AFF

MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
FDPIR AFF
BISON 1AC.................................................................................................................................................................................................3
BISON 1AC.................................................................................................................................................................................................4
BISON 1AC.................................................................................................................................................................................................6
BISON 1AC.................................................................................................................................................................................................7
BISON 1AC.................................................................................................................................................................................................8
BISON 1AC.................................................................................................................................................................................................9
BISON 1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................................10
BISON 1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................................11
BISON 1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................................12
BISON 1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................................13
BISON 1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................................14
BISON 1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................................15
BISON 1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................................16
BISON 1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................................17
BISON INHERENCY...............................................................................................................................................................................18
BISON INHERENCY...............................................................................................................................................................................19
BISON MARKETS WEAK......................................................................................................................................................................20
INHERENCY—SLAUGHTER REGULATIONS....................................................................................................................................21
INHERENCY—MAINSTREAM AG.......................................................................................................................................................22
TRIBAL BISON SOLVES CULTURE.....................................................................................................................................................23
TRIBAL BISON SOLVES CULTURE.....................................................................................................................................................24
TRIBAL BISON SOLVES HEALTH.......................................................................................................................................................25
HEALTH ADVANTAGE.........................................................................................................................................................................26
HEALTH IMPACT...................................................................................................................................................................................29
HUNGER SOLVENCY.............................................................................................................................................................................30
BISON ADVANTAGE.............................................................................................................................................................................31
BISON ADVANTAGE.............................................................................................................................................................................32
BISON IMPACT—BIODIVERSITY.......................................................................................................................................................33
BISON KEY TO CULTURE.....................................................................................................................................................................37
BISON KEY TO CULTURE.....................................................................................................................................................................38
DEMAND KEY.........................................................................................................................................................................................39
TRADITIONAL FOOD GOOD................................................................................................................................................................40
INDIAN CULTURE KEY.........................................................................................................................................................................41
FEDERAL DECOLONIZATION MODELED.........................................................................................................................................42
FDPIR KEY...............................................................................................................................................................................................43
PLAN POPULAR......................................................................................................................................................................................44
T—POVERTY...........................................................................................................................................................................................45
A2: ECONOMIC MOTIVES BAD...........................................................................................................................................................46
A2: INDIANS DON’T WANT FDPIR.....................................................................................................................................................47
A2: LANGUAGE CRITIQUES................................................................................................................................................................48
A2: WORD “INDIANS” BAD..................................................................................................................................................................49
A2: WORD “BISON” BAD......................................................................................................................................................................50
A2: NON-INDIAN INVOLVEMENT BAD.............................................................................................................................................51
A2: DEMAND ONLY REGIONAL.........................................................................................................................................................52
A2: STATES..............................................................................................................................................................................................53
A2: STATES..............................................................................................................................................................................................54
A2: STATES..............................................................................................................................................................................................55
A2: SELF-D—NOT UNIQUE..................................................................................................................................................................56
A2: SELF-D—NO LINK...........................................................................................................................................................................57
1
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: BISON NOT KEY..............................................................................................................................................................................60
A2: SPEAKING FOR OTHERS...............................................................................................................................................................61
A2: ONLY BUY TRIBAL BUFFALO.....................................................................................................................................................62
A2: HURTS BEEF INDUSTRY...............................................................................................................................................................63
A2: MAINSTREAM BISON GOOD........................................................................................................................................................64
A2: VEGETARIANISM............................................................................................................................................................................65
A2: VEGETARIANISM............................................................................................................................................................................66
A2: CRITIQUE SOLVES CASE...............................................................................................................................................................67
FOOD STAMPS TURN............................................................................................................................................................................68
NEG—SUPPLY TURN.............................................................................................................................................................................69
NEG—FDPIR BAD...................................................................................................................................................................................70
NEG—NOT ENOUGH BISON................................................................................................................................................................71
NEG—WORD “INDIANS” BAD.............................................................................................................................................................72
NEG—CAN’T SOLVE HEALTH............................................................................................................................................................73
NEG—NO HEALTH IMPACT................................................................................................................................................................74
NEG—MARKET NOW............................................................................................................................................................................75
NEG—STATES C/P..................................................................................................................................................................................76
NEG—T POVERTY.................................................................................................................................................................................77
“The bison are stupid things, and these were no exception to the rule, for they stood still and looked stupidly at the hunters until the
guide shot a score of them.”
—“School Work,” 1906.
2
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON 1AC
CONTENTION ONE—INHERENCY
THE FOOD DELIVERY PROGRAM ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS IS NOT ENOUGH
—OVER TWENTY PERCENT OF INDIANS GO HUNGRY AND THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS RESPONSIBLE
SPARK 2007
(Dr. Arlene, nutritionist and associate professor at Hunter College, CUNY, Nutrition In Public Health, p 421)
Unmet needs. A study conducted by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2003 examines federal funding of programs intended to assist Native Americans. The
commission’s report reveals that funding directed to Native Americans through FDPIR, as well as other programs, has not been sufficient to
address the basic and urgent needs of indigenous peoples. For example, between 1995 and 1997, 22.2% of Native American households were
hungry or on the edge of hunger (food insecure), more than twice the rate of the population as a whole. Recall that the USDA defines
“food insecurity” as a shortage of resources leading to outright hunger or to such other serious problems resulting from low incomes
as the family being unable to purchase a balanced diet or enough food for the children, or the parents skipping meals so that the children can eat.
Overall, 8.6% of the Native American households reported that they were suffering from hunger, also more than double the nationwide
rate. The commission found that significant disparities in federal funding exist between Native Americans and other groups in the U.S., as
well as the general population. The commission recommends that the USDA and other federal agencies administering Native American programs identify and
regularly assess the unmet needs of American Indians. Through laws, treaties, and policies established over hundreds of years, the federal
government is obligated to ensure that funding is adequate to meet these needs.
DESPITE FEDERAL PROMISES THE USDA PROCURES FARM-RAISED BISON

FOR THE FOOD DELIVERY PROGRAM FROM NON-TRIBAL SUPPLIERS—
INDIANS ARE LEFT OUT OF THE PROCESS
METRO SPIRIT 2007
(“Bison in a Can,” August 4, http://www.metrospirit.com/index.php?ShowArticle_ID=11013107074654929&cat=1211101074307265)
In 2001, Congress approved $3 million specifically for bison in the budget for the tribal food program. It was Dorgan’s earmark. The
appropriation specified that the bison be purchased “from Native American producers and Cooperative Organizations without
competition.” This was close to what the tribes had long wanted — to be able to eat the animals they had tended, according to their
own customs. But the USDA took Congress’ language to mean it could buy bison from either Native producers or non-tribal
“commercial” cooperatives. Then, after telling tribal producers that they would be a “major part” of the program, the agency gave a
contract to the North American Bison Cooperative, of which Turner was a member. Gates says that to appease a member of Congress who didn’t want to
give “multimillion-dollar contracts to a billionaire,” Turner agreed that none of his bison would be used. The USDA decided that the North American co-op
would be required to buy some live bison from tribal producers, then mix the meat with fattier, grain-fed, “commercial” bison — the
white man’s kind of meat. Under this bureaucratic compromise, 15-20 percent of the final product would consist of bison meat from tribal
sources. The meat for bison stew was to be entirely “commercial.” The Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative protested, first to the USDA, then
to the General Accounting Office. The tribes’ lawyer, Gene Lebrun, argued that the government’s purchase of non-tribal bison was clearly contrary to
the intent of the law. News reports at the time say Sen. Dorgan wrote USDA officials, explaining that his aim was to “ensure that Native American producers were
given the chance to participate.” Dorgan’s letter added, however, that he didn’t mean to exclude non-tribal producers. After all, he had many constituents. The GAO
argued, oddly, that Dorgan’s letter was not “authoritative evidence of the intent of Congress.” Nevertheless, the auditors called BS on the USDA. They said the law’s
“clear implication is that both the producers and the Cooperative Organizations must be Native American.” But it was not a clear
victory for the tribes. The GAO found a loophole that suited the USDA: While the law required that tribes furnish the animals, it
didn’t say anything about who actually slaughtered and processed the meat. The non-tribal cooperatives would get paid after all. In
the years following the protest, the USDA would continue to give most of its business to non-tribal producers. In 2005, the last year for
which USDA purchase figures are available, it gave $1.74 million to the North American Bison Co-op. The Inter-Tribal Co-op got $450,000 for providing 120,000
pounds of “ground buffalo (lean).” The pattern was repeating. Whenever the Native Americans asked for something, they got something less.
3
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON 1AC
CONTENTION TWO—HARM:
SCENARIO ONE—HUNGER—FAILURE OF STATUS QUO FOOD PROGRAMS
CAUSES BOTH DISPROPORTIONATE HUNGER AND OBESITY AMONG NATIVE
AMERICANS—THE RESULT IS A RANGE OF HEALTH PROBLEMS LIKE
MALNUTRITION, DIABETES, AND HEART DISEASE—THE PLAN SOLVES IT
NEWPORT 2007
(Melinda, MS,RD/LD Director Nutrition Services for Chickasaw Nation, Hearing before the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry Committee, Jan 31, http://agriculture.senate.gov/Hearings/hearings.cfm?hearingid=2511&witnessId=6032)
With poverty being the principal factor causing food insecurity, the Native American community suffers from a much higher
incidence of food insecurity and hunger than the general population. In fact, on average rates of food insecurity in Indian Communities are twice as
high those of the general US population. Nearly one in four Native American households is hungry or on the edge of hunger. Food insecurity and hunger take a
serious toll on the health and well-being of the Native American community. These circumstances, which include the inability to
afford nutritionally adequate and safe food or the ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways being limited or
uncertain, can profoundly impair physical and mental health status. Certainly, poverty also imposes barriers on transportation options. Isolation and
financial constraints have forced families in some rural areas to rely on less expensive, often high-fat foods, and few fruits and
vegetables. This is in stark contrast to the high protein, low-fat diet of previous indigenous generations prior to European contact. Paradoxically, at the same time
that Native Americans experience hunger and food insecurity, obesity has been declared an epidemic. Both obesity and hunger can
exist in the same families and the same individuals within that family. A paper called “The Paradox of Hunger and Obesity in America” developed by
the Center on Hunger and Poverty and the Food Research and Action Center, discusses this dilemma. Though it sounds contradictory, those with insufficient
resources to purchase adequate food can still be overweight, for reasons that researchers are now beginning to understand. It is especially so in many
American Indian communities and families. We need to better grasp this paradox if we are to grapple with these parallel threats to the well-being of so many,
and avoid potentially damaging policy development in our food assistance programs. The fear of running out of food causes people to reduce the
quality of their diets and/or reduce the quantity of food they consume. Therefore, the lack of adequate resources for food could result
in weight gain in several ways: • Low income families, in an attempt to stretch their food dollars, consume lower cost foods with
typically higher calories to stave off hunger, affecting the overall energy density of the diet; • Research shows that food insecure households are
willing to trade off food quality for food quantity as a coping strategy, after all the stomach registers satiety rather than nutritional value; • Obesity
can be an adaptive response to periods when people are unable to get enough to eat, as people tend to eat more than they normally
would when food becomes available, and, over time, this cycle can result in weight gain; and • Physiological changes may occur to
help the body conserve energy when diets are periodically inadequate, basically storing more calories as fat. Both obesity and
hunger/food insecurity require solutions that include regular access to nutritionally adequate food. Suggestions that food allocations in
federal nutrition programs should be reduced, on the grounds that they contribute to obesity among the poor, are without scientific
merit. While Native Americans have experienced certain declines in the rates of anemia, growth stunting, underweight and maternal and infant mortality over the last
twenty-five (25) years, there is still much work to be done. Chronic diseases now account for 6 of the top 10 leading causes of death of
Native Americans, with the epidemic of obesity and diabetes affecting every community. Diabetes is most common among American Indians at alarming rates
throughout United States. Diabetes is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease in all Native American populations, and cardiovascular disease is the leading cause
of death in this group. Of equal concern is the prevalence of obesity in Native American children and adolescents, reported at almost 40%. This is attributed to a number
of factors, including the paradox described earlier and reduced activity in lifestyles. Life expectancy has increased by ten years since 1955 for American Indians,
leading to a rapid increase in the number of elders. Disappointingly, while senior citizens in the general population are faring better than preceding
generations with only 9.9% poverty, Native American seniors are experiencing 23.5% poverty. The incidence of food insecurity and hunger
may be even more prevalent among the elders as they are often left to raise their grandchildren, resulting in their doing without as they struggle to make sure
the children are fed. The American Indian population has among the highest rates of obesity, as high as 80% and 67% for women and men,
respectively, for example in Arizona. A study in Menominee County, Wisconsin, indicated that 40% of Native American youths age 5-13 years, lack a healthy diet and
physical activity, and poverty increases the likelihood that these children will have a five times greater risk of diabetes, along with heart
disease, high blood pressure, and adult obesity. It seems that parents are not necessarily making the connection between childhood obesity and the high
health risks later in life. Nutrition and food assistance programs can assist Native American communities in addressing some of these
4
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
CONTINUES—NO TEXT DELETED
5
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON 1AC
devastating diseases. Health promotion and disease prevention is key—gratefully, many of USDA programs are targeted toward this end. I would contend,
however, that guidance on proper selection and preparation of foods is every bit as important as just making food available. Education and empowering caretakers with
the ability to make healthy food choices is critical if Indian youth are to achieve the successes available to non-Indian population. Although Food Stamp benefits have
increased the total dollars spent on food in households, the rate of obesity has increased as well – again, an education challenge. If participants purchase higher priced
but healthier foods that were previously out of reach, programs could have a positive effect on weight. Data indicates, however, that Food Stamp recipients
do not necessarily tend to purchase more fruits, vegetables and grains, quite possibly because they still fear that possible shortfall at some
point each month. Nutrition education must accompany food benefits in every food delivery venue. The Food Distribution Program on Indian
Reservations is summarized as follows: Just fewer than 100 tribes administer the FDPIR for over 250 reservations/tribal jurisdictions. In 2006, $79.5 million was
appropriated for the FDPIR to serve approximately 90,000 people per month. The program has been enhanced in recent years through the addition of
fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as, frozen chicken and ground beef. We need to continue to improve the nutritional quality of the food
package by offering foods with lower fat content, higher whole grain content and lower sugar and sodium content. Foods that are convenient to serve and culturally
appropriate are key with many families we serve today. In our area, because we have very few reservations, eligible Native American families can access either the
Food Stamp Program or the FDPIR at their convenience as long as they are only enrolled in one program at a time. We serve our clients in a friendly and attractive
grocery store setting, for which we were recognized with the 2000 USDA Pyramid of Excellence Award. We feel strongly that families should be served with dignity
and respect and thus, continue to expand the availability of FDP grocery stores across our 13-county area. We constantly offer education to make customers aware of
the enhanced value of participating in the FDPIR, including more total volume of food (80 lbs/person/month) and maximum nutrient benefit of food choices, i.e. fresh
produce rather than canned, heart healthy substitutions. Many FDPIR programs continue to deliver food benefits from a truck one day per month at each site and
do not have adequate equipment to handle fresh produce or frozen meats and therefore, cannot make them available to their clients.
Infrastructure funding for one-time renovations to create a grocery store setting, expand a warehouse or purchase equipment would
help this program tremendously. I am only aware of one year in the past decade that such funds were available.
WE MUST CHALLENGE THE UNEVEN DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD AT ANY COST

