When Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte filed a lawsuit in late December alleging the National Park Service is not effectively managing Yellowstone’s bison population, he got the attention of “tree huggers,” “free-thinking rabble rousers” and “the most historic grassroots environmental organization in the country,” according to a recent public statement from the group.
This self-described bunch of environmentalists united around a message that might surprise some: They say it’s time to hunt and kill more bison outside Yellowstone National Park.
“I'm a tree hugger and I also hunt,” John Meyer, executive director of Cottonwood Environmental Law Center, told Cowboy State Daily Thursday. “We're just trying to completely change the conversation of what it means to be an environmentalist, what it means to be a conservationist, what it means to be a tree hugger.”
In the debate over how best to manage bison roaming in and out of Yellowstone, Meyer said, “Why not let bison go anywhere elk can go, because now we're going to have more hunting opportunities.”
Last week, Meyer’s Bozeman-based Cottonwood Center and the Sierra Club responded to Gianforte’s lawsuit by filing an intervening brief in U.S. District Court in Billings.
The brief is a legal show of support for the current bison management plan, and a legal maneuver allowing tribal members to declare their, “significant protectable interests” in maintaining a sustainable population of bison in Yellowstone and outside park boundaries on land managed by the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies.
Back on Dec. 31, five attorneys representing Gianforte’s office, the Montana Department of Livestock and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, filed suit to cap Yellowstone’s bison population at 3,000. The current management plan allows for twice that many bison.
“If you say we're going to reduce that number, you're in effect taking away rights to hunt those animals because there's not going to be those animals anymore,” said Meyer, who counts enrolled members of several Montana tribes as part of the Cottonwood Center.
Those tribes hold treaty rights to hunt and harvest Yellowstone bison. Several Montana tribes are now also transporting bison to tribal lands, where new herds are starting to grow.
“Vacating the 2024 Yellowstone Bison Plan will impair Cottonwood’s interests in more bison being transferred to Native American tribes more quickly,” states Cottonwood’s Feb. 18 intervening motion.
It also discounts what Meyer describes as the benefits of letting more bison roam to more places outside Yellowstone. Currently, the federal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) haze bison so they don’t roam too far beyond the Yellowstone boundary into Montana.
Meyer hopes by intervening in the suit between the state of Montana and the Park Service, his coalition of “rabble rousers” can expand the bison’s range along with hunting opportunities for both tribal and non-tribal members.
“I think that realistically this can bring a lot of money to the state,” said Meyer. “Instead of paying APHIS to haze Yellowstone bison back into Yellowstone Park using four wheelers and rubber bullets or snowmobiles and horses, why not have these APHIS employees haze bison off of private land?”
“We think those issues need to be determined and resolved before Montana's lawsuit moves forward,” added Meyer. “Now it's just the state of Montana versus everybody.”
Group of self-described “free-thinking rabble rousers” and “tree huggers” want to see more bison hunted and killed outside Yellowstone National Park. Leading this group is environmental attorney and proud “tree hugger” John Meyer of Bozeman, Montana. (Courtesy John Meyer) 
Where the buffalo roam — bison migration around Yellowstone National Park. (University of Oregon)
Ongoing Acrimony
“The Park Service and Yellowstone and Montana have had an acrimonious relationship for decades,” former Montana State Veterinarian Dr. Marty Zaluski told Cowboy State Daily. “As it relates to bison management, both sides can point at the other and say that they did not meet obligations, or they acted in some way out of good faith.”
That sentiment came through in a Dec. 31 press release from Gianforte’s office, which said, “The National Park Service has repeatedly and consistently failed to engage with the state in a meaningful and transparent manner as required by law throughout the planning process.”
In Montana’s lawsuit, the state’s attorneys assert that by maintaining a bison population over 3,000, YNP is violating its “Year-round Habitat for Yellowstone Bison Environmental Assessment (2015 Expansion Decision)” that, “Did say, multiple times, that the population target of 3,000 would not be changed, regardless of the spatial expansion.”
Yellowstone then came out with a different population target in its 2024 bison management plan: “3,500-6,000 on the assumption that Montana’s tolerance zones will accommodate that population,” according to the complaint.
“Tolerance zones” refer to the limited areas where bison are allowed to roam outside Yellowstone. Cottonwood hopes those zones are expanded so bison can wander deep into Montana.
That would elevate risk of brucellosis infection, said Zaluski, wading into a long-running debate.
