Management of Bisons
Management of Bisons
Background
Wild animals play a significant role in any economy, since they boost the tourism industry and bring foreign exchange. One such animal that has caused uproar in the history of America is the Yellowstone buffalo, commonly known as bison. Despite its financial value, it has been attributed to be a key agent for the spread of brucellosis, a dangerous disease that affects the production and performance of cattle. Some of the effects of this disease on cattle include infertility, proneness to abortions and poor milk production. This has divided opinions among the stakeholders involved, depending on the angle one may look at the issue from. In addition to this, it has caused political storm in America over the years.
Because of their large numbers in the park, bisons often find their way out of the park. This causes human-wildlife conflict. The National Park Service, although it embraces the policy of natural management, allows for any bison that roams out of the park to be shot. Animal rights activists argue that this is cruelty directed to the animals and should be stopped at the earliest opportunity possible. Farmers and herders in the neighboring community, on their hand, argue that it is necessary for the bisons to be controlled, either by shooting or by being contained in the park, so as to avoid or to decrease the risk of spread of brucellosis to their cattle. Local hunters do not agree with this (Clemons & McBeth, 2008). All these parties involved in this issue cite various reasons as to why their position should be adopted at the expense of the others. Despite this being the case, however, it seems that the political class have their say. Because the National Park Service in Yellowstone is an agent of the government, all the decisions its staff makes are binding and final. In addition, the decisions to be made seem to depend on what the regime in power deems suitable. For instance, the Clinton administration and the Bush administration had different ideas on the control of the bisons. The main question that has always arisen is; what is the best way that should be employed to ensure that there is balance between the opposing parties in relation to the Yellowstone buffalo?
Key issues
There are a number of key issues that arise in this matter. Ever since the Park was launched in the late 1800s, a reliable solution has never been made. This has caused constant outcries from all the parties involved whenever they feel offended.
The first issue that arises in the matter is as regards to whether it is ethical for the National Park Service staff and the game wardens of Montana state to kill the Yellowstone buffalo whenever it wanders out of the park. Important to note is that such an act goes against the policy of the park advocating for natural management of the animals. This move is fully supported by the members of the local community who argue that it will play a big role in curbing the spread of brucellosis (Clemons & McBeth). This is despite the fact that they do not have evidence that this disease is spread by the buffalos. However, the move is opposed by animal rights activists and hunters. Activists argue that this is cruelty of the highest order, and cite the natural management policy as the reason the killings are unnecessary. Herders fear that such a move will drastically affect them since they will not be in a position to hunt.
Analysis
The main problem entails finding a solution that will serve all the parties involved correctly. At the moment, it seems impossible to find the right balance when addressing the issue, and it seems the regime in power has the autonomy to decide what to be done.
The surrounding community has a valid claim. To some of the citizens of Montana, farming is their main source of income. They depend on healthy animals to maximize their yields. The introduction of brucellosis disease is a big blow to them, since the production of the animals is hindered. It would be prudent to them if the park management would control the movement of the buffalos to ensure the disease is not spread to their animals.
There is no doubt that animal rights activists have a valid claim too. Careless killing of animals by the federal government in conjunction with the Montana game wardens goes against the public policy and the policy of the National Park (Clemons & McBeth). To them, there is a need for the National Park Service to come up with an effective way through which management and control of these animals should be effected. Waiting until they move out and to kill them is no viable approach. There is no doubt that this claim is justified.
Despite having the final say, the National Park Service seems to be contradicting itself when it comes to handling of the buffalos. On one hand, they advocate for natural management, meaning minimal human interference. On the other hand, they employ mechanisms which go against the natural management approach. There is need for the National Park Service to come up with better mechanisms to address this issue.
Formulating an effective policy is a tricky and sensitive exercise that must involve all stakeholders. By involving other stakeholders, it becomes possible to address several issues that may present potential challenges in the future (Clemons & McBeth). In this case, it seems the National Park Service formulates the policy without consulting or taking into consideration the interests of the other parties involved. When this is the case, challenges are bound to arise, making it difficult. It is apparent that the National Park Service and the federal government agents did not have the interests of the local community at heart when formulating the policy. Because of this, the policy is flawed, taking care of the interests of the government alone. It seems that the government is only interested in the revenues it collects from tourism, and thereby neglecting the other stakeholders involved. This is the main cause of the conflicts.
The key recommendation to be made in this case is that the National Park Service should stick to its guidelines and ensure that all parties involved are taken care of. One way the problem can be resolved is by ensuring that the National Park is adequately fenced to prevent the animals from wandering out of the Park. In order to curb the soaring increase of the bisons, an alternative mechanism which is natural should be adopted. For instance, the staff may decide to introduce predators into the park. By doing this, the number of the bisons will be under check, to ensure it does not rise beyond what the park can hold.
References
Clemons, R. S., & McBeth, M. K. (2008). Public Policy Praxis: A Case Approach for Understanding Policy and Analysis. Florence: Taylor and Francis.
