancement can happen.
Section Three
Being that this is a “wicked problem” putting ideas on the agenda more back to back fixing problems as they arise deems everything more bound for success and inclusion of collaboration. Environmental and wilderness are hard to maintain in real-life so this will always be a subject up for debate and change as it changes itself. Though the IBMP is a good start to policy concerning bison and is not out of reach for any group. Many groups are part of problem and the solution because of all the ideas that considered to make policy.
So, using the public and showing public interest is one of the most effective ways to get a governmental agency on board on changing how it runs internally and externally so with the public support and some public funding to get environmental and conservational groups more weight in Congress and no longer be some small grassroots group this gets off the ground. And getting representation from the larger more developed organizations, businesses and individuals that are well developed institutions and with a good amount of authority nationally for wilderness advocacy and wilderness enjoyment overall.
But, Montana needs to reign in organizations that might hinder the cattle industry which is a major industry for the state, they need to protect both iconic parts of the West bison
and the cowboy. There will be downfalls of the systems with clashes of the Montana rancher and the environmentalist, but with the right team this should be very minor, as technology improves and grows, the system should follow suit. Though these government agencies all are different in many way in protocol, policy and internal governance, it is ultimately up to the people because that is who the government is supposed to represent, not marginal group but the masses. There is no “right way” everyone obviously, all love the bison in symbolism as a free spirit of the Great Plains and the West. If not, we would have killed them all with little consideration like some other species.
Section Four
There is no absolute quality way to see if this plan is effective until the future. The best way to know if it is working is scientific data of bison health, along with elk and cattle for brucellosis. Along with happiness of bison in Native American communities for possible expansion of the program. Though some groups will never be happy with results public administrators must play with the hand they are dealt. They must be willing to change within any department within a reasonable amount, and find a middle ground between all parts of the industry and community alike. The new policies and other struggles of change will be rewarded if done right in a timely matter.