Course:RES510/2023/Social and Ecological Dimensions of Restoration through Bison Reintroduction by the Amskapi Piikani

From UBC Wiki

Executive Summary

The case of bison reintroduction by the Amskapi Piikani is an example of species reintroduction to agriculturally degraded lands that revitalizes important social and ecological dimensions that were damaged through settler colonialism and intensified agriculture. Settlers nearly exterminated bison from the landscape, causing harm to ecosystem function and to the Indigenous community through the loss of their relationship with the buffalo, as well as the loss of a primary food source. The Great Plains have become degraded as a result of the loss of a keystone species (bison), land fragmentation, and Western agricultural practices, like cattle overgrazing, which has impacted biodiversity, soil, and water. Bison reintroduction has been a focus of the Amskapi Piikani people to restore the cultural and spiritual relationship with their buffalo relative, achieve food sovereignty, and revitalize the degraded landscape. Through Indigenous-led initiatives such as the Buffalo Program, the Iinnii Initiative, and the Buffalo Treaty, the community has been able to bring bison back to the landscape and is seeing positive change in social and ecological dimensions as a result. This case study has implications for other bison reintroduction efforts across the Western Great Plains, as well as more broadly to grassland ecosystems and cattle ranching practices.

Introduction (1)

In 2019, the EAT-Lancet Commission posted an article with the recommendation of a “Planetary Health Diet” with the main goals of promoting human health and simultaneously reducing the agriculture sector’s contribution to surpassing the planetary boundary of greenhouse gas emissions[1]. The Commission is currently working on a second, revised publication to update and improve “several new elements such as a greater focus on diversity and the adaptation of regional and local diets, strengthened diversity in the composition of the Commission and a new focus on food justice and social food system goals”[2]. The objective of this report is to contribute to EAT-Lancet’s work through a case study analysis, to demonstrate an example of ecological and social restoration of agriculturally degraded land, to analyze any opportunities and challenges to scale this approach, and to provide an analysis of social justice dimensions.

The grasslands in what is now Southern Alberta, Canada, and Northern Montana, United States, are part of Niisitapi traditional and ancestral lands (Figure 1). The Siksikaitsitapi (also known as Blackfoot Confederacy) includes four Indigenous nations, the Kainai-Blood Tribe, Siksika, Peigan-Piikani and Amskapi Piikani. This case study will focus on the Amskapi Piikani, which demonstrates bison reintroduction initiatives carried out by the community on colonially and agriculturally degraded lands. Through a social-ecological systems case study approach, this analysis will provide the background context of the case study, then analyze socio-cultural, ecological, and governance & management lenses, and conclude with an analysis of scalability.

Land Acknowledgement (1.1)

We would like to acknowledge that our group assembled this report on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh peoples, at the places now known as Vancouver and the University of British Columbia.

Positionality (1.2)

As uninvited settlers, our group members live and work on Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh territories, within the Canadian legal framework as Canadian Citizens and Permanent Residents. We acknowledge that we are incredibly privileged in that we are immune to the racial discrimination which Indigenous peoples experience to this day. We are actively making efforts in our daily lives to be more respectful, educated, and humble about our place in this world.

Ethical Space (1.3)

“Ethical space is the intermediary between two different knowledge systems”[3]. “Creation is all equal. I’m not better than a buffalo, we are all equal. Equality happens through creation (...) We need to start building from a foundation of two systems understanding each other. Once we can build that foundation, then the first thing we should start working towards is the concept of trust and respect”[3].

“The challenge of Reconciliation is that it requires dynamic, continuous engagement, with people who are thoughtful, considerate, and respectful. In viewing the process with the kinds of values and principles Indigenous peoples have been using in their systems of knowing and laws since time immemorial”[3].

We encourage readers of this report to make an effort to understand the differences between Indigenous and Western worldviews. Indigenous worldviews generally focus on holistic understanding which emerged from their existence and experiences since time immemorial. Traditional Western worldviews tend to be more concerned with reductive science by concentrating on compartmentalized knowledge and then moving on to understanding the bigger, related picture[4]. By fully acknowledging differences in life experiences, goals, ideals, values, challenges, beliefs, and family relationships, it helped us to work across cultures to create this report. There is no one culture that is better than any other; we strive to learn from all.

Background (2)

Figure 1. Traditional Indigenous territories (multi-colour palette) derived from Native Land Digital[5], with the traditional Niitsitapi territory outlined in solid black. Historical bison range (dashed black line) derived from COSEWIC[6]. The Blackfeet Reservation boundary (filled solid black), home of the Amskapi Piikani, is derived from the National Atlas of the United States[7]. Map represents the scale and diversity of geographically fluid Indigenous peoples within North America prior to colonization, whereby nations were and continue to be dispossessed from access to traditional territories through the reservation system (note the difference in scale between the Blackfeet Reservation and traditional Niitsitapi territory). Map also demonstrates the vast geographical overlap between Indigenous territories and bison herds, a critical foodway for many Indigenous peoples.

Colonization Context of Western Great Plains (2.1)

The land that is now known as North America had been shared by Indigenous peoples for thousands of years since before the last ice age[8]. According to Anishinaabe scholar Kyle Whyte, the concept Awbanawben represents interdependence of human and non-humans in an ecosystem, and clearly identifies how particular human societies are entangled in relationships of interdependence with the environment and have habituated themselves to particular ecosystems[9]. The relationships of interdependence was phrased “covenant of reciprocity” by Robin Wall Kimmerer: “In Potawatomi, we speak of the land as emingoyak, ‘that which has been given to us,’ a gift that must be reciprocated with our own”[10].

Throughout the 19th century, Indigenous ways of knowing and lifeways were systematically destroyed through the process of colonization. Indigenous science, agriculture, hunting, and spiritual practices were fragmented and dismantled by colonial policies and religious organizations[11]. Buffalo herds were systematically hunted by settlers across the Great Plains, which brought detrimental consequences for Indigenous peoples deeply connected to their buffalo relatives. This was a direct attack on the integrated relationship between buffalo and Indigenous peoples[12].

As Taschereau Mamers[13] discusses, Indigenous peoples became further displaced due to pressure from settlers, contract hide hunters, and frontier armies. These forces of colonialism brought horses and domesticated livestock from Europe, resulting in further displacement of buffalo. New technologies such as firearms, trains, and steamships further exacerbated the buffalo slaughter along with demand for buffalo fur and meat, including demand from Europe. The Canadian and American governments also aimed to decimate buffalo populations purposefully by contracting frontier armies as a tactic to weaken Indigenous peoples, which caused severe starvation along with cultural and spiritual genocide. Whole settler communities also appropriated buffalo as sustenance, and their activities are estimated to have exterminated 20 to 30 million buffalo from the landscape by the 1880s (Figure 3). The General Allotment Act of 1887 (also known as the Dawes Act) and following Allotment Acts were made to force Indigenous community members to take small parcels within the already established reservations, and sell the remainder of commonly managed territories to colonial settlers with incredibly low returns. These forced sales made way for immigrant pastoralists to practice domestic cattle grazing in confined pastures, which drastically disrupted the buffalo range  and Indigenous peoples’ ways of living[13].

Land Degradation and Fragility of Ranching Systems (2.2)

Figure 2. A photograph of degraded pasture, suffering from overgrazing and drought, from 2020. Plants on the left side of the fence are lower in productivity and health, with a healthy plant community on the right side. Photograph was taken in South Dakota, which shares many similar features with the landscapes in Niisitapi territory, and is part of the Great Plains.

