Awesome management

[Huntin Hounds]

Thank you Bearpaw for the info. Apparently there are about 25-50 bison in the eagle cap wilderness that escaped from a ranch several years ago. Sounds like they are quite wild now and growing.

Doublelung: You bring up an excellent point about the conflicting management. To many government agencies involved applying their own sets of regulations. Idaho is also affected by the brucellosis threat and they will send out state employees to kill any bison that comes into Idaho. I don't believe many bison move into Idaho in the winter though (this is only speculation as you never hear about them).

[bearpaw]

Bison do eat grass, and damage fences, and transmit brucellosis.  However, those aren't the significant issues; it is a matter of conflicting management between two federal agencies, and the adjacent states and their ranchers get caught up in the bull pucky as a result.

The US Department of Interior-Park Service, and US Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service create an impossible regulatory scenario.  The Park Service pretends YNP is an ecosystem, and allows no management of wildlife within its borders, so YNP is a reservoir for brucellosis (yes, it came from Europe and cows).  At the same time, if brucellosis is detected domestic cattle, USDA revokes the states' brucellosis-free status, affecting the viability of every ranching operation in the state.

The states of Montana and Wyoming (maybe Idaho has been affected too) are between a rock and a hard place, thanks to the regulatory empires of these two departments of the federal government and their unwillingness to work with the states to attain a reasonable compromise.  Montana, in particular, has been dumped on for being forced to take draconian measures to attempt to prevent a brucellosis infection detection in cattle.  It is not a question of the disease consequences on individual ranches, it is the federal hammer on the entire states' cattle industry - it is a regulatory conundrum for which the states are thrashed by the feds.

  You explained it well. 

[bigtex]

This is where the issue of the National Park Service having exclusive federal jurisdiction over lands comes into play. For the most part we only think of the different types of federal jurisdiction when it comes to law enforcement, but in terms of federal exclusive jurisdiction it applies to everything, from law enforcement to wildlife and fisheries management.

Under federal regulations the federal land management agencies MUST cooperate with the state wildlife agencies. However, under federal exclusive jurisdiction the state actually cedes those lands to the federal government, so there really is no state government. Under federal exclusive jurisdiction the lands are technically not in the state, for example Mt. Rainier is technically not in the State of WA as the state has ceded exclusive jurisdiction to the federal government.

Under the two other types of jurisdiction (concurrent and proprietary) the feds must cooperate with the state wildlife agencies. So if Mt Rainier wanted to shoot every elk in the park they could, WDFW would have no say. If Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area (concurrent jurisdiction) wanted to shoot every deer in the NRA they would at least have to work with WDFW on the issue.

Out of the 400 NPS sites only 30 or so are exclusive. It's typically the older, larger parks that are exclusive. There is a federal law that says parks should try to get concurrent jurisdiction, however moving from exclusive to concurrent jurisdiction can be costly for the state and counties involved.

Examples of exclusive parks are Mt Rainier, Olympic, Yosemite, Yellowstone, Rocky Mtn, Mesa Verde, and Big Bend.

Examples of concurrent parks are Grand Canyon, Lake Roosevelt, South Dakota NPS lands, and Colorado NPS lands (other then Rocky Mtn and Mesa Verde)

Examples of proprietary parks are North Cascades, all Utah parks, the California desert parks.

[bearpaw]

Great info bigtex, that helps a person understand numerous issues regarding parks. 

[bigtex]

Great info bigtex, that helps a person understand numerous issues regarding parks. 

No problem. Exclusive jurisdiction can really throw a wrench into things. It's the reason if you look at fishing regulations on the Olympic Peninsula every river that flows out of Olympic NP have their WDFW regulations beginning at the park boundary, because once the river hits the boundary WDFW has no authority on what happens upstream.

Like I said, federal law (Congress) has directed the NPS to seek the downgrade of exclusive lands to concurrent (as well as moving proprietary up to concurrent.) Problem is it places a whole new burden on the state and county. As an example, Mt Rainier has been exclusive since 1901. If it goes from exclusive to concurrent it means all state and county LE agencies would have to patrol the park, courts would see an increased workload resulting from the cases originating in the park handled by state/county agencies, WDFW would have to spend time on biological studies and setting seasons on park waters, and all other state agencies "doing their thing." It would be the equivalent of WA and Pierce County (small portion of Lewis as well) growing by 236,000 acres. In times of decreasing budgets the last thing a government agency wants to do is expand their coverage area. Several years ago Great Smoky Mtn National Park asked Tennessee and North Carolina to move it from exclusive to concurrent. North Carolina did so, but Tennessee said it would cost the counties and state too much. So now the park is concurrent in NC and exclusive in TN.