—OUTWEIGHS ANY POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGE
WATSON 77
(Richard, Professor of Philosophy at Washington University, World Hunger and Moral Obligation, p. 118-119)
These arguments are morally spurious. That food sufficient for well-nourished survival is the equal right of every human individual or nation is a specification of the
higher principle that everyone has equal right to the necessities of life. The moral stress of the principle of equity is primarily on equal sharing, and only secondarily on
what is being shared. The higher moral principle is of human equity per se. Consequently, the moral action is to distribute all food equally, whatever
the consequences. This is the hard line apparently drawn by such moralists as Immanuel Kant and Noam Chomsky—but then, morality is hard. The
conclusion may be unreasonable (impractical and irrational in conventional terms), but it is obviously moral. Nor should anyone purport surprise; it
has always been understood that the claims of morality—if taken seriously—supersede those of conflicting reason. One may even have to
sacrifice one’s life or one’s nation to be moral in situations where practical behavior would preserve it. For example, if a prisoner of war
undergoing torture is to be a (perhaps dead) patriot even when reason tells him that collaboration will hurt no one, he remains silent. Similarly, if one is to be moral,
one distributes available food in equal shares (even if everyone then dies). That an action is necessary to save one’s life is no excuse for behaving
unpatriotically or immorally if one wishes to be a patriot or moral. No principle of morality absolves one of behaving immorally simply to save one’s life or nation.
There is a strict analogy here between adhering to moral principles for the sake of being moral, and adhering to Christian principles for the sake of being Christian.
The moral world contains pits and lions, but one looks always to the highest light. The ultimate test always harks to the highest principle—
recant or die—and it is pathetic to profess morality if one quits when the going gets rough. I have put aside many questions of detail—
such as the mechanical problems of distributing food—because detail does not alter the stark conclusion. If every human life is equal
in value, then the equal distribution of the necessities of life is an extremely high, if not the highest, moral duty. It is at least high enough to
override the excuse that by doing it one would lose one’s life. But many people cannot accept the view that one must distribute equally even in f the nation
collapses or all people die. If everyone dies, then there will be no realm of morality. Practically speaking, sheer survival comes first. One can adhere to
the principle of equity only if one exists. So it is rational to suppose that the principle of survival is morally higher than the principle of equity.
And though one might not be able to argue for unequal distribution of food to save a nation—for nations can come and go—one might well argue that unequal
distribution is necessary for the survival of the human species. That is, some large group—say one-third of present world population—should be at least well-nourished
for human survival. However, from an individual standpoint, the human species—like the nation—is of no moral relevance. From a naturalistic
standpoint, survival does come first; from a moralistic standpoint—as indicated above—survival may have to be sacrificed. In the milieu of
morality, it is immaterial whether or not the human species survives as a result of individual behavior.
6
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON 1AC
SCENARIO TWO—CULTURE
REFUSAL TO PURCHASE BISON FROM INDIAN PRODUCERS UNDERMINES
TRIBAL CULTURE—THIS ACT SPILLS OVER TO CRUSH TRIBAL AUTONOMY
AS A WHOLE
LULKA 2006
(David, San Diego State University, Great Plains Research, Spring, http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1804&context=greatplainsresearch)
In many respects, the inclusion of bison products within the FDPIR was a watershed event in that it incorporated a central feature of premodern
tribal life within a modernday governmental regime. Yet the overall importance of this reconfiguration is uncertain, as familiar relations of
power have come into play. Accordingly, this paper examines the process by which bison meat came to be included within the FDPIR and the lingering structural
problems that still affect the program. Clearly, the struggle to include bison within the FDPIR reflects broader attempts to regain tribal
autonomy, sovereignty, or control. Thus, the program is a microcosm of larger battles that seek to rearticulate the place of tribal life
within the American landscape. Yet, as this paper suggests, the organizational structure of this new food chain reaffirms the modern
relations of dependence that emerged after colonization. The purchasing decisions of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are
particularly important in this regard. As the following illustrates, the source of the bison products redistributed through the FDPIR
frequently undercuts tribal objectives in critical ways. Present structural arrangements not only limit the potential economic benefits
that tribes may accrue from the program, but also undermine some of the philosophical beliefs and priorities held by many tribal
members. In the following section, some general distinctions are made between tribal communities and the emerging bison industry in order to establish the context
within which the FDPIR operates. The distinction between tribal and non tribal communities is central to understanding the paradoxical
nature of the FDPIR, as these respective communities each embody different priorities and principles. After this dichotomy has been sketched
out, a more precise description of the factors that led to the specific inclusion of bison in the FDPIR is presented. The political aspects that directed this process are
given special attention, as they indicate how these diverse competing interests ultimately impacted the structure of this new food and agriculture system. In the final
section, geographic aspects of the program are accentuated. More specifically, the broad scope of interest in bison products among tribal communities
is contrasted with the relatively narrow source of animals that are purchased by the USDA to supply this demand. This geographic
discrepancy is used as one means of explaining a fundamental problem that has not yet been resolved by administrators of the program.
INDIAN CULTURE IS KEY TO ALL CULTURES—POLICIES IMPLEMENTED FOR