The grassland prairie ecosystem has been greatly degraded since colonizers systematically slaughtered bison and fragmented the prairies, and has continued to suffer due to intensive cattle ranching practices[13]. The removal of bison disrupts ecosystem function, as bison have an important ecological and biophysical role, which will be explored in greater detail in Section 3.2. The removal of bison from the landscape impacted nutrient cycling, water, soil, and biodiversity, which greatly declined with the homogenization of the landscape[14]. The fertile native soil of the Great Plains, which is classified as chernozemic soil[15], is a major carbon sink. However, it has been estimated that 15-30% organic soil carbon has been lost in the process of land conversion[16], which introduced cattle grazing and tillage practices. The cascading effects from the removal of bison can be seen as one form of degradation, with cattle ranching practices also contributing to the ongoing degradation of the prairie ecosystem. Cattle overgrazing, which occurs when cattle are intensively grazed repeatedly in the same pastures, has detrimental effects on the ecosystem, causing reductions in vegetation biomass and diversity (Figure 2), inefficient nutrient cycling, and compaction of soil, which can also lead to more water runoff and soil erosion[17][18][19]. The productivity of the Great Plains has already been significantly lowered since settlers began to manage the land, and will likely further be decreased should cattle ranching and tillage practices continue in their current trajectories. The grasslands’ ecosystem services, or nature’s contributions to people[20], would be much more difficult to recover and restore if cattle overgrazing continues to erode the ecosystem, meaning that there must be an intervention in current practices before the prairie ecosystem experiences a regime shift that is extremely difficult to reverse[21]. A regime shift to an unproductive landscape is entirely possible, due to the fact that these degraded landscapes are increasingly vulnerable to climate change, especially increasing drought conditions, and could produce an event similar to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s[22]. This landscape is on the precipice of being severely degraded, with cattle grazing and agricultural practices drastically influencing biodiversity and biophysical processes.

Food Security, Food Sovereignty, and Health (2.3)

While industrial agriculture through intensive livestock and crop production has resulted in physical land degradation, it has also led to the degradation of food security, food sovereignty, and health for Indigenous peoples of the Western Great Plains of North America. Prior to the arrival of European settlers to North America, Indigenous peoples of the Western Great Plains were “large-scale, sophisticated, tribally based societies that managed bison herds in order to maintain semi-sedentary residence patterns, alternating between valley complexes in winter and open plains in summer”[23]. Through colonial practices of land dispossession and bison extermination, food sovereignty of these societies diminished through the loss of physical and cultural access to critical land and waters[24]. The loss of bison and onset of agricultural land development coupled with land dispossession contributed to a loss in food sovereignty. This was due to the inability to practice foodways through loss of access to bison as well as berry-picking and medicine gathering sites[24]. As such, the state of food security within Indigenous communities both in and beyond the Western Great Plains of North America is dire as the loss in food sovereignty has diminished economic and physical access to food. For example, 22.6% of Indigenous peoples in Canada who are off reservations are food insecure relative to the national average of 8.4%[25]. Furthermore, with the imposition of Western diets which are readily accessible and highly processed, adverse health implications have resulted among Indigenous peoples such as the prevalence of obesity and diabetes[26]. The high prevalence of diabetes has been labeled an epidemic[24], as rates of diabetes have been shown to be between two times higher among off reservation First Nations peoples in Canada compared to the general Canadian population[27].

In light of these trends, there is an increasingly prevalent resurgence of Indigenous food sovereignty. At the heart of this movement is the recognition that food is more than nutrition[26]. It recognizes the importance of Indigenous foodways which are “behaviors and beliefs surrounding the production, distribution, and consumption of food”[28]. Furthermore, it underscores “Indigenous peoples’ self-determination of their own culturally suitable food systems and promotes revitalization of Indigenous food systems of diverse Indigenous groups”[24]. As the importance of Indigenous food sovereignty is further recognized, various food guides are attempting to incorporate Indigenous foodways. For example, a version of the Canada Food Guide called Eating Well with Canada’s Food Guide: First Nations, Inuit and Métis incorporated traditional foods within the familiar four food group categorization[29]. However, recent criticism of the guide calls into question how it reflects Indigenous foodways, which recognizes the centrality of traditional foods to Indigenous cultural identity[26]. Similarly, the EAT-Lancet Commission released in 2019 outlines a diet which would simultaneously improve human health outcomes as well as minimize agriculture’s impact upon critical planetary boundaries[1]. However, limitations with their approach were identified such as a lack of focus on diverse cultural foodways and socioeconomic contexts, as well as social justice aspects of the recommended dietary transitions[30].

Case Study Analysis: Bison Reintroduction by Amskapi Piikani (2.4)

It is within the context of socio-cultural and physical land degradation brought about through colonization and industrial agriculture on the Western Great Plains that we introduce the case study of bison reintroduction by the Amskapi Piikani. The case serves as an example of plural rehabilitation of ecological dynamics of the grassland ecosystem and Indigenous food sovereignty. It is just one of many “bright spots”[31] of Indigenous-led bison reintroduction that demonstrates for dietary guidance initiatives such as EAT-Lancet how the revitalization of bison as a food source for an Indigenous nation has numerous implications for addressing land degradation while also restoring culture and food sovereignty.

The Blackfeet Indian Reservation located in Northwestern Montana, the United States, is the home of the Blackfeet Nation (Figure 1), properly known as the Amskapi Piikani[32]. The reservation is 1.5 million acres in size making it one of the largest reservations in the United States[33]. The Amskapi Piikani have levels of food insecurity higher than the national average due to high levels of poverty and lack of access to food, both of which were further exacerbated by the recent COVID-19 pandemic[34]. Despite these challenges, community-driven food sovereignty initiatives are emerging and responding. The Piikani Lodge Health Institute (PLHI) is an Amskapi Piikani led non-profit organization “focused on promoting the health and well-being of [Amskapi Piikani] people and lands,” whose vision is to “transform from ‘reservation’ to ‘nation’ and return to a state of joy and abundance”[32]. Just one of many initiatives, the PLHI is undertaking regenerative agriculture and food sovereignty programs to “facilitate increased access to affordable, nourishing foods” while “seek[ing] to preserve the ecological and cultural uniqueness of this region”[35]. A key feature of these initiatives is seeing the return of bison to the land, both physically and through improved cattle ranching management strategies that mimic bison behaviour[14]. This is important as cattle overgrazing is a concern amongst the community due to the fear of diminishing resources being unable to sustain rates of grazing[36].

The Amskapi Piikani acknowledge themselves as emerging from the “shadow of imperial domination that darkened their land when the bison herds disappeared” as the bison begin to return to the land[37]. Emerging through cultural memory and tribal government leadership, a bison herd was restored on the reservation in 1974[14]. The management strategy was to allow the herd to roam freely throughout the reservation, enabling a pattern of natural migration to be reestablished, but at the expense of damaging crops and pastures throughout the reservation boundaries which strained tribal ranchers[14]. At nearly 600 individuals, the food producing herd now rotates between a summer and winter pasture and is managed by the tribal government’s Buffalo Program[14][38]. In parallel, the community also has a vision to fully restore a wild herd of bison. Called the Iinnii Initiative, the vision was formalized through the signing of the Buffalo Treaty in 2014 between nearly a dozen Indigenous nations across the Western Great Plains of the United States and Canada[39], and is at the time of writing up to 40 signatories[40]. Through the Iinnii Initiative, 30 bison individuals were released onto tribal land near Chief Mountain in the summer of 2023[41], and through relationships with Glacier National Park and Waterton National Park, the bison are free to cross borders without triggering management action[14].

The living story of bison reintroduction within the Amskapi Piikani nation represents an example of plural socio-cultural and ecological reclamation. Recognizing the importance of bison beyond a source of food alone, the reintroduction initiatives confound the divide between restoration of degraded lands (converting the land back to non-food producing outcomes) and rehabilitation of degraded lands (improving the food producing capacity through restoring ecosystem functionality)[42]. On one hand, the Buffalo Program more directly addresses the pressing need for food security and sovereignty in the community, providing a direct source of food and economic wellbeing for the community. With bison physically returning to lands degraded by cattle overgrazing, and cattle being managed to mimic bison behaviour, these lands are rehabilitated ecologically and culturally, while producing a source of food and income for the community. On the other hand, the conservation herd managed through the Iinnii Initiative better enables the full ecological restoring potential of the bison, which advocates for free-roaming herds across lands protected from agricultural development. What these initiatives have in common is the restoration of socio-cultural degradation brought about through colonization.

