Key Takeaways
- Montana has filed a federal lawsuit against the National Park Service (NPS) over Yellowstone’s new bison management plan, arguing the bison population is too high and poses risks to livestock.
- Conservation groups and Native American tribes have intervened in support of the NPS, emphasizing ecological and cultural importance of a robust bison herd.
- The outcome of this lawsuit will set important precedents for wildlife management, tribal rights, and public land use in and around national parks.
Background: Yellowstone Bison Management
Yellowstone National Park is home to the largest wild bison herd in the United States. The management of these bison has long been a source of legal and political tension. The core of the dispute is how to balance the ecological needs of the bison with the interests of neighboring states, livestock owners, and tribal nations.
In 2000, the National Park Service (NPS) and several state and federal agencies adopted the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP). This plan aimed to control brucellosis, a disease present in some bison that can infect cattle. The IBMP included measures such as population control, vaccination, and restrictions on bison movement outside the park. Over time, the bison population has grown, with recent estimates placing it at approximately 5,400 animals.
The Lawsuit: Montana v. National Park Service
Montana’s Claims
In December 2024, the State of Montana, led by Governor Greg Gianforte, the Montana Department of Livestock, and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, filed a lawsuit in federal court against the NPS (Montana Free Press). The state argues that the new bison management plan, which allows for a larger bison population and greater tolerance for bison outside park boundaries, violates federal law and threatens Montana’s cattle industry.
Montana’s main concerns are:
- Brucellosis Transmission: The state claims that a larger bison herd increases the risk of brucellosis spreading to cattle, which could have severe economic consequences for ranchers.
- Population Cap: Montana asserts that the original IBMP set a cap of 3,000 bison, and the current population exceeds this limit.
- Public Land Use: The lawsuit argues that the new plan allows bison to roam on public lands in Montana, creating conflicts with livestock grazing and reducing hunting opportunities for tribal members.
The state is seeking a court order to reduce the bison population to 3,000 and to restrict bison movement outside Yellowstone (Daily Montanan).
The Federal Response
The NPS and its partners maintain that the new management plan is based on the best available science and is necessary for the long-term health of the bison herd and the Yellowstone ecosystem. They argue that the plan balances disease management with conservation goals and respects the cultural significance of bison to Native American tribes (National Park Service - Yellowstone Bison Management).
Stakeholder Involvement
Conservation Groups and Tribal Nations
The lawsuit has prompted a strong response from conservation organizations and Native American tribes. The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, along with groups like the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, have filed motions to intervene in the case (NPCA, Greater Yellowstone Coalition).
These groups argue:
- Ecological Importance: Bison play a crucial role in maintaining the health of grasslands and supporting biodiversity in Yellowstone.
- Cultural Significance: Bison are sacred to many Native American tribes, who have treaty rights to hunt bison and participate in their management.
- Legal Compliance: The current plan, they argue, complies with federal law and reflects a collaborative, science-based approach.
Environmental and Legal Perspectives
Environmental organizations have also sought to intervene, emphasizing the broader implications for wildlife management and public land use (E&E News). Legal experts note that the case could set important precedents for how federal agencies manage wildlife in cooperation with states and tribes.
Legal Arguments and Historical Context
The Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP)
The IBMP, adopted in 2000, was a compromise between federal and state agencies to address brucellosis concerns while preserving the bison herd (National Park Service - IBMP). The plan included population targets, vaccination programs, and protocols for handling bison that leave the park.
Montana’s lawsuit claims that the IBMP established a hard cap of 3,000 bison. However, park officials and conservationists dispute this interpretation, arguing that the plan allowed for adaptive management based on changing scientific understanding (National Parks Traveler).
Brucellosis and Livestock Concerns
Brucellosis is a bacterial disease that can cause cattle to miscarry. While bison and elk in the Yellowstone area can carry the disease, transmission from bison to cattle is rare. Montana’s livestock industry remains concerned about the potential for outbreaks, which could lead to costly quarantines and trade restrictions (Montana Department of Livestock).
Tribal Rights and Hunting
Tribal nations have treaty rights to hunt bison on lands adjacent to Yellowstone. Montana’s lawsuit seeks to limit bison roaming and restrict hunting opportunities to tribal members, raising concerns about the state’s respect for tribal sovereignty and cultural traditions (Sierra Club).
Current Status of the Case
The case is currently before a federal district court. Motions to intervene have been filed by tribes and conservation groups. The court’s decision will determine whether the NPS can proceed with its new management plan or must revert to stricter population controls (KBZK).
As of this writing, no final decision has been issued. The outcome will have significant implications for bison management, tribal rights, and the relationship between federal and state agencies.
Implications for Wildlife Management
The Yellowstone bison lawsuit highlights the complex interplay between conservation, agriculture, and indigenous rights. If Montana prevails, the NPS may be forced to reduce the bison population and limit their range, potentially undermining conservation efforts and tribal hunting rights. If the NPS and its allies succeed, it could set a precedent for more flexible, science-based wildlife management in national parks.
The case also underscores the importance of collaborative management involving federal, state, and tribal partners. Future policies will likely need to address not only disease management and population control, but also the cultural and ecological roles of bison in the Yellowstone ecosystem.
Conclusion
The legal dispute over Yellowstone’s bison herd is a significant test of how the United States manages its iconic wildlife. The case brings together issues of disease control, public land use, tribal sovereignty, and conservation science. The outcome will shape not only the future of Yellowstone’s bison, but also broader policies for wildlife management in national parks.
For attorneys and legal researchers seeking detailed case law and statutory analysis, visit Counsel Stack for comprehensive legal research tools.
Disclaimer: This guide provides an overview of the ongoing Yellowstone bison herd lawsuit based on publicly available information as of June 2024. The case is active, and all descriptions of legal claims are based on current filings and allegations, which may be subject to change. For legal advice or the latest case developments, consult official court documents or a qualified attorney.