INDIANS ARE MODELED THROUGHOUT SOCIETY
CHURCHILL 1997
(Ward, Professor of Ethnic Studies at University of Colorado at Boulder, A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the
Americas, 1492 to the present, p. 340)
Felix Cohen, widely considered to have been the leading authority on federal Indian law, once likened the function of indigenous
peoples in the United States to that of a miner’s canary. As the bird did for the miner, he wrote, Indians have been made to serve as an
early warning device of impending danger for the dominant society. By using native people essentially as guinea pigs for experiments
in socioeconomic and political engineering, federal policymakers have been able to assess the relative degrees of efficacy and
consequence attending implementation of their ideas. Based upon these results, the government can “tune” its programs, enhancing
effectiveness and reducing at least the appearance of likely costs to acceptable levels before exporting them to the broader U.S.
society. In some cases, where the effects of policies have been found to be unexpectedly unredeeming or counterproductive when
applied to Indians, programmatic export has been avoided altogether, thereby sparing mainstream America the pain of experiencing
such things for itself.
7
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON 1AC
SURVIVAL AND RESTORATION OF TRIBAL CULTURE ARE KEY TO PREVENT
HUMAN EXTINCTION—THIS IMPACT SOLVES ALL OTHERS
WEATHERFORD 1994
(Jack, Anthropologist, Savages and Civilization: Who Will Survive?, pp. 287-291)
Today we have no local and regional civilizations. The world now stands united in a single, global civilization. Collapse in one part could
trigger a chain reaction that may well sweep away cities across the globe. Will the fate of Yaxchilán be the fate of all cities, of all civilization? Are they
doomed to rise, flourish, and then fall back into the earth from which they came? Whether we take an optimistic view or a pessimistic one, it seems clear that we stand now at the
conclusion of a great age of human history. This ten-thousand-year episode seems to be coming to an end, winding down. For now, it appears that civilization has won out
over all other ways of life. Civilized people have defeated the tribal people of the world who have been killed or scattered. But just at the moment when victory
seems in the air for civilization, just at the moment when it has defeated all external foes and made itself master of the world, without any competing system to rival it, civilization
seems to be in worse danger than ever before. No longer in fear of enemies from outside, civilization seems more vulnerable than ever to enemies from within. It has
become a victim of its own success. In its quest for dominance, civilization chewed up the forest, leeched the soil, stripped the plains, clogged
the rivers, mined the mountains, polluted the oceans, and fouled the air. In the process of progress, civilization destroyed one species
of plant and animal after another. Propelled by the gospel of agriculture, civilization moved forcefully across the globe, but it soon
began to die of exhaustion, leaving millions of humans to starve. Some of the oldest places in the agricultural world became some of the first to collapse. Just as
it seems to have completed its victory over tribal people, the nation-state has begun to dissolve. Breaking apart into ethnic chunks and cultural
enclaves, the number of states has multiplied in the twentieth century to the point that the concept of a nation-state itself starts to deteriorate. The nation-state absorbed the remaining tribal
people but has proven incapable of incorporating them fully into the national society as equal members. The state swallowed them up but could not digest them. The state could destroy the old
languages and cultures, and it easily divided and even relocated whole nations. But the state proved far less effective at incorporating the detribalized people into the new national culture.
Even though the state expanded across the frontier, it could not make the frontier disappear. The frontier moved into the urban areas with the detribalized masses of defeated nations,
emancipated slaves, and exploited laborers. After ten thousand years of struggle, humans may have been left with a Pyrrhic victory whose cost may be much greater than its benefits. Now that
the victory has been won, we stoop under the burdensome costs and damages to a world that we may not be able to heal or repair. Unable to cope with the rapidly changing natural, social, and
cultural environment that civilization made, we see the collapse of the social institutions of the city and the state that brought us this far. The cities and institutions of civilization have now
become social dinosaurs. Even though we may look back with pride over the last ten thousand years of evolution and cite the massive number of humans and the ability of human society and
the city to feed and care for all of them, one
major fluctuation in the world might easily end all of that. The civilization we have built stretches
like a delicate and fragile membrane on this Earth. It will not require anything as dramatic as a collision with a giant asteroid to
destroy civilization. Civilization seems perfectly capable of creating its own Armageddon. During the twentieth century, civilization
experience a number of major scares, a series of warning shots. Civilization proved capable of waging world war on itself. Toward
that end, we developed nuclear energy and came close to provoking a nuclear holocaust, and we may well do so yet. When we survived
World War I, then World War II, and finally the nuclear threat of the Cold War, we felt safe. When catastrophe did not follow the warning, we felt relief, as though the danger had passed, but
danger still approaches us. Civilization experienced several “super plagues” ranging from the devastating world influenza epidemic
early in the century to AIDS at the close of the century. These may be only weak harbingers of the epidemics and plagues to come.
Even as life expectancy in most countries has continued to climb throughout the twentieth century, diseases from cancer to syphilis have grown stronger
and more deadly. If war or new plagues do not bring down civilization, it might easily collapse as a result of environmental
degradation and the disruption of productive agricultural lands. If the great collapse comes, it might well come from something that
we do not yet suspect. Perhaps war, disease, famine, and environmental degradation will be only parts of the process and not the
causes. Today all of us are unquestionably part of a global society, but that common membership does not produce cultural
uniformity around the globe. The challenge now facing us is to live in harmony without living in uniformity, to be united by some forces such as worldwide
commerce, pop culture, and communications, but to remain peacefully different in other areas such as religion and ethnicity. We need to share some values such as a commitment to
We need to find
fundamental human rights and basic rules of interaction, but we can be wildly different in other areas such as life-styles, spirituality, musical tastes, and community life.
a way for all of us to walk in two worlds at once, to be part of the world culture, without sacrificing the cultural heritage of our own
families and traditions. At the same time we need to find ways to allow other people to walk in two worlds, or perhaps even to walk in four or five worlds at once. We
cannot go backwards in history and change one hour or one moment, but we do have the power to change the present and thus alter the
future. The first step in that process should come by respecting the mutual right of all people to survive with dignity and to control
their own destinies without surrendering their cultures. The aborigines of Australia, the Tibetans of China, the Lacandon of Mexico, the Tuareg of Mali, the Aleuts of
Alaska, the Ainu of Japan, the Maori of New Zealand, the Aymara of Bolivia, and the millions of other ethnic groups around the world deserve the same human rights and cultural dignity as
suburbanites in Los Angeles, bureaucrats in London, bankers in Paris, reporters in Atlanta, marketing executives in Vancouver, artists in Berlin, surfers in Sydney, or industrialists in Tokyo. In
8
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON 1AC
recent centuries, Western civilization has played the leading role on the stage of human history. We should not mistake this one act for the whole drama of human history, nor should we
We must recognize the value of
assume that the present act is the final one just because it is before us at the moment. Much came before us, and much remains yet to be enacted.
all people not merely out of nostalgic sentiment for the oppressed or merely to keep them like exhibits in a nature park. We must recognize their rights and value
because we may need the combined knowledge of all cultures if we are to overcome the problems that now threaten to overwhelm us.
At first glance, the Aleuts who hunt seals on isolated islands in the Bering Sea may seem like unimportant actors on the world stage of
today, but their ancestors once played a vital role in human survival of the Ice Age. The Quechua woman sitting in the dusty market of Cochamba
may seem backward and insignificant, but her ancestors led the way into an agricultural revolution from which we still benefit. Because we do not know the
problems that lie ahead of us, we do not know which set of human skills or which cultural perspective we will need. The coming age
of human history threatens to be one of cultural conflicts between and within countries, conflicts that rip cities apart. If we continue
down the same path that we now tread, the problems visible today in Tibet or Mexico may seem trifling compared with the conflicts yet to
come. If we cannot change our course, then our civilization too may become as dead as the stones of Yaxchilán, and one day the
descendants of some alien civilization will stare at our ruined cities and wonder why we disappeared.
9
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON 1AC
SCENARIO THREE—REINTRODUCTION
CORPORATE BISON INTERESTS WILLALTER THE NATURE AND PERCEPTION
OF BISON AND FIGHT FOR REGULATION INSTEAD OF EXPANDING WILD
BISON HERDS—THIS WILL DESTROY THEIR CULTURAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIQUENESS AND UNDERMINE SUPPORT FOR WILD BISON
RESTORATION
LULKA 2008
(David Lulka, Dept of Geography, San Diego State University, Journal of Cultural Geography, February)
Thus, while certain prohibitions persist within the bison industry, such as those against the use of hormones, in many instances (including
the ones listed above) the economic emphasis has gained an upper hand within the bison industry by virtue of the industry's ability to
harness some cultural and material resources (e.g. wildness and palatability) and obscure others (e.g. feedlot production). Accordingly, it is inaccurate to
simply say that economic concerns have overridden other priorities, for in reality grades, standards and other diffuse conceptions about food and nature often operate in tandem with financial
considerations. Clearly, in some cases, economically-motivated decisions are a direct offshoot of narrow philosophical priorities, but in other cases these developments more accurately reflect
pragmatic responses to various contingencies. Nonetheless, in either instance, the
movement toward a growth-oriented industry is likely to intensify the
distinctions between economic and cultural practices. As these various disputes suggest, naturalistic representations of the bison industry are
entirely inadequate, for they embellish the cultural mythology of the animal without addressing the economic and material concerns
that influence the spatial, structural and ethical attributes of the industry. Non-economic factors clearly impact bison ranching
activities, but they are channeled in very precise ways to satisfy economic considerations. Those within the industry are much more aware of these
schisms than the general public, and at least a few producers are wary of the changes these divergent forces may bring. For instance, as one producer noted: My concern is that too many bison
producers seem to think they have to control their animals to achieve maximum economic production. In the process they usually break up their herd's social structure of order — the very
thing that enables bison to be self supportive by taking perfectively [sic] good care of themselves as they do in the wild. … The
unique survivability and long-term
economic advantage of bison and success of their caretakers will have been lost. Or, as another producer commented: "We somewhat fear that, in
the urge to produce more tender meat from larger & [sic] larger animals, producers may change the nature of bison." Thus, although the
iconographic and material qualities of the species prompted many ranchers to acquire bison in the first place, this does not ensure
these characteristics will hold into the future. Disenchantment within the bison industry is already evident. Yet whether this response will amount to a reaffirmation of
alternative techniques or simply isolation remains to be seen. Without a doubt, resistance to economic pressures and conventional modes of production are quite strong in some quarters. As one
producer, who owns more than 500 bison, stated: "We're very small, but we do it right, and I won't … I'll get rid of, I'll kill them all before I cheat." Nonetheless, current trends in the industry
point in other directions. Over time, these
divisions may significantly alter the identity of the industry, as growth-driven operations accumulate
greater weight in comparison to self-imposed forms of environmentally-embedded production. Outliers will certainly persist (as they do in other
conventional industries, including, for example, grass-fed production in the cattle industry), but these may eventually become detached from the identity and activities
of the industry, rendering them non-influential. By themselves, the internal dynamics of the industry suggest serious doubts about the prospect of
bison restoration, yet this situation becomes more complex when it potentially affects the status of bison in other domains. The survey respondents who
commented on the concept of the Buffalo Commons generally expressed negative opinions. One referred to the idea as 'Commonism.' In the
real space of public herds, the herd manager at Custer State Park acknowledged that he listens to the preferences of bison ranchers and
manages his herd accordingly in a manner that increases the demand from private ranchers at auction time. This includes the use of certain vaccinations. In both
of these cases, the priority of private concerns wins out over the potential benefits of a relatively unadulterated bison population on public
lands. However, the acrimony between public and private concerns is most clearly seen in the industry's attitude toward the bison of YNP. The bison of YNP have become
embroiled in a debate about their potential to transmit brucellosis to livestock in the region. Traditional livestock industries, such as the cattle industry, have
supported stringent management of the bison herd. The critical point to mention here is that the leadership of the NBA has also repeatedly called for, and supported, the
formulation and continuation of strict bison management policies in and around YNP. These views have been presented at annual conferences of the association and
in the association's publications. For example, in response to a proposal that called for the redistribution of test-negative Yellowstone bison[ 5] to tribal communities, the president of the NBA
at the time candidly stated that: To knowingly allow contact between these infected bison and privately owned livestock is totally irresponsible under any circumstances. Any real or even
perceived transmission of brucellosis from YNP bison to livestock or humans would initiate a cascade of events which in the end would result in irrefutable damage to the commercial bison
and livestock industries. (Flocchini and Collins 1995, p. 17) The perception of risk, as much as any real risk, is at issue. The association is concerned that the taint of
brucellosis will be transferred to private herds in the mind of the public. A few years later, another
10
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON 1AC
representative of the NBA summarized his statements at a Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee meeting by saying, "my comments were addressed
to the fact that there are no longer any private bison herds infected with brucellosis, and we feel that as long as Yellowstone has infected animals, there is a chance our
herds are at risk" (Hensel 1999, p. 27). As such, the association has come down on the side of livestock interests in the region who advocate
strict management of the Yellowstone herd. This is particularly important since YNP holds a privileged place in Americans
conception of nature and wilderness on the North American continent. Indeed, for many people who are not aware of the large number of bison
on private lands, bison are synonymous with YNP. That the integrity of the YNP bison herd (and the ideals it symbolizes) is important to the public is
suggested by the fact that the comment period for the draft environmental impact statement that outlined the proposed bison management policy "generated 67,520
documents from the public, which contained 212,249 individual comments" (NPS 2000b, p. i; see also Lavigne 2002). Many of these comments reiterated the interests
and concerns noted at the beginning of this article. Nonetheless, in recent years, as the YNP herd has rebounded once again from substantial reductions brought about
by these policies, the NBA has expressed similar opinions at conferences in preparation for further debate and conflict. By supporting this position, the NBA seeks
to draw a distinction between a culturally significant public herd and private herds. In the process, the potential ecological and cultural
significance of the 'wild' population is not commonly addressed in such statements, and the needs of private interests supercede those held
by many members of the public. This places the NBA in an odd situation, because members of the public have apparently contacted the association in order to
gain support to stop YNP's strict management practices. Many members of the public assume the NBA supports the rights of bison in YNP by virtue of their affiliation
with the animal. Yet this has proven to be incorrect, as the NBA clearly recognizes and reaffirms the distinction between public and private. More explicitly in regard to
bison conservation and restoration, the current executive director of the NBA delineated the role that the industry would play in this process in stating that: I think that
we are going to play a big role in building the breed but these would still be very exotic rare animals if it wasn't for the fact that people are eating them. And the more
people eat them, the more bison we're going to have out there. But you also, in raising animals for meat, you start looking at genetic traits for certain
things. You know, you want to have a broader backside here with more meat on it, okay. And so you're going to start breeding a different animal, so
therefore the fact that we still have these herds in Yellowstone and Custer State Park and everything like that, where they're just letting them run wild and breed, you
know, as nature would have, maintains really the heritage of the animal. So I see both of those as being important. The language used clearly draws a distinction
between private 'breeds' and the material characteristics of public herds. Although the industry is seen to have a role in the quantitative growth of the
species, any obligations to the historic characteristics of the species, the physical environment or prevailing cultural conceptions are
minimized. This is a cleavage of note, even if the people who commodify bison do not seek to inflict harm or damage upon the species.
Some analysts have advocated the commodification of wildlife (Freese 1988) as a means of conserving species, but it is unclear as to
whether it can work. Many species are commodified through hunting, which makes them distinct from the present case. The effort to commodify kangaroo meat
falls within this category (Thorne 1998). Joanen et al. (1997) suggest that the commodification of alligators in Louisiana has produced positive results, however this
case is different from the situation of bison since wild alligators are ubiquitous throughout the landscape and farmed alligators are raised primarily for their skins. The
latter fact mitigates against the perceived need to transform farmed animals, while the former provides a buffer against the excesses of production. The case of salmon
bears the closest similarity to events surrounding bison. Researchers have noted the difference between wild salmon and farmed salmon, whereby the substance and
nutritional characteristics of the latter is altered detrimentally (Ryan 2003; Hites et al. 2004). Ironically, both bison and salmon are totemic animals that
have cultural value for indigenous Americans and those more recently arrived on the continent. Importantly, the economic approach noted above
takes a narrow view that does not acknowledge the role of sociality in animals, and the influence it may have on the perpetuation of
true biodiversity (Mitman 2005). Altogether, these changes suggest that the agricultural context, however it is structured above land or below water, is
insufficient for restoration efforts even in the best of circumstances. More problematically, while research on salmon may inspire greater efforts to
conserve wild salmon, it is unclear if the effects of bison production stop at the ranch's edge given the industry's stand on YNP.
[NOTE: NBA = National Bison Association; YNP = Yellowstone National Park—Calum]
NOW IS THE KEY TIME TO INFLUENCE THE BISON MARKET—CHANGING