“You would have a lot more cattle infections than we do right now,” said Zaluski, acknowledging that currently, elk spread the bacterial disease that causes harm to cattle herds. “Elk are causing the infection of brucellosis into cattle. That is true, but to suggest that that is because bison don't pose a risk is ridiculous.”
“The reason that bison haven't caused infections is because they haven't had the opportunity to because the state of Montana has had a strong boundary and aggressive boundary control program that reduces the contact between cattle and bison,” said Zaluski.
Cottonwood’s recent motion offers a counterpoint. It reminds the federal court that the National Academies of Sciences concluded there is “clear evidence that brucellosis transmission to livestock has come from infected elk and, as a result, aggressive control measures in bison seem unwarranted.”
Spiritual Connection
The debate over whether or not Yellowstone bison spread brucellosis goes back more than 100 years, but it’s not as old as the spiritual connection between this iconic species and Native American tribes in Montana.
Alaina Buffalo Spirit, who identifies herself as a member of the Cottonwood Environmental Law Center and an enrolled member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, includes a statement in the recently filed intervening motion.
“Part of respecting and honoring the Earth means striving for the humility to understand that we cannot, and should not, control everything,” stated Buffalo Spirit. “Human beings are part of the whole. We are not separate from it, nor are we superior to it.”
She goes on to insist, “Yellowstone bison provide myself and others physical and spiritual nourishment. The federal and state government can manage Yellowstone bison in such a way that our national mammal is allowed to roam freely on public lands.”
Bison roaming beyond the YNP boundary traipse across private land where the Gallatin, Madison and Yellowstone Rivers exit the park. They sometimes cause damage to fencing and other structures as bison are known to use everything from buckrail fences to automobiles as scratching posts.
In the past, YNP instituted “damage control hunts” to keep the bison population down, according to Gianforte’s lawsuit.
Hunts remain part of the 2024 bison management plan, which aspires to “preserve an ecologically sustainable population of wild, migratory bison while continuing to work with partners to address brucellosis transmission, human safety, and property damage and fulfill tribal trust responsibilities.”
A group of self-described tree-hugging hunters are trying to influence a lawsuit between the state of Montana and Yellowstone National Park about how bison are managed. (Getty Images) 
A group of self-described tree-hugging hunters are trying to influence a lawsuit between the state of Montana and Yellowstone National Park about how bison are managed. (Getty Images)
‘Arbitrary Political Boundary’
The Madison, Gallatin and Yellowstone river corridors bison follow as they exit Yellowstone National Park, are home to some of the most scenic and prized real estate in Montana. Many ranchers and other landowners don’t want to deal with roaming herds of bison.
Cottonwood’s Meyer wondered if you’re going to haze bison, “Why not have these APHIS employees haze bison off of private land?”
Meyer compared his group’s vision to how groups like Defenders of Wildlife compensate ranchers for livestock killed by wolves.
“Why not have NGOs pay to help build bison-proof fencing? I mean there's lots of things that can happen and there's actually a lot of people who want bison on the land,” said Meyer.
"Gov. Gianforte continues to prove he's more interested in siding with a small number of wealthy landowners instead of everyday Montanans who deeply love our nation's most iconic mammals," said Caryn Miske, Montana Sierra Club's Chapter Director, in a Feb. 18 press release. "Tribes, biologists, public lands officials and wildlife experts came together to determine this herd can safely grow and provide hunting opportunities to people whose treaty rights have been violated since their inception.”
Cottonwood’s recent motion to intervene recalls how the state of Montana previously told the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that its decision of where bison can roam on federal land in Montana is an “admittedly arbitrary political boundary.”
“The science and economics support what hunters, conservationists, and tree-huggers have been saying for a long time–bison should be allowed to roam free on public lands,” said Miske.
“The state of Montana seems to have forgotten that natives were hunting bison long before Montana became a state,” added Alvin Fritzler, a member of the Crow Tribe and Cottonwood, in the Feb. 18 press release. “It’s time for Yellowstone bison to roam free on public lands to restore hunting opportunities for my people.”
To all of this, Gianforte’s office remains resolute in its lawsuit.
On Thursday, Press Secretary Kaitlin Price replied in an email to Cowboy State Daily, stating, “While the governor’s office generally doesn’t comment on ongoing litigation, we aren’t shocked that radical environmentalists at the Sierra Club continue to neglect the best interest of all Montanans.”
David Madison can be reached at david@cowboystatedaily.com.