In this case study analysis, we will explore socio-cultural, ecological, and management & governance lenses of bison reintroduction by the Amskapi Piikani, with a focus on foodways (Figure 4). Further, within each of these lenses, various elements of established principles of agroecology[43][44] will be further explored. This approach was utilized as agroecological principles epitomize how food system transformation occurs through the “appl[ication of] ecological principles to agriculture and [...] regenerative use of natural resources and ecosystem services while also addressing the need for socially equitable food systems within which people can exercise choice over what they eat and how and where it is produced”[44]. Within the socio-cultural lens, the application of the principles of connectivity, knowledge, and food sovereignty will be demonstrated. Within the ecological lens, implications of bison behaviour for biodiversity and synergy with soil health and water will be described. Then, the principle of land & natural resource governance and management will be described in relation to giving bison a voice through moral relationship, and managing the herd within the context of physical land connectivity and participation from the community. Finally, scalability will be addressed in relation to the case of bison reintroduction by the Amskapi Piikani.

Figure 3. Timeline of bison extermination and reintroduction initiatives led by or involving the Amskapi Piikani people. Note that the herd introduced in 1974 is managed through the Amskapi Piikani tribal government Buffalo Program. This figure is adapted from timelines provided in Carlisle[45] and Shamon et al.[46]. Made using BioRender.

Core Analysis (3)

Figure 4. Conceptual framework of core analysis of social and ecological restoration through bison reintroduction by the Amskapi Piikani.

Socio-cultural Implications (3.1)

Reconnection with Culture and the Land through Buffalo (3.1.1)

The importance of reconnection with land and culture through the reintroduction of buffalo to Amskapi Piikani land cannot be overstated. A core principle of Blackfoot spirituality is that neither the buffalo nor the Amksapi Piikani can exist without the other[47]. This illustrates the concept of a relational social-ecological system, where the dynamics between the buffalo and Amskapi Piikani are characterized through emergence[48]. Prior to colonization, this emergence was characterized in part by the people sustaining daily life through buffalo harvest (food, shelter, clothing, medicine, tools, ceremony)[47], and in reciprocity, improving bison pasture through prescribed burns[49]. Over the last 50 years, this reciprocity has taken a slightly different form with the buffalo as “family we haven’t seen” now coming back to the land[47]. Through an understanding of moral relationship with the buffalo[50], a vision upheld by elders within the community is that bringing back the buffalo is a means of restoring cultural connection that persisted despite the colonial extermination of the buffalo. Described by Rosalyn LaPier, a scholar at the University of Montana of Niitsitapi descent, the return of buffalo “allows a space for those songs, stories and ceremonies to be acted. Again it’s not that they were gone. There just wasn’t a space for the animal to allow that to occur"[47]. Furthermore, the Amskapi Piikani know that having buffalo back on the land will facilitate a deeper respect for the land and a rekindled relationship that will transform generations to come[47].

Despite this transformative reconnection which is taking place, it is worth noting the importance of cattle ranching in facilitating moral relationships and connection with the land. In a video centering the voices of Amskapi Piikani people, tribal cattle ranchers describe that with the extermination of the buffalo coinciding with the establishment of cattle ranching in the reservation, taking care of cattle was a way to continue to connect with the land[51]. Cattle ranchers further illustrated that many tribal members became very successful ranchers because they knew how to take care of animals as “it comes down to love and respect”[51]. Furthermore, tribal cattle ranchers also pride themselves in championing regenerative grazing methodologies, prioritized due through the moral reciprocity that taking care of the land will continue to enable care for the community through economic viability. As some tribal cattle ranchers remain skeptical of bison reintroduction due to the potential impact on the fragile economic state of the reservation, a means of braiding connection to the land through either bison or cattle is realized by seeing bison as teachers, and cattle as students[14]. Through allowing cattle to mimic natural behaviours of bison on the land, such as through rotational grazing, the social and ecological benefits may be realized in such a way that restores degraded land from overgrazing. As such, while the physical return of buffalo to the Amskapi Piikani yields profound reconnection to culture and land, a sustained connection to the land and moral relationality is also upheld through tribal ranchers managing cattle to mimic bison behaviour.

Participation & Knowledge Transmission (3.1.2)

A herd of buffalo returning back onto Amskapi Piikani lands had major implications for community participation and knowledge transmission. Though the buffalo coming home is an immensely championed movement now, there was a period of time when even the word “buffalo” was almost considered to be a bad word[14]. Settler colonialism across Turtle Island (now known as North America) attempted to assimilate Indigenous peoples into Western ways of life, forcing many Indigenous peoples to do their best to forget their cultures and traditions[52]. Stories about Indigenous peoples’ connection to the land and important cultural entities such as the buffalo were not shared with younger generations as a result of the trauma older generations experienced when they were taken from their families and taught a new way of life. As the Amskapi Piikani began to become more open to relationships with the buffalo and the tribal government decided to revitalize a buffalo herd, one Blackfeet Community College instructor, Terry Tatsey, decided that engaging the younger generations of Amskapi Piikani with the buffalo directly was a way of restoring these previously poor relationships[14]. Through direct experience with the buffalo, the students began to realize the importance of these animals being on their native lands, and began to take interest in their wellbeing. Tatsey’s daughter, Latrice, now works as a soil scientist within the community, and also holds a position at the Piikani Lodge Health Institute[14]. As Amskapi Piikani youth continue to become interested in the braiding of knowledge[53] of Western ways of knowing, such as soil science, with the traditional ecological knowledge they have learned from their elders, the knowledge of the buffalo becomes stronger, as well as the connection that Amskapi Piikani feel towards the land. With the Amskapi Piikani managing the observation, monitoring, and management of the bison herd, they continue to be able to facilitate cultural connection between their community and their buffalo relatives.

The Iinnii Initiative also continues to have immense implications on community participation and knowledge transmission within the community. When the Iinnii Initiative began in 2009, one of their main goals was to learn from the elders about their traditional ways of learning, being, and knowing[14]. Intergenerational conversations were held between Indigenous youth and elders as a way of preserving the valuable knowledge that the elders held and passing on tradition. Through these conversations, it became evident that though buffalo were on Amskapi Piikani lands at the time, the need for a wild herd to be returned onto the lands was also necessary[14]. With the knowledge being passed down to younger generations, the youth who would soon be in leadership roles would be able to incorporate the traditional ecological knowledge that they continued to learn from their elders into decision-making processes, especially within the buffalo context. Educating the youth in the community in this way also encouraged a renewed relationship with the buffalo on Amskapi Piikani lands.

Food Sovereignty (3.1.3)

The food sovereignty of the Amskapi Piikani peoples is greatly impacted by and directly related to the return of herds of buffalo back onto their traditional lands. Prior to colonialism, buffalo was the primary food source of many Great Plains peoples, including the Amskapi Piikani[38]. The social-ecological system of the Amskapi Piikani and the buffalo pre-colonization was thought to be sustainable and resilient to the extent that agronomists argue that there would not have been a time boundary on how long this balanced, highly resilient system would have been viable[14]. When Canadian federal policies began forcing Indigenous peoples to change their diets, Great Plains peoples became more at risk of health issues, such as diabetes and obesity. Being stripped of their primary source of food, the buffalo, not being educated about the nutrition of these new foreign foods, and lacking compensation to purchase healthier foods all contributed to this increased risk. Today, to combat the increased health risks of Amskapi Piikani peoples on the Blackfeet Reservation, meat from the herd of buffalo managed through the Buffalo Program is being provided to elders with diabetes and is also used for commercial purposes[47].