POLICIES NOW CAN ALTER THE DEBATE OVER BISON RESTORATION
LULKA 2008
Since bison ranching is a relatively new field of endeavor, questions remain concerning which perspectives and practices will become
magnified within the industry when it is compelled to respond to a series of economic, cultural and material factors. However, of particular importance
here is the effect these decisions have on the physical and behavioral attributes of bison, since these attributes stand at the heart of bison
restoration. That is, in what ways might the industry's practices, which are in part responsible for the quantitative resurgence of the
species, impinge upon the qualitative distinctiveness of the animal (e.g. its behavior and physical attributes)? Below, I attempt to show that there are
many different factors at work that 'mainstream' the bison industry, each of which may potentially transform the essence of the
industry, the animal, and therefore the credibility of bison restoration.
11
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON 1AC
BISON REINTRODUCTION IS KEY TO RESTORE PRAIRIE ECOSYSTEMS
KNAPP ET AL 1999
(Alan K. Knapp, John M. Blair, John M. Briggs, Scott L. Collins, David C. Hartnett, and Loretta C. Johnson are professors, and E.
Gene Towne is a research associate, in the Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506. Collins is also an
adjunct professor with the Department of Zoology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, and a program director in the
Division of Environmental Biology, National Science Foundation, BioScience, January)
Despite less than a decade of research at Konza Prairie on bison– tallgrass prairie interactions, the keystone role that bison must have
historically played in this grassland is clear. Moreover, much as fire is now recognized as an essential component of tallgrass prairie
management (because without fire this grassland disappears), the need for reintroducing the forces of large ungulate herbivory to this
grassland is evident. Indeed, it is the interaction of ungulate grazing activities and fire, operating in a shifting mosaic across the
landscape, that is key to conserving and restoring the biotic integrity of the remaining tracts of tallgrass prairie. Before bison were
reintroduced to Konza Prairie, Knapp and Seastedt (1986) speculated that bison grazing and fire could act in similar ways by reducing
the accumulation of detritus in this system. It is primarily the blanketing effect of the accumulation of dead plant material above
ground that limits productivity in undisturbed tallgrass prairie. Like fire, bison grazing reduces aboveground standing dead biomass.
But it is now clear that the unique spatial and temporal complexities of bison grazing activities (Figure 5) are critical to the successful
maintenance of biotic diversity in this grassland. This grazing-induced heterogeneity contrasts sharply with the spatial homogeneity
induced by fire in an ungrazed landscape (Figure 6).
PRAIRIES ARE KEY TO OVERALL BIODIVERSITY

WWF 2005
(World Wildlife Fund, “Agriculture and Environment: Wheat,” Nov 13,
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/policy/agriculture_environment/commodities/wheat/environmental_impacts/habitat_c
onversion/index.cfm)
While globally grasslands and savannas are not as biodiverse as many other terrestrial ecoregions, they are nonetheless unique.
Furthermore, they provide essential ecosystem services (e.g., overall water retention and runoff and carbon sequestration) that
biodiversity in other regions depend upon.
12
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON 1AC
BIODIVERSITY IS KEY TO CHECK EXTINCTION
WATSON 2006
(Captain Paul, Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, has a show on Animal Planet, Last Mod 9-17,
http://www.eco-action.org/dt/beerswil.html)
The facts are clear. More plant and animal species will go through extinction within our generation than have been lost thorough natural
causes over the past two hundred million years. Our single human generation, that is, all people born between 1930 and 2010 will witness the complete
obliteration of one third to one half of all the Earth's life forms, each and every one of them the product of more than two billion years of evolution. This is
biological meltdown, and what this really means is the end to vertebrate evolution on planet Earth. Nature is under siege on a global scale. Biotopes,
i.e., environmentally distinct regions, from tropical and temperate rainforests to coral reefs and coastal estuaries, are disintegrating in the wake of human onslaught. The destruction of forests
and the proliferation of human activity will remove more than 20 percent of all terrestrial plant species over the next fifty years. Because
plants form the foundation for
entire biotic communities, their demise will carry with it the extinction of an exponentially greater number of animal species --
perhaps ten times as many faunal species for each type of plant eliminated. Sixty-five million years ago, a natural cataclysmic event resulted in
extinction of the dinosaurs. Even with a plant foundation intact, it took more than 100,000 years for faunal biological diversity to re-establish itself. More importantly,
the resurrection of biological diversity assumes an intact zone of tropical forests to provide for new speciation after extinction. Today, the tropical rain forests are
disappearing more rapidly than any other bio-region, ensuring that after the age of humans, the Earth will remain a biological, if not a literal desert
for eons to come. The present course of civilization points to ecocide -- the death of nature. Like a run-a-way train, civilization is speeding along tracks
of our own manufacture towards the stone wall of extinction. The human passengers sitting comfortably in their seats, laughing, partying, and choosing to not look out the window.
Environmentalists are those perceptive few who have their faces pressed against the glass, watching the hurling bodies of plants and animals go screaming by. Environmental activists are those
even fewer people who are trying desperately to break into the fortified engine of greed that propels this destructive specicidal juggernaut. Others are desperately throwing out anchors in an
attempt to slow the monster down while all the while, the authorities, blind to their own impending destruction, are clubbing, shooting and jailing those who would save us all. SHORT
MEMORIES Civilized humans have for ten thousand years been marching across the face of the Earth leaving deserts in their footprints. Because we have such short memories, we forgot the
wonder and splendor of a virgin nature. We revise history and make it fit into our present perceptions. For instance, are you aware that only two thousand years ago, the coast of North Africa
was a mighty forest? The Phoenicians and the Carthaginians built powerful ships from the strong timbers of the region. Rome was a major exporter of timber to Europe. The temple of
Jerusalem was built with titanic cedar logs, one image of which adorns the flag of Lebanon today. Jesus Christ did not live in a desert, he was a man of the forest. The Sumerians were
renowned for clearing the forests of Mesopotamia for agriculture. But the destruction of the coastal swath of the North African forest stopped the rain from advancing into the interior. Without
the rain, the trees died and thus was born the mighty Sahara, sired by man and continued to grow southward at a rate of ten miles per year, advancing down the length of the continent of Africa.
And so will go Brazil. The precipitation off the Atlantic strikes the coastal rain forest and is absorbed and sent skyward again by the trees, falling further into the interior. Twelve times the
moisture falls and twelve times it is returned to the sky -- all the way to the Andes mountains. Destroy the coastal swath and desertify Amazonia -- it is as simple as that. Create a swath
anywhere between the coast and the mountains and the rains will be stopped. We did it before while relatively primitive. We learned nothing. We forgot. So too, have we forgotten that walrus
once mated and bred along the coast of Nova Scotia, that sixty million bison once roamed the North American plains. One hundred years ago, the white bear once roamed the forests of New
England and the Canadian Maritime provinces. Now it is called the polar bear because that is where it now makes its last stand. EXTINCTION IS DIFFICULT TO APPRECIATE Gone forever
are the European elephant, lion and tiger. The Labrador duck, gint auk, Carolina parakeet will never again grace this planet of ours. Lost for all time are the Atlantic grey whales, the Biscayan
right whales and the Stellar sea cow. Our children will never look upon the California condor in the wild or watch the Palos Verde blue butterfly dart from flower to flower. Extinction
is a
difficult concept to fully appreciate. What has been is no more and never shall be again. It would take another creation and billions of
years to recreate the passenger pigeon. It is the loss of billions of years of evolutionary programming. It is the destruction of beauty,
the obliteration of truth, the removal of uniqueness, the scarring of the sacred web of life To be responsible for an extinction is to commit
blasphemy against the divine. It is the greatest of all possible crimes, more evil than murder, more appalling than genocide, more monstrous
than even the apparent unlimited perversities of the human mind. To be responsible for the complete and utter destruction of a unique and sacred life form is
arrogance that seethes with evil, for the very opposite of evil is live. It is no accident that these two words spell out each other in reverse. And yet, a reporter in California recently told me that
"all the redwoods in California are not worth the life on one human being." What incredible arrogance. The rights a species, any species, must take precedence over the life of an individual or
another species. This is a basic ecological law. It is not to be tampered with by primates who have molded themselves into divine legends in their own mind. For each and every one of the
thirty million plus species that grace this beautiful planet are essential for the continued well-being of which we are all a part, the planet Earth -- the divine entity which brought us forth from
the fertility of her sacred womb. As a sea-captain I like to compare the structural integrity of the biosphere to that of a ship's hull. Each species is a rivet that keeps the hull intact. If I were to go
into my engine room and find my engineers busily popping rivets from the hull, I would be upset and naturally I would ask them what they were doing. If they told me that they discovered that
they could make a dollar each from the rivets, I could do one of three things. I could ignore them. I could ask them to cut me in for a share of the profits, or I could kick their asses out of the
engine room and off my ship. If I was a responsible captain, I would do the latter. If I did not, I would soon find the ocean pouring through the holes left by the stolen rivets and very shortly
after, my ship, my crew and myself would disappear beneath the waves. And that is the state of the world today. The political leaders, i.e., the captains at the helms of their nation states, are
ignoring the rivet poppers or they are cutting themselves in for the profits. There are very few asses being kicked out of the engine room of spaceship Earth. With
the rivet poppers in
command, it will not be long until the biospheric integrity of the Earth collapses under the weight of ecological strain and tides of
death come pouring in. And that will be the price of progress -- ecological collapse, the death of nature, and with it the horrendous and
mind numbing specter of massive human destruction.
13
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON 1AC
PLAN: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD EXPAND THE
FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS, INCLUDING
CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE FOODS PROCURED FROM INDIAN PRODUCERS
USING TRADITIONAL AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES.
14
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON 1AC
CONTENTION THREE—SOLVENCY
THE FDPIR IS CRITICAL TO DISTRIBUTE BISON TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES—
THIS DISTRIBUTION IS THE KEY ELEMENT IN PRESERVING NATIVE
LIFEWAYS
LULKA 2006
In many respects, what tribes

