On Tuesday, state officials in Montana filed a lawsuit against Yellowstone National Park in federal court over its bison management plan, escalating a long-running conflict between the park and the Gianforte administration.
In order to increase the number of bison in Yellowstone National Park and avoid vaccinating them against brucellosis, a disease that is of concern to the state’s cattle-ranching industry, park officials have allegedly purposefully excluded Montana from management plans or disregarded the park’s own science, according to the new lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Billings.
The court action comes after public disagreements and conflicts between federal officials, including other members of the Interagency Bison Management Plan, and the Gianforte administration.
What happens when the bison in Yellowstone National Park inexorably wander past the park’s border, frequently into Montana, is a matter of concern for park officials who oversee the herds. A considerable amount of indignation has also been sparked by annual bison hunting. Proponents of the bison, the country’s official land mammal, have criticized what they claim is a slaughterhouse line of hunters waiting on the Montana side of the park’s border to hunt the animals as they pass the limits.
Attorneys for Gianforte, the Montana Department of Livestock, and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks filed the lawsuit, which focuses on Yellowstone officials’ illegal disregard for a 2000 agreement to limit the number of bison herds in Yellowstone National Park to fewer than 3,000 animals and their promise to vaccinate bison against brucellosis. Rather, the lawsuit contends that the National Park Service improperly altered those regulations in 2024 to permit a rise in bison numbers and the removal of the need for immunization in a new environmental impact assessment. The state of Montana contests the claims made by state officials that Yellowstone National Park likewise implemented these new regulations, claiming that they were not significantly different from existing park procedures.
According to the lawsuit, Yellowstone National Park has completely failed to manage to the designated target population or carry out essential components of its strategy over the past 20 years.
According to state officials, Montana cattle brucellosis must be prevented.
In the lawsuit, the state of Montana also asserts that it consented to increase the tolerance zones—areas where bison may roam—particularly in the winter months, provided that the target herd population remained constant and that officials vaccinate the bison whenever possible. They contend that rather than granting authorization to increase the intended size of the bison herd, the state’s expansion of the bison’s roaming territory was a spatial increase.
Additionally, Montana said that permitting more bison to wander could compromise its capacity to certify that cattle reared within its borders are clear of brucellosis. According to state officials in the case, the new regulations jeopardize their obligation to safeguard the state’s cattle business.
Additionally, state officials stated that due to the modifications made by park managers and members of the Interagency management partners, the state may reevaluate the regions where bison are permitted to wander without being hunted.
According to the lawsuit, Montana’s 2015 tolerance expansion was only a spatial expansion and did not foster tolerance for rising population levels. In actuality, the decision notice repeatedly declared that the population target would stay at 3,000 despite the physical tolerance zone expanding.
Montana officials, however, showed that despite the 2000 objective of 3,000 bison and an actual population of 2,708 at that time, park officials and bison managers allowed the population to peak at 5,459 buffalo in 2017.
Montana informed the National Park Service that all of the new proposed regulations were predicated on the idea that the state’s tolerance zones, which were extended in 2011 and 2015, would remain in place. According to the lawsuit, Montana notified Yellowstone National Park that this was irrational because each option’s commitment to a larger population and less disease control went against two important goals for Montana’s enhanced tolerance. At best, the (management plan’s) reliance on Montana’s tolerance zone to support populations above 3,000 is a mistake; at worst, it is a willful misrepresentation.
Additionally, Montana officials claim they have not been contacted and that there is no agreement on increasing the bison population beyond 3,000.
Citing the 2000 record, the lawsuit stated that (the National Park Service) determined that 3,000 was a suitable target because anything higher would probably result in out-migration.
According to the lawsuit, the new management plans do not include vaccination under any of the scenarios it considered during the public comment and review in its most recent 2024 decision, without contacting Montana. According to Montana officials, this goes against the initial agreement with the state, which called for the maximum level of immunization for all bison. Officials have now written out any immunization, the lawsuit claims.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants have not only failed to start a remote vaccination program after 24 years, but also now declare they have no plans to carry out any kind of vaccine, whether it be remote or otherwise. From 2007 to 2022, bison vaccination is included in all yearly operations plans. Every option in the Final Environmental Impact Statement of the Bison Management Plan, including the no action option, abandons vaccination even though it is a clear instruction in current management.
Montana officials claim they haven’t been able to work with the leaders of Yellowstone.
As a kind of legal laundry list of issues and difficulties Montana officials claim they have had with Yellowstone’s overall management, a portion of the lawsuit describes the adjustments and alterations that have been made since the initial record of decision for bison management was established in 2000.
Additionally, it claims that park officials disregarded state officials’ attempts to meet and work together and purposefully attempted to restrict Montana’s access to information about the modifications they planned.
According to the state, officials began altering management plans and hurried public comment in February 2022. Montana claimed to have expressed its annoyance at not being contacted or included in the development of alternatives by the National Park Services during that period, particularly in light of the controversial past of bison management.
According to the lawsuit, Yellowstone Park officials had to wait until June 2023 to finally (meet) with the state’s technical staff to discuss the substance of the alternatives and supporting science—or lack thereof—after Montana requested that National Park leadership withdraw the slate of bison management plans at that time so that other meetings could take place.
According to Montana officials, the park is attempting to expedite the process, as evidenced by the fact that they were only given 11 days to examine and comment on a draft of the environmental impact statement. According to the lawsuit, Montana officials claimed that they were only given 24 days to study and confer with officials after the final environmental impact assessment was created, which was an impractical timeframe for the state.
On Tuesday, Yellowstone National Park officials informed the Daily Montanan that they were still reviewing the case and had only recently learned about it.
Throughout the planning process, the National Park Service has regularly and repeatedly failed to interact with the state in a meaningful and transparent way as required by law, according to Governor Greg Gianforte. The National Park Service has not treated us fairly and has disregarded the state’s concerns. We will never allow the federal government to overreach into our jurisdiction.
Like the Idaho Capital Sun, the Daily Montanan is a member of States Newsroom, a 501c(3) public charity news network backed by grants and a coalition of donors. The editorial independence of the Daily Montanan is maintained. For inquiries, send an email to [email protected] to reach Editor Darrell Ehrlick.
OUR WORK IS MADE POSSIBLE BY YOU.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!