The Amskapi Piikani is planning to develop a multi-species, culturally appropriate processing facility that could process both cattle and buffalo on the reservation[14]. Currently, tribal ranchers are forced to sell their meat to meatpacking companies off of the reservation, due to the lack of on-reservation facilities. With this, tribal ranchers incur high costs from off-reservation facilities, as well as deal with generally poor working conditions in the meatpacking industry. With a new facility, ranchers could sell their meat to environmentally and socially conscious consumers who are willing to pay more for humanely and sustainably raised meats[14]. Through the addition of this multi-species processing facility, Amskapi Piikani youth will learn how to harvest and process cattle and bison, as well as increase their business skills. For the community, having a processing facility on the reservation will also mean they’ll be able to pay less for bison meat because of low transportation and storage fees. Additionally, by eating more bison, they will be able to revert to culturally-appropriate diets, as well as receive health benefits through eating the higher protein and lower fat bison meat[14].

Through the socio-cultural lens of the Amskapi Piikani bison reintroduction story, we can come to realize and understand that by bringing back the bison onto these lands it is also a way of bringing back socio-culture; and by restoring these previously broken links to land, the social-ecological system is also brought back.

Ecological Implications (3.2)

Bison Characteristics & Biodiversity (3.2.1)

Bison have been given a number of titles as a result of their ecological significance, often referred to keystone species, ecological engineers, or interactive species, meaning that the absence of bison can lead to significant changes to the features of its ecosystem[54][6][55]. Bison behaviours create a variety of disturbances that are important for species composition, as well as other biophysical characteristics, like soil and water[56]. Bison are believed to have been critical in the establishment and maintenance of the Great Plains ecosystem prior to their near extermination[6][55], suggesting that the reintroduction of bison into the landscape may be a powerful mechanism of restoration. Additionally, bison can improve the adaptive capacity of a vulnerable ranching system in response to climate change, as they are able to withstand hotter and drier conditions than cows, as are their sources of food (local grass compared to grains)[14]. Their presence mediates ecosystem vulnerability to climate change, as bison will continue to perform their many necessary functions even as climatic conditions shift. Their presence would also lead to greater adaptive capacity in the food system, as bison can remain in areas where cows may not be able to be grazed[57]. The behaviours of bison, which create micro-disturbances, are necessary for vegetation and other animals, and their reintroduction would revitalize key ecosystem relationships and help to restore ecosystem function in this degraded landscape[58]. The two main behaviours that will be discussed in this report are the impacts of a behaviour known as wallowing, and the impacts of bison grazing.

Wallowing is defined as rolling on dry ground and breaking up earth with the horns and hooves, which creates depressions in the ground[56]. Bison grazing is different to the grazing patterns of other livestock, as bison have different rotational and selective behaviours that create greater heterogeneity within a landscape, across a larger grazing range[56][55]. The impacts of bison grazing can already be seen in Amskapi Piikani territory, with bison grazed pastures containing greater plant diversity, and larger plants (greater biomass), which are patterns that have been observed in other studies[14][59][60][55]. Bison affect vegetation in a variety of other ways as well, serving as a seed-dispersal mechanism both through the digestive tract and on their fur[6], stimulating native plant growth with their saliva[14], and through the creation of wallows that often have a different composition of plant species[61]. Bison also have many key relationships with other animals in the Great Plains ecosystem, including birds, arthropods, and prairie dogs[14][54][56]. Prairie bird species benefit from landscape heterogeneity created by bison, as observed in another project in Oklahoma[14]. Wallows serve as potential habitat and reproduction sites for arthropods and amphibians, again demonstrating the role that bison have in supporting biodiversity[54][62]. Not all of these potential effects are documented in our case study, but the impacts of bison on the landscape observed thus far and the existing literature suggests that bison have a myriad of positive effects on biodiversity, which can help revitalize degraded landscapes and restore ecosystem function. There can be some challenges in successional models of ecosystem restoration and concerns about the resilience of the degraded landscape, however bison are able to address some of the concerns through the creation of disturbances that disrupt feedbacks, and engaging in selective grazing behaviours that allow for plant regrowth[21].

Figure 5. A photograph of a bison wallow from 1897. The large size of the depression contains compacted soil which promotes water retention and habitat for native plants, arthropods, and amphibians. Photo by Willard Drake Johnson - U.S. Geological Survey Photographic Library.

Synergy of Bison Behaviour with Soil Health and Water (3.2.2)

One of the ways that bison improve and shape the ecosystems around them is their impacts on the soil and water system[54]. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, wallowing behaviour causes depressions in the soil, roughly twelve feet in diameter and usually three feet deep[56]. Through this behaviour, bison deter biting flies and shed their fur[14]. The impacts of this behaviour aren’t limited to their own benefit. Due to the soil compaction caused by the bison’s body weight, the wallowed areas retain rainwater and snowmelt longer than surrounding prairie lands[62]. In some areas of the prairies, wallows are the only naturally occurring freshwater habitats. This is especially beneficial in the creation of seasonal ponds which provides access to freshwater, and creates a niche ecosystem[62]. Additionally, as the wallowed areas increase the level of moisture, these areas become less desirable for the bison as their preferred use is as a dust bath rather than a mud bath. The bison often abandon these moistened areas, allowing a distinct biome to establish and thrive[54]. Species composition in the wallows has higher species diversity, and Amskapi Piikani peoples traditionally have used and stewarded these species for food and medicines[14]. In addition to wallowing, bison’s natural behaviours also have important implications for sediment pollution. Bison are more heat tolerant than cattle, and therefore don’t need to cool off as often in streams and ponds during periods of high heat[62]. Sediment pollution caused by this cattle behaviour is one of the biggest threats to Great Plains aquatic ecosystems, and this tendency of bison allows them to avoid causing this impact. By staying out of freshwater areas, the bison continue to improve the landscape of the grasslands.

Bison’s grazing patterns offer different implications to the ecosystems than domestic cattle’s grazing patterns. Domestic cattle are usually confined within pastures and fences, and they graze the same plots repeatedly. Though there are many attempts and efforts of regenerative grazing practices with pasture rotations and free ranging cattle, domestic cattle ranching practices tend to cause more overgrazing, soil compaction, and aquifer contamination through concentrated excrement, which collectively lead to severe soil degradation. Additionally, bison are particularly selective of plants to graze, and they consume plants in a sporadic manner[56]. This behaviour creates heterogenous plant distribution; some plants are left to grow taller, others remain low, and some bare patches are produced across the grazed area. This behaviour produces higher plant diversity in bison-grazed pastures[14], as mentioned in Section 3.2.1.

Buffalo have proven themselves to be ecosystem engineers in grasslands by benefitting the ecosystem that surrounds them and even shaping the landscape itself[54]. Though our case study focuses on bison behaviours related to soil and water as seen through Latrice Tatsey’s soil science work within Amskapi Piikani lands[14], it is evident that there are a plethora of benefits that buffalo have on ecosystems through their natural behaviours. Our case study demonstrates that bringing herds of bison back onto Amskapi Piikani lands has the potential of being a highly effective method of ecological revitalization of previously degraded landscapes.

Management & Governance Implications (3.3)

Moral Relationship (3.3.1)

According to many Indigenous worldviews, spirits of all living things - plants and animals, animated and non-animated - are connected and related. Additionally, law, kinship, and spirituality reinforce this connectedness, and actions and decisions affect all else in the circle of life. Furthermore, it is believed that all individuals are responsible for themselves in relation to all others[4]. Upholding this responsibility strengthens the interconnectedness and reciprocal relationships among everything, which in turn enhances the adaptive capacity of the community.