are trying to do is establish a "native food and agriculture system" (Dewees 2003). Theoretically, such systems not only
include the consumption of traditional foods but also employ the use of traditional production methods (or some approximation thereof).
Thus, a community'S ability to forge appropriate connections between sites of production and sites of consumption may have a
decisive impact upon a group's ability to institute such native food systems. In this regard, the method of distribution utilized by tribes
may be critical, as some distribution channels may be more capable of fulfilling these objectives. It is in this manner that the impact of
the FDPIR may be assessed. Tribes have developed several distinct distribution channels to disseminate bison meat within their
community. Many of these are deeply embedded within the life of the society. In most of these channels, tribes utilize meat from bison raised on their own
lands. Bison meat may be distributed during ceremonial events, such as powwows or Sun Dances. Bison may also be consumed during memorials for deceased family members. In some cases,
bison meat may be distributed through eldercare facilities and school programs. In each of these examples, the
circuit along which bison meat travels is interwoven
with the structure of the community. Indeed, the use of bison meat may reaffirm and refortify these social bonds. In addition to these systems,
some tribes distribute meat through newly created diabetes programs. These patterns of consumption illustrate the irreducibly social nature of food and diet. And while these tangible networks
emphasize the world of consumption, they are frequently matched by a distinct set of tribal production practices because they are still connected with (and indeed emanate from) herds in the
field. Although these food networks are mostly local in scale, on occasion they may be extended to encompass a number of distinct tribal communities. Bison, as one part of a diet, may
play a limited but important part in these systems. For example, one tribal manager stated: Actually, in order to get that bull from Lower Brule, what we did was we traded
them a thousand wildlife fingerlings for that bull. And they in turn took the wildlife fingerlings from us, traded them to Rosebud Sioux tribe for turkeys. So we took the fish down, dropped
them off at Rosebud. Rosebud took the turkeys, dropped them off at Lower Brule, and then on the way back from Rosebud, we went over to Lower Brule, picked up that bull buffalo. Networks
of this type tap into the emergent wildlife that has surrounded local communities for generations and become an integral part of their way of being. The word "native" takes on a more
fundamental meaning when applied to this biologically diverse community of species. The
downside of such food networks is that they can only service local, or
at best regional, communities. The infrastructure necessary for a broader reach is not in place. In contrast, the organizational structure of
the FDPIR enables foods to be distributed over large expanses and among many desiring communities. Recent data from the USDA
indicate the widespread interest in bison products among tribal communities (USDA 200312004). The FDPIR presently distributes bison meat in three forms:
frozen bison, ground buffalo, and bison stew. Upon the request of tribes, "buffalo" is distinguished from "bison" in order to designate products that
were acquired from tribal sources. The bison products are procured from animals raised for commercial production in feedlots.
CREATING DEMAND IS KEY—THIS ALLOWS TRIBES TO EXPAND THEIR

HERDS
CHADWICK 2006
(Douglas, wildlife biologist, Defenders Magazine, Fall,
http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/defenders_magazine/fall_2006/where_the_buffalo_now_roam.php)
The many advantages of raising bison must be weighed against the fact that the herds require tall, stout fences to hold them in. These fences are expensive, and even the strongest won't always
hold a big bull with wanderlust. Managers also need
to make the herd profitable to overcome resistance from those who think the land should be
grazed by cattle. Much as tribal members value ancient traditions, many have adopted ranching traditions as well. This is the 21st
century, and it seems that bison are going to have to pay their way into it. Bison-raising experienced a flurry of commercial popularity
during the 1970s and 1980s, when people could readily sell breeding stock to others chasing the next big thing. What was missing was a
steady demand from consumers, and the market soon flattened out. "People are used to fatty beef," Fox explains. "They also don't know how to cook buffalo. It has
to be roasted slowly at a lower temperature than beef. The meat dries out quickly because it's so lean."
15
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON 1AC
EXPANDING TRADITIONAL INDIAN BUFFALO HERDS SOLVES HEALTH,
CULTURE, AND BISON REINTRODUCTION
WEXLER 2000
(Max, Editor of National Wildlife, National Wildlife, Oct-Nov, http://www.questiaschool.com/read/5001101872?title=For%20Some
%20Native%20Americans%2C%20Bison%20Herds%20May%20Hold%20the%20Keys%20to%20a%20Brighter%20Future)
Similar courses are now offered at ten tribal colleges by the Northern Plains Bison Education Network, a group of American Indian educators from upper Great Plains
states where the burly animals once flourished. The schools represent a third of the nation's 31 accredited tribal colleges, which together serve nearly 30,000 students.
"We believe we can give these students the cultural and academic tools they need to make bison restoration successful on reservations,"
says network director Louis LaRose, a member of the Winnebago tribe in Nebraska. "In the process, we can also help restore the animals to parts of
their former range." Though bison once numbered 50 million or more on the Great Plains, today fewer than 300,000 of the animals survive in this country. Most
live on private ranches-including about 10,000 on Indian-owned lands- where they are raised to supply a $500-million-a-year industry in buffalo meat. "If we can
teach tribal members how to manage and take care of bison, we can help create jobs," says Trudy Ecoffey, who teaches the Tatanka course at Pine
Ridge. "We must find new ways to reduce poverty and unemployment on the reservations." According to the American Indian College Fund, about
85 percent of the students who attend tribal colleges live at or below the poverty level. In their classes, Ecoffey and the other instructors show students how to raise
bison using a free-range approach, in which the animals roam in pastures rather than live in cramped feedlots. The teachers also demonstrate techniques that combine
traditional tribal philosophies with modern breeding practices. "There are no textbooks on this, so we're developing our own materials and adding to them each
semester," says Elroy DuBray, an instructor at Sitting Bull College on the Standing Rock Reservation in South Dakota where about 4,000 bison range. The educators
work closely with the InterTribal Bison Cooperative, an organization founded by Native Americans in 1992 to assist in efforts to return bison to millions of
acres of Indian lands. In doing so, the 50 tribes in the cooperative also hope to improve some of the health problems that plague their members.
Native Americans reportedly have the highest incidence of diabetes of any people in the world. An estimated 35 percent of the residents on U.S. reservations are
afflicted with the disease. "The Winnebago tribe originally got into bison restoration because of this diabetes epidemic," says LaRose. "We figured out that traditional
native foods, particularly bison meat, would be better for diabetics." Nutritionists point out that such meat has less fat and cholresterol
than beef. For Indian educators like LaRose, however, the bison courses offer more than just potential solutions to health and poverty issues. They also provide
opportunities for tribal members to regain their lost cultural identities. "Traditionally," he observes, "the bison always took care of us.
Now it's our turn to help take care of them. They are a symbol of our strength and unity. In restoring their numbers, we can also
restore a healthy culture for ourselves."
INCREASED FUNDING IS KEY TO IMPROVE NUTRITION, DISTRIBUTION, AND

INTRODUCTION OF NATIVE FOODS
NCAI 2009
(National Congress of American Indians, “NCAI TESTIMONY TO HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
AGRICULTURE AND RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE ON FY 2009 APPROPRIATIONS,”
http://www.ncai.org/fileadmin/appropriations/Final_Ag_testimony_5pm.doc, p. 1)
Historically, food packages have included what remains of federal commodity programs, such as bleached flour, sugar, potatoes, corn,
and butter. The immediate and drastic shift from healthy subsistence and traditional foods to foods high in sugar, starch and fat created
a quiet epidemic across Indian reservations: diabetes and obesity. It is imperative that food assistance to Indian tribes be improved to
deliver better foods to improve human health for tribal members receiving foods from FDPIR. For decades the USDA’s answer to
Tribal requests for the inclusion of healthier and more traditional Native foods in the FDPIR food packages has been that the
program has insufficient funds. The FDPIR is a crucial program for Indian Tribes, and increased funding is needed to improve the
nutrition content of food packages and offset rising transportation and maintenance costs. The FDPIR budget includes the costs of
program administration by the Indian Tribal Organization (ITO) or state agency, food storage, food delivery, vehicle maintenance,
employee salaries, nutrition education as well as the purchase of foods for distribution. NCAI urges Congress to increase funding
to FDPIR above $90 million to support this essential program for Indian tribes.
16
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON 1AC
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE BISON—IT
SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR PAST VIOLENCE AGAINST INDIANS
LULKA 2006
Inasmuch as this portrayal is accurate, other strategies

that conform better to the nature of the program may be more successful. This likely
involves the use of a language that the administering agencies can understand. In the present case, the FNS, as part of the USDA, is
fundamentally concerned with matters relating to the health of program participants. Fortunately for tribes, the qualities of bison meat qualify
for consideration under this mandate. Moreover, the healthy characteristics of bison meat may be contrasted with the unhealthy
characteristics offood items now offered by FNS in order to convince federal authorities to restructure the FDPIR. Combined with the
health statistics on obesity and diabetes in tribal communities (acknowledged by the IHS in official documents), these arguments had the
potential power to realign relationships within the FDPIR if the connections between these variables were clearly drawn out. To this point, in articulating
the negative affect of historical relations upon the health of many tribal members and the options for remedying such problems, one ITBC representative commented:
It's all been attributed to diet, and even specifically to government-rationed diet. That goes back to the destruction of the buffalo and destruction of traditional food
sources. So, that's pretty well documented and understood throughout the medical and scientific community as well. But, you know, so we're just asking the
government to acknowledge the fact that, you know, all the documentation is there, that they pretty much put us in that situation, so they should
have a responsibility to help us back out of that situation by providing healthier food. So in the interim, as we're trying to build our herds
and develop some good sources of returning this [bison] as a staple food, you know, we don't see that it's unreasonable to suggest that
they try to provide this in some of the federal food programs. This statement directly links together distant historical events, modern
food programs, and bison, thereby creating a strong nexus with which to convince relevant actors to change existing policies. From this
perspective, obligations created by acts of the past are not forgotten until reparations are complete.
OUR EXAMINATION OF FEDERAL BISON POLICY IS CRUCIAL TO CREATE

TRANSPARENCY AND SHAPE THE DIRECTION OF DEBATES OVER BISON
LULKA 2008
The decades to come will determine if this relationship between production and consumption develops into a tightly wound vortex
reminiscent of conventional agricultural industries or develops new ways to retain multiple forms of economic, social, spatial and
environmental diversity. Bifurcations and divisions are already apparent within the industry, and the interplay of these forces will
probably affect the composition and structure of the industry for the foreseeable future. As a widely-recognized symbol of America, thematic
aspects of the species will almost certainly play a significant role in these negotiations, but such factors may slowly diminish in importance in the face of various
contingencies and narrowly defined priorities. This imagery can be deployed in many ways, but not always for the purpose of bison restoration as it is classically
understood. In the effort to forestall a crisis and create a mature industry, familiar processes have been set into play that will not only diminish the
impact of bison restoration as an agenda affecting human activities, but also reorganize the substance of non-humans (typically known as
domestication). As a consequence, aspects of the industry that are consistent with the objectives of bison restoration may eventually become
marginal to the core of the bison business. To better moderate this process, an explicit description of the costs and benefits of
development (as measured in terms of growth and diversity) should be presented to address the concerns of the wider public and maintain the
robust nature of the species. This does not resolve these problems directly, but imbues these agricultural developments with a degree
of transparency. This quality is important for it forms the foundation of well-informed democratic societies. In turn, this transparency
may foster change indirectly, as transparency forces the public to analyze and assess its role in these contentious developments.
17
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON INHERENCY
GOVERNMENT PURCHASING REGULATIONS BLOCK OUT INDIAN BUFFALO
SUPPLIERS
LULKA 2006
Subsequently, bison products have been purchased under different legislation, but the largest buyouts have come under the Section 32
program. Created during the Great Depression, Section 32 allows the government to purchase foods that are in oversupply in order to
stabilize prices. Through such mechanisms, bison were incorporated into an institutional framework, with all of its costs and benefits.
As in other contexts, institutionalization mandates a degree of conformity, even when it accommodates the participation of different
actors. In its connection with the FDPIR and bison, tribes have attempted to contend with this rigidity but have frequently been
unsuccessful in their attempts to further transform the program. Most obviously, the technical specifications outlined by the USDA
(regarding the composition of the final product and processing standards) tend to favor grain-based, conventional modes of
production. This set of requirements marginalizes not only tribal communities but also grassfed producers within the bison industry
itself.
STATUS QUO BARRIERS PREVENT TRIBAL BUFFALO FROM EFFECTIVE

