Bison population dynamics, harvest, and human conflict potential under feedground management alternatives at the National Elk Refuge in Jackson, Wyoming

Abstract

Bison bison were once abundant across North America but declined due to overharvesting in the late 1800s. The reintroduced population in and around Jackson, Wyoming has averaged 485 individuals between 2018–2023 and is the subject of a planning process to inform management strategies that will guide the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s next “Bison and Elk Management Plan” for the National Elk Refuge. This small population may benefit from historical winter-feeding operations on the National Elk Refuge because those operations may increase overwinter survival and limit human-bison conflicts, which are the number of individual bison that engage in nuisance, damaging, or otherwise aggressive behaviors with humans and livestock, that may lead to culling and other sources of mortality (for example, vehicle collisions). To inform the next “Bison and Elk Management Plan,” the U.S. Geological Survey used a population model to evaluate five management alternatives for bison and Cervus elaphus canadensis feedground operations that included continuing the elk and bison feeding program, immediately stopping the feeding program, and three other alternatives that would phase out the feeding program after a period of time. The results indicate that the bison population would be expected to decline over the next 20 years under all alternatives that stop feeding bison on the refuge. Further, this decline would lead to an associated reduction in bison harvest opportunities for resident, nonresident, and Tribal hunters. Finally, human-bison conflicts would also be expected to increase under the no feeding alternatives because bison may venture onto private lands in greater numbers if feed is not provisioned during winter months. In combination, these results suggest that feeding may lead to better outcomes for bison over the next 20 years; however, these effects may be traded off against other downsides of the feedground program, such as increased rates of animal-to-animal contact on feedgrounds that can lead to disease transmission.