For Indigenous societies of the Great Plains such as the Niitsitapi, the area that is now known as Southern Alberta in Canada, and Northern Montana in the United States, has been driven by such interconnectedness which includes a sense of identity associated with the ecosystem, as well as a sense of stewardship. These societies saw themselves as one of many equal agents that constitute their environment: each member and tribe of human and nonhuman upholds the responsibility to make sure everything works in the right order for collective survival. The legal roots in this web of interrelated responsibility, works to follow seasonality and processes of the ecosystem, which creates and nurtures adaptive capacity within and across the socio-ecosystems. This view of nature and humans as an interconnected entity is called Tsahkomiitapii by Niitsitapi peoples[63]. Our focus in this report, the buffalo of the Great Plains, is one of a myriad of agents in such a socio-ecological system as discussed in Section 3.2. Buffalo herds were enormous prior to colonization. Thirty to sixty million animals roamed across much of the continent, “from the arctic lowland taiga forests of Alaska south to the western grasslands of Mexico and stretched from the Great Basin of Nevada to the eastern Appalachian Mountains. It is estimated that the original bison range was 9.4 million km2 and encompassed 22 major biomes”[64][6](Figure 1). Indigenous peoples reliant on the buffalo upheld their responsibilities to the ecosystems they dwelled within and migrated through seasonally. Indigenous peoples who saw themselves as relatives to these buffalo hunted and utilized every part of their harvest. Additionally, the scale of harvest remained well under significant ecological impact, which was one of the responsibilities upheld by Indigenous societies reliant on the buffalo.

The idea of bison as persons roots its concept of “Rights to Nature.” The Whanganui River in New Zealand, for example, has been given personhood within the legal framework. The Te Awa Tupua Bill recognizes the Whanganui River as a person based on the traditional relationship with Whanganui Iwi Peoples, which grants long-term protection and restoration[63]. Bison have been considered as relatives by the Amskapi Piikani people since time immemorial. While no legal personhood has yet been granted to bison, the Buffalo Treaty represents a stepping stone and a building of momentum towards the future legal personhood of bison in North America[65].

Land Connectivity (3.3.2)

Land connectivity is of great importance for the rehabilitation of degraded grasslands as fragmentation reduces the ability of bison to interact with the grassland in such a way that promotes biophysical ecosystem benefits such as native vegetation diversity[21], and others as described in Section 3.2 above. Fragmentation dominates the current land tenure system, brought about through colonial treaties. This is a stark contrast to the traditional Amskapi Piikani perspective of “belonging to the land” as opposed to owning the land[51]. Due to the legacy of the treaties dispossessing the Amskapi Piikani from their ancestral land, land within the Blackfeet Reservation is divided between the tribal government and tribal members, or has been leased or sold to non-tribal members[14][66]. This has resulted in a patchwork of land use and land tenure across the reservation.

When a bison herd was first introduced by the tribal government in 1974, the management philosophy was to allow the herd to roam relatively freely and unconstrained, with the herd having access to most land throughout the reservation[14]. While the herd was welcomed by many in the community, there came to be tension with cattle ranchers and crop farmers throughout the reservation[47]. The herd trampled crops and grazed cattle pastures, leading to economic losses for members of the community. After nearly two decades, there was a turning point where most of the herd was sold by the tribal government as they sought to re-develop their herd management program which had come to represent a critical food sovereignty strategy within the community[38]. It was clear that the fragmented land tenure and land use system could not coexist with a free-ranging herd. Through the Buffalo Program managed by the Tribal Land Department, around 600 bison who were descendants of the original herd first introduced in 1974 continue to be managed for food and commercial purposes[47]. The herd is now managed on about 16,000 acres of tribal land which is either leased or owned by the tribal government and is split between a winter range and a summer range[14][38]. While this improved management resulted in less interference with cattle ranchers, some major challenges remain. First, permission must be granted by cattle ranchers who own land between the two ranges[14], and second, the demanding responsibilities of the staff tasked with managing the herd has resulted in high turnover and difficulty finding motivated staff[47]. Nonetheless, the Buffalo Program two-range system continues to sustain a large herd of bison which provides food and economic revenue for the Amskapi Piikani.

Analyzing land connectivity as an aspect of the case reveals the importance of social license in sustaining the Buffalo Program. The continuation of the program would not have been possible without addressing the conflict with cattle ranchers. Furthermore, to manage the herd between two ranges throughout the year, healthy relationships must be maintained with the tribal ranchers consenting to the herd moving across their land. Finally, the case demonstrates how land connectivity is at the heart of the trade-off between the cultural vision for free-roaming bison (eg. Iinnii Initiative) and a semi-domesticated bison herd with large food production and economic value for the community. To realize the former, a large tract of contiguous land suitable for bison is required with less practicality for food production, while the latter limits the ecological potential of the bison herd by restricting the pasture preference to pre-defined areas available for bison which are also amenable to management activities.

Community Participation (3.3.3)

Bison reintroduction by the Amskapi Piikani has had significant community involvement through its creation, management, and ongoing monitoring, which is another objective of transformational food system change[43]. Carlisle (2022) describes the community involvement in creating the Buffalo Treaty, which began with elder discussions[14]. As was discussed in Section 3.1.2, elder dialogue meetings were important in understanding the historical context of bison extermination and previous reintroduction projects, and helped to inform the revitalization of the relationship between the Amskapi Piikani and the buffalo. After discussions about how bison may interact with other community members (ex. agricultural producers, government agencies), the community settled on a treaty, which would be by and for Indigenous people. The Buffalo Treaty was created in 2014, and had eight nations both within and external to the Blackfoot Confederacy sign on, with more joining over the years. This treaty secured the Iinnii Initiative, pledging a commitment to work towards a wild and free roaming herd across borders. This treaty invited members of the U.S. government, specifically superintendents of national parks that the buffalo would roam through, to be witnesses to the signing of the tribal treaty. This greatly subverted the historical context of treaty signing, which often involved land seizing, and the removal of access and rights from Indigenous peoples. This community-created treaty represents a “bright spot”[31] for what is possible and provides hope for decolonial conservation and restoration similar to other Indigenous-led projects such as grizzly bear stewardship in the Great Bear Rainforest[67], and cultural monitoring of reintroduced bison within Mînî Rhpa Mâkoche (also known as Banff National Park, Canada) by the Stoney Nakoda Nations[68]. In 2019, the Amskapi Piikani drafted an Agricultural Resource Management Plan (ARMP), the first of such to be written by an American Indigenous nation, which secured funding for tribal management objectives to combat the financial challenges of bison reintroduction[14]. Bison management requires strong community support, not only in the creation of these frameworks, but also in the hands-on management, as ranchers and individuals with the buffalo program must work together. Another element of bison reintroduction that involves the community is the processing of bison as food. As discussed in Section 3.1.3, this has been previously done off the reservation, causing ranchers to accept low returns and the community to consume bison that is not processed in culturally sensitive ways. In the 2019 ARMP plan, one objective written by the community is to build a multi-species processing facility on the reservation, which offers more independence to the community and builds food sovereignty[14][38]. This would improve livelihoods, offer employment opportunities, and align with cultural values to provide a culturally-sensitive diet that is also part of the overall restoration project. The work of the Amskapi Piikani people demonstrates the power of community participation in restoration projects, and how important it is to align these projects with community needs and wants in order to succeed.

Scalability (3.4)

The notion of scalability can be applied to the case of bison reintroduction by the Amskapi Piikani in two ways. First, ongoing examples of scaling can be outlined to acknowledge momentum that is already occurring, as a means of demonstrating critical components to scaling in other contexts – both geographically within North America and to other critical species of Indigenous foodways across the globe. Second, constraints and opportunities to scale can identify needed social and economic shifts necessary to achieve a wider application of restoring degraded lands and foodways from ecological and socio-cultural perspectives.

Scalability within this context can be interpreted three different ways. First, through an institutional and policy lens (scaling up), through a horizontal replication lens (scaling out), and through altering value and idea paradigms (scaling deep)[31]. It is imperative that notions of scaling up, out, and deep are interpreted through a decolonization lens, such that any process of scaling “encompasses addressing, transforming, and replacing the colonial structures and processes that underlie settler colonialism” and “[repatriates] Indigenous power, land, and lifeways”[67].