INTEGRATION IN THE FDPIR
LULKA 2006
Altogether, the narrow economic emphasis of private ranchers, the specifications of the USDA, and the limited resources of many
tribal communities place tribes at a disadvantage within the FDPIR. Combined, these factors represent substantial barriers that hinder
the ability of tribes to create the program they envision.
BISON PURCHASES MUST BE APPROVED EVERY YEAR—THE PROGRAM IS

UNRELIABLE AND COULD BE CANCELLED AT ANY TIME
METRO SPIRIT 2007
(“Bison in a Can,” August 4, http://www.metrospirit.com/index.php?
ShowArticle_ID=11013107074654929&cat=1211101074307265)
In the language of the federal food distribution program, bison is a “bonus item.” A treat. “Every year we have to call Sen. Dorgan to
make a special appropriation,” says Gates. But Dorgan’s people have been busy lately, with the war. Tribal program officers have
asked, again, that the USDA make ground bison and bison stew meat — but not canned bison — permanent items of their food
package. There was no money for bison this year. There may not be next year, either. If that’s the case, then Augusta’s days as a
national bison cannery are over. And whatever’s left sitting on warehouse shelves in reservations across the country is the last canned
bison stew the tribes ever get. Like it or not.
18
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON INHERENCY
STATUS QUO BUFFALO PURCHASE IGNORES INDIAN CULTURAL DESIRES IN
FAVOR OF MASS PRODUCTION—PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS EXCLUDE
TRIBALLY-PRODUCED BISON
LULKA 2006
Presently, looking at the program from an administrative position, one that takes into account all of the actors involved in the
processing of bison, this disconnect has already occurred. Most of the bison procured by the USDA comes from non tribal sources that
utilize conventional agricultural practices, most notably grain feeding (USDA 2003). Data regarding the latest Section 32 buyout
illustrate this point (Table 3). The NABC was the company that won the largest number of contracts with the USDA. The cooperative
sold more than $5 million worth of bison meat to the USDA, accounting for 58% of all bison products purchased under the buyout.
Land of Oz Meats, which is a much smaller company, utilizes a similar approach. Together, these two businesses received 89% of the
government contracts. Ultimately, this is the crux of the problem. Despite the unification of bison and the FDPIR, the program does
not eliminate the persistent presence of philosophical divisions separating tribal and nontribal communities. Rather, the program may
perpetuate these divisions by disconnecting production from consumption. To be sure, the USDA has purchased some bison directly
from tribes, but the amount is much smaller than that purchased from nontribal entities. In order to resolve this problem, tribal
members have openly discussed ways to achieve greater access in the program. One option mentioned is to gain control of the means
of production. Presently, only one tribe owns a federally authorized slaughter facility. Tribal representatives believe that such a facility
would allow tribes to be more competitive in bidding for government contracts. It is unclear, however, to what extent (if at all) this
would allow tribes to circumvent some of the specifications outlined by the USDA. In either case, this process would likely draw
tribes further away from traditional relations with bison in the field. Overall, the present structural arrangement runs counter to the
concept of a native food and agriculture system, since it does not employ traditional methods (or an approximation thereof). Indeed, in
a very fundamental way, the dichotomy between production and consumption seems to mimic the modern relationship to food in
contemporary western societies. In such systems, food producers often attempt to shield the public from information regarding
methods of food production. For their part, consumers are complicit in the process to the degree that they ignore or actively avoid
information regarding the untidy or ethically questionable aspects of agricultural systems. In the case of bison, however, these
relations have important economic, cultural, and religious implications. Unfortunately, in the process of administering the program,
the USDA often treats tribal concerns as though they are obstacles to be overcome. This may be so because the connection between
production and consumption is not granted the weight it is accorded within a native food and agriculture system. Pragmatism is thus
allowed to trump cultural responsiveness.
STATUS QUO REGULATIONS FORCE TRIBES TO COMPROMISE BY

FOLLOWING USDA STANDARDS FOR BISON
LULKA 2006
The FDPIR forces tribes to make concessions in two general ways. First, the USDA specifications require tribes to manage and handle
their own animals in more precise ways that mimic domestication and may conflict with notions of wildness. There is no indication
these USDA requirements will change any time soon. Second, the program supports and legitimizes the conventional practices utilized
by nontribal bison producers in other locations despite the objections of tribal representatives.
19
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON MARKETS WEAK

TRIBAL BISON HERDS HAVE NO MARKET FOR BISON MEAT - STORES BUY
FROM COMMERCIAL PRODUCERS
SHOUSE 2005
(Ben, April 14, “Tribe's buffalo business tasting success”, Argus leader, The Associated Press State & Local Wire, lexis nexis)
DuBray, of the Intertribal Bison Cooperative, says it's possible money could overshadow the larger importance of buffalo. "If we can
keep the spiritual part intact, then the economic part will follow," he said. "If you lose that value of respect, and it just becomes a
commodity, and the only thing that makes a difference is to make a quick buck, then that respect goes down the tubes." But he said
that is not happening on Cheyenne River. In fact, as with other tribes rebuilding their herds, he said the presence of buffalo is helping
to revive cultural traditions such as songs, dances and crafts made using buffalo. On other South Dakota reservations, buffalo
managers are watching to see if their own programs could emulate Cheyenne River's. But finding startup money and markets for
bison meat are major obstacles. Leonard Two Eagle of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe's buffalo program says the tribe now sends 15 to 20
buffalo per year to Valentine, Neb. for slaughter but would like to do it on their reservation. "One of the things that I always have a
problem with here is we just don't have the funding to do that," he said. "It's just not a priority with the tribe." Ben Janis, director of
the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe wildlife program, said that tribe's plan to build a slaughterhouse are on indefinite hold. "There are
hardly any markets out there," he said. The tribe sells some buffalo sticks to tourists who travel the reservation, but has found few
other outside markets. Bison raised on reservations might have a special appeal to consumers, given the larger ranges they have to
roam and the respect the Lakota people have for the species. But in Sioux Falls, there appears to be nowhere to buy tribally raised
bison. Store managers say they get their meat mostly from South Dakota producers, none of them tribes. DuBray says there is
plenty of potential to expand herds and develop new markets. But it's at least as important to go slow and let tribes make their own
decisions, he said. "It's a matter of being in control of your own destiny. There is a lot to be said for that - doing things the way you
want them done instead of the way somebody else wants to see them done," he said. That also will help ensure the proper balance of
commerce and preserving the buffalo's return to Great Plains cultures and ecosystems. "There is a natural need for them to
complement each other, but how the tribe goes about that is up to each and every tribe."
FEDERAL FUNDING CUTS HAVE HURT THE MARKET FOR TRIBAL BISON
ASSOCIATED PRESS 2008

(January 21, “Tribal buffalo programs hurt by cuts in federal aid”, lexis nexis)
A reduction in federal funding has hindered efforts by American Indian tribes to develop their buffalo herds and provide meat for their
members, according to the executive director of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative in Rapid City. Jim Stone said the $1 million
federal grant that the cooperative will receive this year is down 75 percent five years ago. The InterTribal Bison Cooperative uses the
federal money to fund the development of buffalo herds by the organization's 57 members in 19 states. Stone said not all of the tribes
apply for grants each year. Often, the cooperative buys bison from the tribes, has the animals slaughtered and then gives the meat
back to the tribes for distribution to tribal members, he said. Last year, the bison cooperative distributed 80,000 pounds of meat to the
tribes, Stone said. The reduction in federal funding has caused significant cutbacks in those meat donations, he said.
20
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
INHERENCY—SLAUGHTER REGULATIONS
CURRENT BUFFALO PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS FORCE INDIANS TO
ASSIMILATE—THE USDA WON’T PURCHASE BUFFALO KILLED BY
TRADITIONAL METHODS
LULKA 2008
(David, Department of Geography, San Diego State University, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Vol 21, Iss 3)
Yet, at least in the case of bison, this transition to a native food system is fraught with difficulties. For example, the Food Distribution
Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), which is the main mechanism for acquiring and distributing bison products to tribal
communities, requires bison to be processed through conventional means (Lulka 2006). Thus, while the networks of the FDPIR re-
establish the connection between tribes and bison, they frequently do not re-establish traditional food production methods and the
ethics they implicitly affirm. Many tribal communities prefer to kill their bison in the field, as this process reduces the amount of stress
on the animal, accounts for the spiritual aspects of the species, and conforms to the ideal of wildness. Nonetheless, while this practice
may be workable for the distribution of meat within a particular tribe, it does not meet the standards of federal food programs (even
when this meat is only sent to other tribes). How tribes attempt to resolve this dilemma (among others) offers insights into their ethical
criteria and the concessions that are made. One tribe, for instance, purchased a mobile slaughter facility that allowed them to kill bison
in the field and process them shortly thereafter. However, for various reasons, this facility does not meet the requirements of the
USDA.While the ethics of place within the food chain is clearly exemplified in these tribal practices, networks may force some type of
ethical adjustment as tribal communities attempt to re-position themselves and their needs within American society.
21
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
INHERENCY—MAINSTREAM AG
DESPITE INCREASING BUFFALO PURCHASE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
STILL FAVORS MAINSTREAM AGRICULTURE AND NON-TRIBAL PRODUCERS
LULKA 2008
The decision-making process is more complicated than this, however. Much of the bison meat purchased by the FDPIR is acquired
from non-tribal sources and produced in accordance with conventional agricultural practices. As such, the FDPIR has created a
conundrum of sorts. While it has allocated more funds for the purchase of bison meat for tribal communities (and thus addressed
cultural and health concerns), it also supports forms of agricultural production and processing that conflict with the ethical standards
of many tribal members. Among other practices, bison procured for the FDPIR are usually grain-fed. These bison are frequently
placed in feedlots for a period of time before they are sent to slaughter. Thus, according to one government employee, for these and
other reasons, decisions regarding the acquisition of bison are particularly contentious among the panoply of food commodity
programs. Tribal representatives have objected to several aspects of the food program, but, as of now, this impasse has not been
resolved.
22
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
TRIBAL BISON SOLVES CULTURE

