Bison Range agreement nixed

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service abruptly terminated all Tribal management activities at the National Bison Range Monday and said it would not negotiate for any future roles, as Tribal employees at the range were fired Tuesday morning.

Monday's announcement came as a shock to Tribal officials, who had submitted a plan in October that, if approved, would have given the Tribes responsibility of all management activities at the range, to be phased in over the next couple of years.

But in a letter sent to Tribal chairman James Steele, Jr., Fish and Wildlife service regional director J. Mitch King said that "issues concerning the CSKT's initial and extended performance under the expired FY 2006 AFA have led the Service to conclude that continuing to make the [National Bison Range] available for negotiations with the CSKT would be contrary to the Service's statutory mission and responsibilities" at the Bison Range.

The annual funding agreement had expired in September, and the Tribes were operating under a temporary agreement until a new one could be implemented. However, King's letter made it clear FWS had no desire to continue negotiations, effectively ending any Tribal management at the range.

Among the allegations made by FWS were that Tribal employees performed under par in many areas, including not following protocols for biological surveys, herding bison in an inappropriate manner, and not adequately protecting the public's property.

FWS spokesperson Matt Kales said pregnant bison were herded and moved to different locations, jeopardizing their pregnancies; Tribal employees left keys in vehicles, making them prone to theft; and that survey data was jeopardized through inappropriate survey methods, among many allegations.

FWS officials also claimed that bison were underfed, fencing was not repaired, and that FWS employees working at the range were subjected to a harassing work environment.

But Tribal officials disputed all of this, saying they were blindsided by the decision and that Tribal employees had done their work adequately. They reiterated that at a press conference Tuesday afternoon.

"I'd like to characterize our reaction to this sudden and unexpected news as 'shocked and stunned.' This was a blindsided blow and we are deeply disappointed," Steele said in a prepared statement. "Fish and Wildlife Service employees are attempting to convey a story that flat out says the Tribes are at fault for not meeting their [FWS'] standards. We are here today to try and fill in the rest of the story."

In past interviews, Tribal communications director Robert McDonald said Tribal employees were hampered by a lack of past performance data, saying FWS was measuring them by standards that FWS itself had no benchmark for. Steele reiterated that Tuesday, saying FWS was attempting to show "a consistent and insidious pattern of disruption and sabotage directed at our people working at the range."

"It is as if we have been pushed into the spotlight as convenient scapegoats for the Fish and Wildlife Service failures," he said.

Steele said some FWS employees failed to work with Tribal employees on a day-to-day basis, and did not communicate their "so-called clear objectives until they were releasing libelous reports on our employees' work."

Steele put the blame back on FWS employees at the range, saying Tribal employees didn't manage the range and were reporting directly to FWS management, who should shoulder the blame for any performance problems.

"Our staff was working under the direction of the Fish and Wildlife Service," Steele said.

The negotiation process became more contentious in September when some FWS employees filed a grievance, saying they had been subjected to harassment and intimidation. That grievance is still active, but Kales noted it might be resolved with FWS' latest decision.

"Daily concerns were mounting of contributing to an environment that was inappropriate for any workplace, let alone a federal workplace where the public comes to visit," Kales said.

He said Tribal employees were given specific instructions on how to improve their performance when problems were identified.

"We identified, in a very constructive way, the mechanisms for improvement," Kales said.

But Tribal leaders disputed that, too.

"Where are these written instructions? Ask Mr. Mr. Kallin and Mr. Kales - where are these instructions?" Steele said, referring to Bison Range manager and FWS employee Steve Kallin.

[In the interests of full disclosure, Kallin's wife Susan is an employee at the Lake County Leader.]

Kales said this latest FWS announcement was not made on a whim, and he likened the situation to a homeowner discharging a paid contractor for not fulfilling the work requirements.

"If you brought a contractor into your home, and you specify a specific type of work to be done, and it doesn't get done, you are going to terminate that relationship. It's nothing personal," Kales said. "But because we are a public agency using public funds, we have an obligation to act in the public's best interest in the management of this resource."

The Tribes believe they have a right to manage bison on the reservation under federal Indian laws that encourage self-sufficiency, Tribal employment and management of natural resources on Indian reservations. Bison are a cultural and historical symbol to the Tribes, and Steele and other leaders expressed frustration at being denied the chance to manage that resource.

"Our next step is to take care of our employees who rightly feel abused. These very public insults are not because of the quality of their work," Steele said. "It is because politics that infested this project from the beginning. We've had thousands of years of interacting with bison. It's something that is part of our life, part of our being."

Steele said the Tribes plan to regroup and contest the situation, but due to the surprise of the announcement, they had not had a time to explore their legal options.

Kales said the relationship might have worked if the Tribes had been given an easier, more manageable scope of work. He agreed that federal Indian laws are somewhat at odds with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, which says that only FWS can administer a national refuge service.

"The Tribes wrote [in their latest proposal] that dual management is not possible, and we agree wholeheartedly. We have nothing but positive things to say about the Tribes' natural resources department, and we have worked successfully with a number of tribal governments around the country," Kales said. "But we are obliged to administer the refuge in a certain way, and we feel that for whatever reason, the Tribes couldn't do that."

"In the sophisticated century we live in, people are still afraid of Indians," Steele said. "The real issue is that our tribal employees were doing their jobs. We are a people of vision. This is a minimum setback and we believe we will come out on top."