Types of scaling within the case study (3.4.1)

The Iinnii Initiative and Buffalo Treaty together serve as a powerful example of scaling up, out, and deep in relation to bison reintroduction. It is an example of the vision of wild herds of bison extending out to many Indigenous nations including the Amskapi Piikani[14]. Furthermore, the signing of the Buffalo Treaty in 2014 by numerous nations is a process of scaling up the vision to develop a mutual policy amongst all signatories. The Buffalo Treaty is a momentous decolonial act which saw representatives of the United States government witness a treaty drafted by Indigenous peoples, which is a stark contrast to the history of colonial treaties drafted by Western governments[14]. Finally, at its core, the Iinnii Initiative and Buffalo Treaty embody that the dominant paradigm of bison reintroduction is reciprocity, a key feature of Indigenous foodways[69]. This is an example of scaling deep, where the narrative is based on asking what bringing bison back will do for Indigenous peoples and what Indigenous peoples will do to protect bison upon their return[14]. In addition, the primary food producing herd managed through the Buffalo Program by the Amskapi Piikani is an example of scaling a bison reintroduction strategy both up and out. First, since the program is managed by the tribal government, it represents the enactment of tribal policy to produce both food and economic benefits for the community. Through processes of stakeholder engagement, the management of the herd was scaled out amongst the community to arrive at a management strategy that was appropriate for the context of the reservation. Through these examples, scaling efforts of bison reintroduction are likely to be place-based and interconnect local tribal governments and communities amongst each other and with non-tribal governments through decolonial collaboration[67]. Further, Indigenous bison reintroduction strategies are scaling deep to recognize that reciprocity is critical to reintroducing a bison herd where socio-cultural connection and moral relationship are re-established[50].

Limitations and future considerations (3.4.2)

It is important to acknowledge that many other communities, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, are engaging in bison reintroduction projects. Some of these efforts are through the Iinnii Initiative and Buffalo Treaty, and others with conservation groups or university partners. There are a few limitations that are important to consider for these types of projects, the first being the spatial limitation. Bison herds require a large area to range across, which is not always possible in areas where bison herds previously existed due to anthropogenic land use change and land tenure fragmentation. The second limitation is social license, as bison reintroduction creates tension due to the potential for infrastructure destruction and interaction with cattle ranching pastures and herds. There are also a capacity limitation, as an incredible amount of labour is required to manage and monitor herds of bison, which can create human resource challenges. The final limitation is financial. It can be costly to deliver bison reintroduction and management projects, and a balance must be struck between these costs and other economic benefits (such as meat processing). However, these benefits can be limited when meat processing is not done locally, forcing ranchers to accept low returns.

The case of bison reintroduction by the Amskapi Piikani illustrates the major constraints for bison reintroduction to other contexts as outlined above, including the economic and social capacity to maintain a herd large enough to produce food while also demonstrating ecological benefit. The case demonstrates that to sustain a bison herd, the management program needs to generate enough revenue to meet program costs, which are constrained by the herd size and carrying capacity of the land available for bison, and the proximity of meat processing plants[38]. Therefore, opportunities for scaling in other contexts would be possible where there is land sufficient to maintain a herd with food producing and ecological benefit (about 1000 individual bison is considered ideal), and processing is done within a community context[38]. Further, bison reintroduction through the Buffalo Program was initially possible due to the availability of land for pasture on the Blackfeet Reservation, despite the prevalence of many other land uses on the reservation such as cattle ranching and crop agriculture[38][14]. As such, scaling bison reintroduction to other contexts would require community and stakeholder engagement to nurture social license for the management of a herd. Additionally, a future direction for the Amskapi Piikani includes the continued adoption of the Agricultural Resource Management Plan created in 2019, which outlines land use planning in the context of both an on-reservation bison herd and a wild herd roaming within protected lands within and adjacent to the reservation, along with the development of a multi-species processing facility. This highlights the necessity of Indigenous food and land sovereignty to support sustaining bison herds with ecological, social, and foodway significance.

Conclusions (4)

As demonstrated, there is much to learn from this living and ongoing example of bison reintroduction, and lessons to apply in a variety of other restoration and rehabilitation efforts. The first lesson is to view the buffalo as a teacher, and learn about buffalo grazing behaviours to emulate these within cattle ranching practice for less environmentally damaging food production. Rotational grazing and adaptive multi-paddock grazing share similarities with natural bison grazing behaviours, and continuing to apply these strategies for restoration is a key takeaway[70]. The second is the importance of Indigenous led initiatives and community participation in restoration and rehabilitation projects, as the success of this project is owed to the ways in which it was managed. Participation, governance, and co-creation of knowledge are all principles that can lead to agroecological transformation[43][44], and we argue that the specific learning and governing processes demonstrated by the Amskapi Piikani are excellent examples that could inform other transformational initiatives. The final recommendation we have from this case study is to consider the reintroduction of both culturally relevant and ecologically native species as a powerful mechanism for restoration and rehabilitation. This case of bison reintroduction shows the capacity of a species reintroduction to not only restore ecosystem function but also to create transformational change through shifts in management and the revitalization of important, more-than-human relationships. This idea has global implications, and should be considered in a variety of grassland prairie ecosystems that have been degraded, especially those that have lost their keystone herbivore species. Further evidence will be required regarding the impacts of bison on the community, with some monitoring already taking place about the impacts of bison on soil health[14]. This project has relevance to EAT-Lancet 2.0 as this case study is a demonstration of an initiative that restores agriculturally degraded land and culturally relevant diets, improves health outcomes, lowers the environmental impacts of food production, and demonstrates necessary shifts in management and governance for a just transition to a planetary health diet. Our hope is that this case study is informative in demonstrating the social and ecological dimensions of bison reintroduction demonstrated by the Amskapi Piikani, along with the transformative power of bison reintroduction for cultural restoration and decolonization.

Acknowledgements

This report greatly benefited from the previous research by academic scholars such as Dr. Liz Carlisle and Dr. Madison Stevens, who are both connected with the Amskapi Piikani through their research. We thank them for sharing their experience and knowledge. We also would like to give thanks to our instructor Dr. Claire Kremen for connecting us with these scholars, and for her guidance throughout our project.