BUFFALO PRODUCED FROM TRIBAL SOURCES IS CRITICAL TO CULTURAL
INTEGRITY—STATUS QUO BISON PRODUCTION IGNORES TRADITIONAL
METHODS
LULKA 2006
The number of tribal herds grew considerably after the formation of the ITBC. The ITBC is headquartered in Rapid City, SD, but has included as
many as 51 tribes distributed throughout the western half of the United States. Most, but not all, of the member tribes have their own bison. Unlike the NABC, the
ITBC is not an economic entity per se. Rather, in addition to promoting the economic welfare of tribal communities, the ITBC also
addresses matters related to cultural preservation and health issues (ITBC 1994; Torbit and LaRose 2001). Due to this diversified set of interests, the
goals of the ITBC do not always align with the goals of the NABC. Indeed, deep philosophical divisions distinguish these figurehead organizations. Thus, while these
organizations parallel each other, it is more accurate to say that they are running on opposite tracks. Consequently, in the process of developing
their herds, divergent economies emerged, reflecting different historical traditions and different priorities in the contemporary world. In
actuality, the nature of activities on private ranches and tribal lands is too complex to adequately summarize here. For instance, contrary to many expectations, some
private ranchers manage their bison in a hands-off manner that is more naturalistic than practices employed by some tribes. Nonetheless, a few general points can be
mentioned in order to draw out distinctions between tribal and nontribal herds. In terms of management approach, conventional agricultural practices, such as
weaning and the implementation of skewed sex ratios, are more widely accepted in the bison industry. Perhaps the most central discrepancy, however, is the
prevailing attitude toward the use of grain in the management, handling, and production of bison. Grain feeding has proliferated within the bison industry during
the last few decades in response to economic and cultural pressures. Although grass-fed production still exists within the industry, the prominent meat wholesalers who
sell the majority of bison meat within the United States (such as the NABC) now incorporate grain into their production process. The demands of the
marketplace only reinforce this trend, as American consumers expect their food to look and taste in a way that only grain feeding can
produce. Due to such factors, the number of feedlots used to control the movement of bison during the final phase of production has increased. Conversely, the
majority of bison meat procured from tribal bison is consumed by the tribes themselves, and thus is not subject to such market forces.
In addition, this internal pattern of consumption is imbued with normative values that constrain the form that management regimes
take. Individual tribes express these concerns in different terms, but commonalities clearly exist. The profile statements of individual tribes in the first
annual report of the ITBC indicate the character of these perspectives in the contemporary world. For example, the profile for the Northern Arapaho stated that "When Native Americans lost
their prairies full of bison they not only lost their primary source of subsistence, they lost the focus of their culture and their religion" (ITBC 1994, 18). For the Lower Brule Sioux, it was noted
that Since time immemorial the Kul Wicasa Lakota have believed that they are related to the buffalo. It is told that at one time the People were living in a world underground, and that at a
certain point in the Black Hills, known as Wind Cave, the Kul Wicasa Lakota emerged from the earth. It is also told that while the People lived underground they were buffalo people, and that
only as they emerged from Mother Earth did they take their human form. (ITBC 1994, 15) For others, the sustenance provided by bison explained the nature of ethical obligations, exemplified
by the Oglala Sioux statement that "The Oglala people are very proud to be taking care of the buffalo today, as their ancestors were taken care of by the buffalo long ago. The buffalo are
Wakan or Holy and deserve great respect" (ITBC 1994,20). In large part, for each tribe this involved the creation of a religion or ethic that recognized the relations that surrounded them. As
Harrod (2000, 43) has noted, It is important to emphasize that these traditions
made the point that what it means to be a human being required that one
assume an appropriate relation with the other-than-human powers of the world, including the animals. Indeed, some traditions seemed
to suggest that what it meant to be human was fundamentally intertwined with a relation to particular places and specific animals. The
symbolic meanings evoked by these traditions constituted a sacred ecology that infused the everyday world with a dense and complex
horizon of associations. Because of its spatial implications, this realization explains local variations among tribes in the Great Plains as well as the more general
distinctiveness of Plains communities. It also explains why tribes in other regions do not share this bond with bison, and why others, who have been dislocated or
disrupted, must work to regain this association. Accordingly, in one instance it was noted that "Little is known about the significance of bison to Southern Ute People"
(lTBC 1994, 29). In such cases, pantribal notions of the species' importance must be drawn upon. Thus, for many tribes the conventional
management practices noted above are unacceptable because they conflict with cultural and religious traditions. Feedlots in particular violate
notions of wildness and autonomy because they enclose bison within small spaces. As such, they do not show proper respect for the animal that sustained numerous tribes for many generations.
In line with these views, an ITBC representative noted: One thing we try to strongly discourage is not confining them to real small areas and treating them more like livestock, and allowing
them to maintain their own integrity as buffalo and respect that and not put them into like a feedlot situation, start feeding them artificial kinds of things that tend to turn them into something
and destroy them from within. From this perspective, what is good (or acceptable) for livestock is not suitable for bison. As one tribal herd manager commented, I tell our people, or I tell the
people around me, if you want a good Black Angus steak, I'll give you one, but I'm not going to take the buffalo and feed him like a Black Angus, and feedlot him. Because I think that should
be the way that these animals were meant to be. They were meant to be grass fed and healthy because now you've taken that animal and you've changed it. The shared history of tribes and
bison (before and after Euro-American settlement) is likely the cause of some of these underlying sentiments (Garibaldi and Turner 2004).
23
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
TRIBAL BISON SOLVES CULTURE

TRIBAL BISON IS KEY—COMMERCIAL RANCHING VIOLATES CULTURAL
CONCEPTS ABOUT THE ANIMALS
INDIAN COUNTRY TODAY (LAKOTA TIMES) 2003
[“Tribes work toward a bison economy”, 11/19/03, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-89108743.html]
There's buffalo, and there's buffalo. Bison actually, but the differentiating factors are whether or not it's grass-fed treated with
dignity or feedlot force fed and treated like a commodity.
The feud between the two philosophies means the public is either being duped or by lack of education, getting a product that is beef in
a buffalo robe. Tribal bison ranchers and tribes themselves are working hard in an effort to bring back the healthy product that kept so
many people alive for hundreds of years to not only provide food for tribal members, but to
create an economy. There is a cavernous gap between the bison ranchers who view the animal as
an essential part of the ecosystem while providing valuable health benefits to consumers and those who exploit the bison and the
market strictly for profit. Tribal bison managers and bison ranchers gathered on the Pine Ridge Reservation to discuss marketing
and range management. Oglala Lakota College, acted as the host of the meeting. OLC has incorporated a bison study program into its
curriculum in conjunction with Little Priest Tribal College on the Winnebago Reservation in Nebraska. The study at OLC of 50 to 60
head of bison is to determine traffic patterns, social structure and other behaviors. Other studies between the colleges will include bone
density and biological information, according to Dr. Kim Winkelman, vice president of Oglala Lakota College. "We combine
medicine and oral traditions and think holistically about the bison. Through science and understanding of the Lakota perspective on
science we are validating our oral traditions," Winkelman said. He said that what observers and scientists are now learning is what
American Indians have known for centuries. As producers and ranchers observe the bison, more is learned about their behavior that
can be incorporated into the management of the animal. Or as Jimmy Sam, director of the Oglala Parks and Recreation Authority on
the Pine Ridge Reservation said, "We don't actually manage the bison. They manage themselves."
24
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
TRIBAL BISON SOLVES HEALTH

