Order your essay today — written by real experts, guaranteed plagiarism-free, and ready to impress your professor!
Analysis and Policy Development
The main problem in the Yellowstone Bison case is the lack of an effective policy to manage the human-bison conflict. Several factors have led to this problem. First, there has been a lack of consensus among the different stakeholders regarding the most effective approach to managing the bison problems. While environmentalists and human rights activists argue that the Yellowstone National Park should use natural mechanisms such as the introduction of predators to tame the bison population, ranch owners emphasize that human intervention is crucial to ensure that risks such as the spread of brucellosis to cattle remain under control. Secondly, the politicization of the bison issue has led to the disregard of rational, logic and scientific approaches to resolving the bison problem.
The criteria to evaluate the alternatives consider several requirements.
- Do the costs of extending the Yellowstone Park boundaries to minimize the human-bison contact exceed the costs of killing the bison?
- Would brucellosis vaccination programs for the cattle in ranches near the park address the ranchers’ concerns regarding brucellosis infection?
- Does the number of the incidences of the transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle warrant drastic measures such as killing the sick bison?
Several policy alternatives are applicable to the Yellowstone Bison case. First, the extension of the park boundaries to provide additional grazing space for the bison would minimize the human-bison contact and the risk of brucellosis transmission to cattle (Clemons & McBeth, 2016, p. 157). Secondly, the development and implementation of brucellosis vaccination programs targeting the cattle would minimize the risk of the transmission of diseases from the bison to cattle. This approach would eliminate the need to slaughter the sick bison due to the fear of brucellosis spreading from the bison to cattle in ranches (p. 160). Thirdly, an analysis of the incidences and studies presented in the case study demonstrate that the cited incidences of brucellosis among the bison do not warrant the killing of the animals to manage brucellosis infections. Furthermore, there have been no comprehensive studies to prove that the contact between the bison and cattle leads to significant incidences of brucellosis infections.
I would recommend two policy alternatives. First, extending the Yellowstone National Park boundaries will give the bison additional roaming space during different seasons and minimize the incidences of contact between the bison and cattle as the bison look for grazing space (p. 148). This approach would allow ranchers to protect their cattle from contracting diseases from the bison without the need to kill the bison. Secondly, brucellosis vaccination for cattle in ranches near the Yellowstone Park would address the fears by the livestock owners. A study by the National Veterinary Services Laboratory showed that more than 50 percent of the bison killed outside the Yellowstone National Park had no traces of brucellosis (p. 153). Therefore, there is a high likelihood that the affected cattle contracted brucellosis from other sources such as the elk. Vaccinating the cattle will protect them from brucellosis regardless of the source of the infection. This approach will respond to the fears of livestock owners. The failure by the concerned parties to focus on investigating factors such as the role of the elk in spreading brucellosis among cattle highlights the lack of a rational and logical approach to resolving the bison problem (p. 151).
Several approaches will help in the evaluation of the proposed policy. First, the effectiveness of extending the park boundaries will be evident through the analysis of the incidents of bison sighting outside the extended boundaries. Secondly, the success of the brucellosis vaccinations will be evident through the evaluation of the frequency of contact between the bison and cattle and cases of brucellosis infections resulting from this contact.
The five-step model has helped me to understand the Yellowstone bison problem by guiding my evaluation of the needs and interests of the different stakeholders. The analysis shows that the Yellowstone National park, Montana Livestock Department, environmentalists and local citizens have failed to reach a consensus on the most effective bison management plan. Politics have also been a significant hindrance to the development of an effective bison policy in the Yellowstone National Park. The five-step model helped me to organize and structure my research and responses appropriately. The model provided an orderly sequence whereby each step is an advancement of an earlier step. This structure has guided me in identifying the relationships among various issues and the likely solutions. For example, defining the bison problem and determining its causes helped me to conclude on the most appropriate alternatives to the current policy. Furthermore, the model made my analysis comprehensive because I had to consider and respond to the different perspectives presented by the set of questions in each step. The case study does not reveal any possible limitations of the five-step approach. The model guides the analysis of the Yellowstone bison issue and development of relevant policy recommendations. I have used the model to identify the different stakeholders, their interests, conflicts and the alternatives that would bring a consensus among the stakeholders. Therefore, I consider the model as an effective tool for analyzing the case study.