Bibliography

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., Garnett, T., Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A., Jonell, M., Clark, M., Gordon, L. J., Fanzo, J., Hawkes, C., Zurayk, R., Rivera, J. A., De Vries, W., Majele Sibanda, L., . . . Murray, C. J. L. (2019). Food in the anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393(10170), 447-492. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4
  2. ↑ EAT-Lancet 2.0. (2023). About EAT-Lancet 2.0. https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/eat-lancet-commission-2-0/about-eat-lancet-commission-2-0/
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Conservation through Reconciliation Partnership, dir. (2020) What Is Ethical Space? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjjUi-5qra0u
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Joseph, B., Joseph, C.F. (2019) Indigenous relations: insights, tips & suggestions to make reconciliation a reality. Indigenous Relations Press. Page Two Books. ISBN978-1-989025-64-2
  5. ↑ Native Land Digital. (n.d.). Native Land Digital – Resources / API. https://native-land.ca/resources/api-docs/
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 COSEWIC. (2013). COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Plains Bison Bison bison bison and the Wood Bison Bison bison athabascae in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/ec/CW69-14-379-2014-eng.pdf
  7. ↑ National Atlas of the United States. (2014). USGS 1:1,000,000-Scale Indian lands of the United States 2014-12 shapefile. National Atlas of the United States. https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/5d150464e4b0941bde5b7658
  8. ↑ Manuel, A., & Derrickson, G. C. R. M. (2015). Unsettling Canada : A national wake-up call. Between the Lines.
  9. ↑ Whyte, K. (2018b). Settler colonialism, ecology, and environmental injustice. Environment and Society, 9(1), 125-125–144. doi:https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2018.090109
  10. ↑ Kimmerer, Robin. (2010). “The giveaway.” in Moral ground: Ethical Action for a Planet in Peril, ed. Kathleen Dean Moore and Michael P. Nelson, 141–145. San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press.
  11. ↑ Hogan, L. (1998). "First People." Intimate nature: The bond between women and animals. Eds. Linda Hogan, Deena Metzger and Brenda Peterson. New York: Ballantine. 6-19.
  12. ↑ Hubbard, T. (2009). "The buffaloes are gone" or "return: buffalo"? - the relationship of the buffalo to Indigenous creative expression. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 29(1), 65-85.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Taschereau Mamers, D. (2020). ‘Last of the buffalo’: Bison extermination, early conservation, and visual records of settler colonization in the North American west. Settler Colonial Studies, 10(1), 126–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473X.2019.1677134
  14. ↑ 14.00 14.01 14.02 14.03 14.04 14.05 14.06 14.07 14.08 14.09 14.10 14.11 14.12 14.13 14.14 14.15 14.16 14.17 14.18 14.19 14.20 14.21 14.22 14.23 14.24 14.25 14.26 14.27 14.28 14.29 14.30 14.31 14.32 14.33 14.34 14.35 14.36 Carlisle, L. (2022). Chapter 1: Return of the Buffalo. In Healing Grounds: Climate, Justice, and the Deep Roots of Regenerative Farming (pp. 17-52). Island Press.
  15. ↑ Soil Classification Working Group. (1998). The Canadian system of soil classification (3rd ed.). Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. https://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/manuals/1998-cssc-ed3/index.html
  16. ↑ Pennock, D., Bedard-Haughn, A., & Viaud, V. (2011). Chernozemic soils of Canada: Genesis, distribution, and classification. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 91(5), 719–747. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjss10022
  17. ↑ Milchunas, D. G., & Lauenroth, W. K. (1993). Quantitative effects of grazing on vegetation and soils over a global range of environments. Ecological Monographs, 63(4), 328-366. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937150
  18. ↑ van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Veerkamp, C. J., Alkemade, R., & Leemans, R. (2015). Effects of different management regimes on soil erosion and surface runoff in semi-arid to sub-humid rangelands. Journal of Arid Environments, 121, 100-111. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.05.015
  19. ↑ Sharma, K. D. (1997). Assessing the impact of overgrazing on soil erosion in arid regions at a range of spatial scales. The International Association of Hydrological Sciences, 245. https://iahs.info/uploads/dms/10824.119-123-245-Sharma.pdf
  20. ↑ Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R. T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R., Chan, K. M. A., Baste, I. A., Brauman, K. A., Polasky, S., Church, A., Lonsdale, M., Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P. W., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., van der Plaat, F., Schröter, M., Lavorel, S., . . . Shirayama, Y. (2018). Assessing nature's contributions to people. Science, 359(6373), 270-272. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.aap8826
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 Suding, K. N., Gross, K. L., & Houseman, G. R. (2004). Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19(1), 46-53. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2003.10.005
  22. ↑ McLeman, R. A., Dupre, J., Berrang Ford, L., Ford, J., Gajewski, K., & Marchildon, G. (2014). What we learned from the Dust Bowl: lessons in science, policy, and adaptation. Population and environment, 35(4), 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-013-0190-z
  23. ↑ Daschuk, J. (2013). Clearing the plains: Disease, politics of starvation, and the loss of Aboriginal life. University of Regina Press.
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 Settee, P., & Shukla, S. (2020). Chapter 1: Introduction. In Settee, P., & Shukla, S. (Eds.), Indigenous food systems : Concepts, cases, and conversations (pp. 1-13). Canadian Scholars.
  25. ↑ Government of Canada. (2012). Household food insecurity in Canada statistics and graphics (2011–2012). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/nutrition-science-research/food-security/household-food-security-statistics-2011-2012.html
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 Dawson, L. (2020). Chapter 5: “Food will be what brings the people together”: Constructing counter-narratives from the perspective of Indigenous foodways. In Settee, P., & Shukla, S. (Eds.), Indigenous food systems : Concepts, cases, and conversations (pp. 83-97). Canadian Scholars.
  27. ↑ Diabetes Canada. (2023). Diabetes in Canada: Backgrounder. https://www.diabetes.ca/advocacy---policies/advocacy-reports/national-and-provincial-backgrounders/diabetes-in-canada
  28. ↑ Counihan, C. M. (1999). The anthropology of food and body: Gender, meaning, and power. Routledge.
  29. ↑ Health Canada. (2007). Eating well with Canada's food guide - First Nations, Inuit and Métis. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canada-food-guide/about/history-food-guide/eating-well-canada-food-guide-first-nations-inuit-metis.html
  30. ↑ Tulloch, A. I. T., Borthwick, F., Bogueva, D., Eltholth, M., Grech, A., Edgar, D., Boylan, S., & McNeill, G. (2023). How the EAT-Lancet Commission on food in the anthropocene influenced discourse and research on food systems: a systematic review covering the first 2 years post-publication. Lancet Global Health, 11(7), e1125-e1136. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2214-109x(23)00212-7
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 Valencia, V., Bennett, E. M., Altieri, M., Nicholls, C., Pas Schrijver, A., & Schulte, R. P. O. (2022). Learning from the future: mainstreaming disruptive solutions for the transition to sustainable food systems. Environmental Research Letters, 17(5), 051002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac6ad9
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 Piikani Lodge Health Institute. (n.d.-a). Piikani Lodge Health Institute – Home. https://www.piikanilodge.org/
  33. ↑ Blackfeet Nation. (n.d.). Blackfeet Nation – Our lands. https://blackfeetnation.com/lands/
  34. ↑ John-Henderson, N.A., Oosterhoff, B.J., Johnson, L.R., Lafromboise, M.E., Malatare, M., & Salois, E. (2022). COVID-19 and food insecurity in the Blackfeet tribal community. Food Security, 14, 1337–1346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01292-x
  35. ↑ Piikani Lodge Health Institute. (n.d.-b). Piikani Lodge Health Institute – Regenerative Agriculture & Food Sovereignty. https://www.piikanilodge.org/food-ag
  36. ↑ Blackfeet Nation. (2018). Blackfeet climate change adaptation plan. https://bcapwebsite.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/bcap_final_4-11.pdf
  37. ↑ Kehoe, A.B, Wissler, C., Miller, S.E. (2012). Amskapi Pikuni: the Blackfeet people. State University of New York Press.
  38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.4 38.5 38.6 38.7 Shamon, H., Cosby, O.G., Andersen, C.L., Augare, H., BearCub Stiffarm, J., Bresnan, C.E., Brock, B.L., Carlson, E., Deichmann, J.L., Epps, A., Guernsey, N., Hartway, C., Jørgensen, D., Kipp, W., Kinsey, D., Komatsu, K.J., Kunkel, K., Magnan, R., Martin, J.M., Maxwell, B.D., McShea, W.J., Mormorunni, C., Olimb, S., Rattling Hawk, M., Ready, R., Smith, R., Songer, M., Speakthunder, B., Stafne, G., Weatherwax, M., & Akre, T.S. (2022). The potential of bison restoration as an ecological approach to future tribal food sovereignty on the Northern Great Plains. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 10,  826282. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.826282
