Environmental groups and Tribes have filed two separate motions to intervene in a lawsuit the state of Montana is bringing against the federal government regarding its management of bison in and around Yellowstone National Park.
Calling themselves a “group of free-thinking rabble rousers,” the Cottonwood Environmental Law Center and the Sierra Club Montana Chapter filed a motion on Feb. 18 seeking to defend the 2024 Bison Management Plan.
Separately, Earthjustice filed a motion on Feb. 24 on behalf of Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and a coalition of environmental groups to defend their interests in the bison management plan.
In December, Montana sued the National Park Service (NPS), arguing that Yellowstone National Park has failed to manage the bison population according to the 2000 Bison Management Plan, which set a target of 3,000 bison and outlined measures to control brucellosis. Montana claims the park has not met these goals and adopted a new bison management plan (BMP) in 2024 to cover its mismanagement.
The state argues the new plan violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Park Service Organic Act and the Yellowstone National Park Protection Act because it was developed without meaningful consultation with Montana. As a result, Montana is asking the court to invalidate the BMP, halt its implementation and require federal agencies to reassess their approach.
Cottonwood case
The Cottonwood Environmental Law Center argues that its intervention is necessary because the 2024 Yellowstone Bison Management Plan resulted from its 2018 lawsuit, which the federal defendants previously sought to dismiss. The organization states that its members, including those affiliated with Tribes, are vested in ensuring the Environmental Impact Statement complies with NEPA. They assert that Montana’s challenge threatens their ability to hunt Yellowstone bison and receive quarantined bison for their Tribes, putting both spiritual and treaty rights at risk.
Cottonwood also seeks to add the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) as necessary parties. It contends that USFS plays a key role in managing National Forest lands where bison hunting occurs, yet the current federal defendants do not regulate hunting on these lands, leaving treaty rights unprotected. Additionally, Cottonwood argues that Montana’s legal action could negatively impact APHIS’ brucellosis and quarantine procedures.
The motion includes a crossclaim against the park service for failing to follow its own research, which shows bison do not need more than 300 days of quarantine before being transferred to Tribes. Since the NPS does not control quarantine policies and APHIS has not complied with a 2020 court order to review bison management, Cottonwood insists its involvement is essential.
John Meyer, executive director of Cottonwood Environmental Law Center, told Cowboy State Daily that by intervening in the suit, he hopes to expand the bison’s territory, opening up hunting by Tribal and non-tribal members.
“Why not let bison go anywhere elk can go, because now we’re going to have more hunting opportunities,” Meyer said.
Caryn Miske, Montana Sierra Club’s chapter director, concurred, stating in a 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.”
Tribes, greens suit
The Tribes and environmental groups argue they should be allowed to intervene to protect their interests in the 2024 Yellowstone Bison Management Plan. The groups assert that if Montana’s challenge is successful, it will reinstate old policies, reduce the bison population within the park and set back conservation efforts. They continue that it would also hinder the transfer of certified disease-free bison to Tribes working to restore cultural herds and reintegrate buffalo into their traditions, diets and ceremonies.
“Yellowstone bison are a significant economic driver for Yellowstone’s gateway communities and hold tremendous cultural and ecological value for all Americans,” said Scott Christensen, executive director of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, a party in the suit. “Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on a lawsuit, the state of Montana should commit to working in good faith with Yellowstone National Park and the many varied interests at the table.”
The groups argue that Montana was involved in developing the plan but now claims inadequate consultation after declining an offer to draft its own alternative in 2022.
“The Montana governor’s lawsuit is a waste of time and taxpayer money,” said Mary Cochenour, senior attorney with Earthjustice. “Montana was given ample opportunity to engage and chose to sit on the sidelines. To claim foul now should frustrate both Montanans and the millions who visit Yellowstone to see its beloved bison.”
Earthjustice represents the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, the National Parks Conservation Association, Defenders of Wildlife, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and Park County Environmental Council in the intervention.
2024 management plan
NPS announced its new bison management plan for Yellowstone National Park last summer, concluding a process that began in 2022.
On July 24, NPS confirmed it would implement Alternative 2, its preferred strategy, from the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The plan sets a post-calving population range of 3,500 to 6,000 bison, with an average of 5,000, aligning with the 10-year average. Late-winter numbers are expected to range between 3,000 and 5,000 bison, averaging about 4,150 before calving.
As part of the plan, NPS introduced a population assurance threshold of 5,200 bison, which was not included in the original interagency agreement. If the population exceeds this threshold, NPS will manage a decline primarily through Tribal and state harvests, with additional removals through the Tribal Food Transfer Program if necessary.
When numbers fall below 5,200, NPS will place bison in the Bison Conservation Transfer Program (BCTP) and use the food transfer program to remove brucellosis-positive bison identified during BCTP selection. NPS will continue working with interagency partners and Tribes, recognizing their authority over bison harvests outside the park, while the state and APHIS oversee public hunts, lethal removals and brucellosis quarantine measures. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