  39. ↑ Wildlife Conservation Society. (September 24, 2014). Historic Buffalo Treaty signed by tribes and First Nations along U.S. and Canada border [Web blog post]. https://programs.wcs.org/press/News-Releases/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5135/Historic-Buffalo-Treaty-Signed-by-Tribes-and-First-Nations-Along-US-and-Canada-Border.aspx
  40. ↑ Buffalo Treaty. (n.d.). Buffalo Treaty - Relationships. https://www.buffalotreaty.com/relationships
  41. ↑ Mabie, N. (2023, June 27). 'Absolutely epic': Blackfeet release wild buffalo on tribal land. Missoulian.  https://missoulian.com/news/state-regional/blackfeet-release-buffalo-tribal-land/article_db9fb54e-1503-11ee-9446-af1007e7d4d4.html
  42. ↑ Arneth, A., Olsson, L., Cowie, A., Erb, K.-H., Hurlbert, M., Kurz, W. A., Mirzabaev, A., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2021). Restoring degraded lands. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46, 569-599. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-054809
  43. ↑ 43.0 43.1 43.2 Wezel, A., Herren, B.G., Kerr, R.B., Barrios, E.,Gonçalves, A.L.R., & Sinclair, F. (2020). Agroecological principles and elements and their implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 40(40). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00646-z
  44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 44.2 HLPE. (2019). Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/ca5602en/ca5602en.pdf
  45. ↑ Carlisle, L. (2022). Chapter 1: Return of the Buffalo. In Healing Grounds: Climate, Justice, and the Deep Roots of Regenerative Farming (pp. 17-52). Island Press.
  46. ↑ Shamon, H., Cosby, O.G., Andersen, C.L., Augare, H., BearCub Stiffarm, J., Bresnan, C.E., Brock, B.L., Carlson, E., Deichmann, J.L., Epps, A., Guernsey, N., Hartway, C., Jørgensen, D., Kipp, W., Kinsey, D., Komatsu, K.J., Kunkel, K., Magnan, R., Martin, J.M., Maxwell, B.D., McShea, W.J., Mormorunni, C., Olimb, S., Rattling Hawk, M., Ready, R., Smith, R., Songer, M., Speakthunder, B., Stafne, G., Weatherwax, M., & Akre, T.S. (2022). The potential of bison restoration as an ecological approach to future tribal food sovereignty on the Northern Great Plains. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 10,  826282. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.826282
  47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 47.2 47.3 47.4 47.5 47.6 47.7 47.8 Johns, E.L. (2020). Buffalo renaissance: the northern plains tribes' path to self-determination. Graduate student theses, dissertations, & professional papers. 11639. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/11639
  48. ↑ West, S., Galafassi, D., Haider, J., Marin, A., Merrie, A., Ospina-Medina, D., & Schill, C. (2015). Critically reflecting on social-ecological systems research [Web blog post]. https://rs.resalliance.org/2015/02/11/critically-reflecting-on-social-ecological-systems-research/
  49. ↑ Poole, L. (Host) & Tatsey, L. (Guest). (2023, April 26). Episode 301. Learning from the Amskapi Piikani — Latrice Tatsey on Soils, Climate, and Culture, Part 1 [Audio podcast episode].In Voices from the Field. NCAT/ATTRA. https://attra.ncat.org/episode-300-learning-from-the-amskapi-piikani-latrice-tatsey-on-soils-climate-and-culture-part-1/
  50. ↑ 50.0 50.1 Whyte, K. (2018a). Critical investigations of resilience: A brief introduction to indigenous environmental studies & sciences. Daedalus, 147(2), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00497
  51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 51.2 Stories for Action. (2022). Life in the land: Amskapi Piikani - Blackfeet Nation [Video]. Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/711961062
  52. ↑ Pember, M. A. (2019, March 8). Death by civilization. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/03/traumatic-legacy-indian-boarding-schools/584293/
  53. ↑ Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass. Milkweed Editions.
  54. ↑ 54.0 54.1 54.2 54.3 54.4 54.5 Nickell, Z., Varriano, S., Plemmons, E., & Moran, M. D. (2018). Ecosystem engineering by bison (Bison bison) wallowing increases arthropod community heterogeneity in space and time. Ecosphere, 9(9), e02436. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2436
  55. ↑ 55.0 55.1 55.2 55.3 Knapp, A. K., Blair, J. M., Briggs, J. M., Collins, S. L., Hartnett, D. C., Johnson, L. C., & Towne, E. G. (1999). The keystone role of bison in North American tallgrass prairie: bison increase habitat heterogeneity and alter a broad array of plant, community, and ecosystem processes. BioScience, 49(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1525/bisi.1999.49.1.39
  56. ↑ 56.0 56.1 56.2 56.3 56.4 56.5 Plumb, G. E., White, P. J., & Aune, K. (2014). American bison Bison bison (Linnaeus, 1758). In J. Burton & M. Melletti (Eds.), Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour of Wild Cattle: Implications for Conservation (pp. 83-114). Cambridge University Press.
  57. ↑ Bezner Kerr, R., Naess, L. O., Allen-O’Neil, B., Totin, E., Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H., Risvoll, C., Rivera Ferre, M. G., López-i-Gelats, F., & Eriksen, S. (2022). Interplays between changing biophysical and social dynamics under climate change: Implications for limits to sustainable adaptation in food systems. Global Change Biology, 28(11), 3580-3604. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16124
  58. ↑ Fox, T., Hugenholtz, C., Bender, D., & Gates, C. (2012). Can bison play a role in conserving habitat for endangered sandhills species in Canada? Biodiversity and Conservation, 21, 1441-1455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0255-9
  59. ↑ Ratajczak, Z., Collins, S. L., Blair, J. M., Koerner, S. E., Louthan, A. M., Smith, M. D., Taylor, J. H., & Nippert, J. B. (2022). Reintroducing bison results in long-running and resilient increases in grassland diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(36), e2210433119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2210433119
  60. ↑ McMillan, N. A., Kunkel, K. E., Hagan, D. L., & Jachowski, D. S. (2019). Plant community responses to bison reintroduction on the Northern Great Plains, United States: a test of the keystone species concept. Restoration Ecology, 27(2), 379-388. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12856
  61. ↑ Polley, H. W., & Collins, S. L. (1984). Relationships of vegetation and environment in Buffalo wallows. The American Midland Naturalist, 112(1), 178-186. https://doi.org/10.2307/2425471
  62. ↑ 62.0 62.1 62.2 62.3 Mehl, H. (2018). Bison as engineers of the Prairie waterscape. Symphony in the Flint Hills Field Journal. https://newprairiepress.org/sfh/2018/nature/5
  63. ↑ 63.0 63.1 Lynes, L.S. (2019). “The rights of nature and the duty to consult in Canada.” Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 37(3), 353–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646811.2018.1556975
  64. ↑ U.S. National Park Service (n.d.) Bison bellows: back home on the range. U.S. National Park Service. Retrieved December 13, 2023 https://www.nps.gov/articles/bison-bellows-1-7-16.htm
  65. ↑ Robinson, J. M., Gellie, N., MacCarthy, D., Mills, J. G., O’Donnell, K., & Redvers, N. (2021). Traditional ecological knowledge in restoration ecology: A call to listen deeply, to engage with, and respect Indigenous voices. Restoration Ecology, 29(4), e13381. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13381
  66. ↑ Morsette, S. (2020). Blackfeet Reservation timeline. Montana Office of Public Instruction. https://opi.mt.gov/Portals/182/Page%20Files/Indian%20Education/Social%20Studies/K-12%20Resources/BlackfeetTimeline.pdf
  67. ↑ 67.0 67.1 67.2 Artelle, K. A., Adams, M. S., Bryan, H. M., Darimont, C. T., Housty, J., Housty, W. G., Moody, J. E., Moody, M. F., Neasloss, D., Service, C. N., & Walkus, J. (2021). Decolonial model of environmental management and conservation: Insights from Indigenous-led Grizzly Bear stewardship in the Great Bear Rainforest. Ethics, Policy and Environment, 24(3), 283–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2021.2002624
  68. ↑ Stoney Nakoda Consultation Team. (2022). Enhancing the reintroduction of Plains Bison in Banff National Park through cultural monitoring and traditional knowledge: final report and recommendations. Stoney Nakoda Tribal Administration. Morley, AB. https://a.storyblok.com/f/112697/x/d0b9253d5a/stoney_bison_report_final_rev2.pdf
  69. ↑ Shukla, S., & Settee, P. (2020). Chapter 15: Synthesis: Revitalizing the past, nourishing the present, and feeding the future. In Settee, P., & Shukla, S. (Eds.), Indigenous food systems: Concepts, cases, and conversations (pp. 269-284). Canadian Scholars.
  70. ↑ Hillenbrand, M., Thompson, R., Wang, F., Apfelbaum, S., & Teague, R. (2019). Impacts of holistic planned grazing with bison compared to continuous grazing with cattle in South Dakota shortgrass prairie. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 279, 156-168. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.02.005


This resource was created by Samantha Gorle, Jasmine Lambert, Caleb Sinn, & Yoshinori Tanaka.It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0 International License.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:RES510/2023/Social_and_Ecological_Dimensions_of_Restoration_through_Bison_Reintroduction_by_the_Amskapi_Piikani&oldid=817113"