TRIBALLY-PRODUCED BISON IS HEALTHIER
LULKA 2006
Yet material factors also come into play. Indeed, for some tribal representatives, conventional practices negatively affect the quality of
animals raised on private lands. For example, another tribal herd manager described the deficiencies of grain: Number one, you're
missing out on all of, all of the holistic plant. You know, I mean these buffalo eat these different plants, and they go into their system,
and they, they're, you know, it's in 'em. And when you go to grain feeding, all you're doing is actually building up fat. And with corn
and grain fed animals, if you'll look when you, when they butcher 'em, buffalo have about this much yellow fat on. But after a grain
fed animal, you'll see about another 1/4 or liz inch of the white fat. And, and that's not the cancer fighting jazz. In addition to the low
fat and low cholesterol content of bison meat, grass-fed bison retain omega oils that are believed to reduce one's susceptibility to other
diseases.
25
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
HEALTH ADVANTAGE
RELIANCE ON HIGH-FAT, HIGH-SUGAR COMMERCIALLY PROCESSED FOODS
IS UNDERMINING NATIVE AMERICAN HEALTH
HALPERN 2007
(Peggy Halpern, PhD, US Department of Health and Human Services, “Obesity and American Indians/Alaska Natives”, April 2007,
p.17, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/AI-AN-obesity/report.pdf)
The shift in Indian Country from traditional occupations such as hunting, gathering and farming to a cash economy occurred in the
early 1900’s and forced family members to leave home in search of paid employment (Michel, 2004). As a result, the amount of wild
and homegrown foods in the AI/AN diet has diminished, and a greater proportion of food is processed and commercially prepared, a
trend also seen among the whole U.S. population. Diets historically high in complex carbohydrate/high fiber foods have been replaced
by foods high in refined carbohydrates (e.g. refined sugars), fat, sodium, and low in fruits and vegetables (IHS, 2001). As a result of
these trends, the nutritional health of AI/AN children has changed dramatically over the past 30 years. While the prevention and
treatment of malnutrition was a major health issue until the mid to late 70’s, increased food availability and food assistance programs
and improved sanitation, transportation, and health care have reduced malnutrition as a major health issue. However, this trend has
been accompanied by a rapid increase in childhood obesity among the AI/ANs (Story et al, 1998). High rates of AI/AN poverty and
unemployment in the U.S. limit access to purchased sources of a healthy food supply and promote reliance on special federal
commodity programs for Indians (PRC, 2006). Today, many tribal members exist on a steady diet of government commodities
(Michel, 2004), and access to healthy food in isolated areas may be difficult due to only a few grocery stores and a limited selection in
these stores (Finegold, 2005). Furthermore, the recent proliferation of fast-food restaurants and convenience food stores on or near
reservations encourages the consumption of high-fat, high-sugar foods (Brossard et al, 1995; Sugarman et al, 1990)
26
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
HEALTH ADVANTAGE
HIGH-SUGAR, HIGH-FAT FOODS IN CURRENT FOOD PROGRAMS ARE
DAMAGING INDIANS’ HEALTH
SHARMA ET AL, 2007
(Sangita Sharma, Cancer Etiology Program, Cancer Research Center of Hawaii, University of Hawaii Xia Cao, Joel Gittelsohn, Jean
Anliker, Becky Ethelbah, and Benjamin Caballero, Dietary intake and a food-frequency instrument to evaluate a nutrition intervention
for the Apache in Arizona, April 4 2007, Public Health Nutrition: 10(9), p.952-3, http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=
%2FPHN%2FPHN10_09%2FS1368980007662302a.pdf&code=37d8e963b978b9f3bb451e4f5abcf862)
Although the sample size was small and the primary purpose of the dietary recalls was not to assess adequacy of nutrient intake, the
results of this study are similar to those of other studies of Native North American diet in that the diet is characterised by consumption
of many less nutrient-dense foods providing mainly fat and sugars. Similar results have been found in other American Indian
populations30. On the other hand, the frequent consumption of sugar-rich and high-fat foods and beverages observed for the Apache
was also found in other American Indian populations31. These data have highlighted the foods and nutrients of concern for
improvement in the intervention. Fruit and vegetable intakes were low and were only minor contributors to energy (data not
presented). The protective effect of fruit and vegetable consumption on risks of chronic diseases common to the American Indian
population (e.g. diabetes, heart disease, cancer) is well established. To address this concern, the Apache Health Stores programme
aimed at increasing consumption of these items. Many researchers have assessed the dietary intake of Southwestern American Indians.
Smith et al.32 undertook a survey of Pima Indians in Gila River Indian Community in Arizona using both 24-hour dietary recalls and
an FFQ. The FFQ yielded approximately 30% higher total energy results than the recalls, and the findings suggest that the FFQ may
be a more accurate method of estimating energy and nutrient intake of Pima Indians. Hence, there is a need to develop an FFQ to
assess the Apache diet more accurately. The diets of American Indian populations vary, and there is a need to develop dietary
assessment methodologies for these different groups. Vaughan et al.33 examined the dietary habits from one-time 24-hour dietary
recalls in Havasupai adults in Arizona and, while the five major food sources of energy in the Apache showed some overlap with the
Havasupai (e.g. sodas contributed 6.2% in the Apache compared with 5% in the Havasupai), some foods that contributed substantially
to energy intake in the Apache diet were not major contributors among the Havasupai (crisps and popcorn contributed 10.5% to
energy in the Apache, and fry bread contributed 7.9%; tortilla and burritos contributed 5.2%). The Havasupai researchers noted that
snack food consumption is low, but this is clearly a major contributor to the Apache diet. This again highlights differences in dietary
practices between the American Indian populations and emphasises the need for population-specific FFQs. Energy intakes were higher
in the Apache study population compared with the Pima Indians32 that also used the 24-hour dietary recalls (Apache men mean daily
energy intake 2461 kcal vs. Pima Indian men 2234 kcal, Apache women 1986 kcal vs. Pima Indian women 1813 kcal). The percentage
of energy provided by fat was lower for the Apache than the Pima Indians (30% for 952 S Sharma et al. Apache men vs. 34% for Pima
Indian men, and 32% for Apache women vs. 36% for Pima Indian women). However, the Apache had a greater percentage energy
provided by carbohydrate (Apache men 52% vs. Pima Indians men 48.7%; Apache women 55% vs. Pima Indian women 48.8%).
Vaughan et al.33 found results similar to those of the Pima Indians, with 35% of energy provided by fat and 48% from carbohydrate.
However, the mean daily energy intake of the men in their sample aged 18–59 years was almost identical to that of the Apache sample
(2462 kcal for Apache men vs. 2467 kcal for Havasupai men). Study mean daily energy results are very similar to those of
DeGonzague et al.34 using 24-hour dietary recalls to assess nutrient intake in two Ojibway communities
27
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
HEALTH ADVANTAGE
HIGH-FAT FOODS ARE CAUSING HIGH INDIAN OBESITY RATES
STORY ET AL, 1999
(Mary Story, Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Marguerite Evans, Richard R Fabsitz,
Theresa E Clay, Bonnie Holy Rock and Brenda Broussard, The epidemic of obesity in American Indian communities and the need for
childhood obesity-prevention programs, April 1999, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 69, No. 4, 747S-754S,
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/4/747S)
Developing obesity-prevention programs in American Indian communities presents numerous challenges. Poverty is pervasive in
many American Indian communities, and access to a lower-fat food supply is limited (10). The US Department of Agriculture food
distribution program provides high-fat commodity foods such as canned meats, cheese, butter, shortening, and oil to Indian
reservations. Although canned vegetables, fruit, fruit juices, and cereal and grain products are also provided, personal preferences and
preparation methods often result in diets that are too high in fat (76). The recent proliferation of fast-food restaurants and convenience-
food markets on and near reservation communities also encourages the consumption of high-fat foods (10). The lack of community
recreational or exercise facilities (eg, YMCAs, health clubs, and parks) and walking, jogging, or biking paths may discourage physical
activity. Clearly, the serious economic difficulties and geographic isolation create many challenges for health promotion efforts. Yet
we feel there are also many areas of strength on which to build health-behavior change programs, including communities of strong
extended family ties and community involvement; a traditional heritage of strength, wellness, and healthful native foods; cultural
values of sharing and family cohesion; and a high valuation of children.
THE FDPIR CAN BE EFFECTIVE BUT PROVIDES LOW QUALITY FOOD IN THE
STATUS QUO
LULKA 2008
In 1997 the federal government established the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). The FDPIR was created
in response to the failure of other federal food programs to meet the basic needs of tribal communities throughout the United States.
Previously, federal food programs had been designed with "mainstream" Americans in mind, and did not address the specificity of
tribal life. For example, tribal communities initially received federal assistance under the Needy Family Program, which was created during the Great
Depression of the 1930s. The magnitude of this economic upheaval permeated most segments of society, in part leading government administrators to adopt a utilitarian
approach that met the requirements of the popUlation at large. Unfortunately for tribes, however, these organizational decisions accelerated a transition in their dietary
habits. Above all, this meant that the commodities distributed through the program were food items typically consumed in Euro-American, rather than
tribal, cultures. That these foods were ill suited (or at least unfamiliar) to tribal communities was not deemed important enough to alter
the character of the program. Consequently, the diet of many tribes was dramatically changed, in effect substituting high-fat modern
diets for the traditional high-fiber, complex-carbohydrate diets of the past. In the years to come, one outcome of this program was a
substantial rise in obesity, diabetes, and heart disease within tribal communities (Indian Health Service 2001). High rates of
unemployment and poverty only exacerbated this problem. Due to high levels of economic dependence (which has persisted long after
the Great Depression ended), tribal members were particularly reliant upon such food sources for many years. In the 1960s the Food Stamp
Program was enacted and replaced the Needy Family Program. This new program allowed participants to select foods at retail establishments, but it proved problematic
for some communities because they were too distant from such retail locations. Accordingly, the FDPIR was subsequently created. Through the FDPIR, food
commodities are shipped directly to distribution centers in and around tribal reservations. Currently, tribal members may participate in the Food Stamp Program or the
FDPIR, but they may not participate in both at the same time. According to the Indian Health Service (2001), by 1999 an average of 129,466 tribal members received
food from the FDPIR each month. Although the FDPIR was specifically designed with tribes in mind, for many the program continues to fall
short in critical ways. As such, some tribal representatives continue their effort to mold the program into an ideal form that meets the
needs of tribal communities in more precise ways. To accomplish this goal, tribal representatives have lobbied government officials.
Legislators in the Great Plains have been particularly helpful, as they have felt pressure from many tribes within their respective
jurisdictions. By such political means, bison meat has been introduced as a food commodity within the program.
28
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
HEALTH IMPACT
OBESITY CAUSES DIABETES, HYPERTENTION, AND HEART DISEASE IN
INDIANS WHICH ARE THE LEADING CAUSES OF THEIR DEATHS - SCIENTIFIC
STUDIES PROVE
HALPERN 2007
Known obesity-related health risks for adults include increased likelihood of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and
problems with lipid levels (NRCCDH, 1989). These risks are higher for people with centralized body fat (e.g. abdominal fat) than for
people with peripheral body fat (Howard et al, 1995). Obesity also increases the risk of mortality for adults of all races from
gallbladder cancer, endometrial cancer in women and colorectal cancer in men (NRCCDH, 1989). The association of type 2 diabetes
with obesity in AI/AN populations is well known (Lee et al, 1995, Welty, 1991). For example, in the Strong Heart Study of AI/AN
adults, the rate of diabetes increased steadily with BMI in both sexes (Lee et al, 1995). During 1996-1998, the AI/AN age-adjusted
death rates for diabetes were 3.9 times the rate for U.S. all races (U.S. DHHS, 2005). Furthermore, diabetes rates have increased over
time. A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the IHS national outpatient database found nearly a 30 percent
increase in diabetes diagnoses among AI/AN populations between 1990-1997. The increase in prevalence was highest in Alaska where
it rose by 76 percent and lowest in the Northern Plains region where it rose by 16 percent (Burrows et al, 2000). It is estimated that
half of all type 2 diabetes is preventable by obesity control (McGinnis & Foege, 1993). Obesity is an independent risk factor for CVD
heart disease. In the Strong Heart Study of AI/ANs, the prevalence of CVD in AIs was significantly and independently related to
percentage of body fat as well as other factors (Howard et al, 1995). Obesity is also a risk factor for hypertension, and hypertension in
turn is a risk factor for CVD, coronary artery disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease. IHS reports in the latest Trends in Indian
Health report covering 1996-1998 (U.S. DHHS, 2005), that diseases of the heart are the leading cause of death for AI/ANs in several
age groups including 45-54, 55-64, and 65+ as well as for AI/ANs of all ages. However, CVD mortality rates and the prevalence of
CVD risk factors vary between AI tribes (Story et al,
1999).
AMERICAN INDIAN DIETS HAVE SHIFTED FROM TRADITIONAL TO

COMMERCIALLY PROCESSED FOOD - THIS CAUSES OBESITY AND A HOST OF
DEADLY DISEASES
Harper et al, 08 (Edward Harper, Rebecca Orbeta, Lisa Southworth, Karen Meade, Rosalind Cleveland, Sheldon Gordon, Michael
Buckley, Jay Hirschman, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, FDPIR Food
Package Nutritional Quality: Report to Congres, November 2008, p.4)
Over the past three decades, the prevalence of obesity in the American Indian and Alaska Native populations has increased sharply.18
Studies indicate that the problem of obesity begins early for American Indian and Alaska Native children; obesity also presents a significant problem for the adult
population.19 While this nutrition-related epidemic is not unique to this group, it presents substantial health related issues. Behavioral and lifestyle conditions as they
relate to diet and level of physical activity share a relationship to the development and extent of obesity.20 Within the U.S. population, there is a dietary trend
towards consuming a greater proportion of processed and commercially prepared food and fewer traditional and homegrown foods.
Historically, the American Indian diet was high in complex carbohydrates and low in fat. The diet of this population has shifted to one
that is low in fruits and vegetables and high in refined carbohydrates, fat, and sodium.21 22 Reservation-based studies have also found
that dietary fat intake ranges from 31 to 47 percent and is often above recommended levels.23 Further, the American Indian
population suffers adverse health effects from the increasing prevalence of obesity. Obesity is causally related to chronic diseases such
as diabetes, heart disease, stroke, arthritis, and breathing problems.24, 25 The health impact is also evident in part, in increased
mortality rates. There is evidence that demonstrates that following a diet that complies with the Dietary Guidelines may reduce the risk of chronic disease. It is
reported that dietary patterns consistent with recommended dietary guidance are associated with a lower risk of mortality among individuals age 45 years and older in
the United States
29
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
HUNGER SOLVENCY
EXPANDING FOOD PROGRAMS FOR INDIANS SOLVES MALNUTRITION AND
SAVES MONEY CURRENTLY SPENT ON HEALTH CARE
NEWPORT 2007
(Melinda, MS,RD/LD Director Nutrition Services for Chickasaw Nation, Hearing before the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry Committee, Jan 31, http://agriculture.senate.gov/Hearings/hearings.cfm?hearingid=2511&witnessId=6032)
Given the improved state of health enjoyed by most Americans, the lingering health disparity among American Indians and Alaskan
Natives is troubling. Food insecurity, poverty and health problems continue to disproportionately affect more than 65% of Native
Americans. Food assistance programs continue to be a key factor in building healthy and economically strong communities.
Strengthening federal nutrition programs requires enhancing and not reducing benefits. Investment by federal nutrition programs in
foods of high nutritional quality and the educational support to assist families in using those optimally is far less costly than funding
care for the chronic diseases many develop in the absence of sound nutritional status. Nutrition education and provision of foods high
in nutritional value can do much to ward off hunger and food insecurity, as well as, combat increasing rates of obesity and diabetes.
Improving the health and security of Native American families must ever be present in the minds and hearts of Congress as they
establish policy and fulfill the federal trust responsibility to the native people.
30
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON ADVANTAGE
STATUS QUO BISON CONTRACTS BENEFIT LARGE MAINSTREAM
CORPORATIONS—THIS SHAPES THE ENTIRE BISON INDUSTRY AND
ENTRENCHES CORPORATE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
LULKA 2008
Governmental policies have also had an impact on the level of concentration within the industry. In recent years, the federal
government has begun to purchase bison products. In particular, the USDA has purchased bison products through its Section 32
program and its Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). The Section 32 program buys specific food commodities
when they are in oversupply (thus minimizing economic hardship), while the FDPIR attempts to respond to the health and cultural
concerns of Native Americans. That said, a rather limited set of bison producers have benefited directly from these programs. For
example, in the most recent Section 32 buyout, only four cooperatives and companies received government contracts. Two of these
cooperatives/companies received 89% of the awards. Similarly, in the latest FDPIR purchase, some of the same parties emerged as
pivotal players. In both cases, the NABC was the primary recipient of government purchases (USDA 2004). Not surprisingly, these
government buyouts have had an impact on bison in the field. In addition to fostering concentration within the industry by allocating
contracts to a small sector of the industry, these contracts benefited interests that have chosen to adopt conventional production
techniques. Above all, this includes grain-based modes of production. In part, this is due to the relatively stringent guidelines
established by the USDA (which establish ranges of acceptable fat content in the meat as well as other criteria). In addition, because
the USDA buys products in minimum allotments of 40,000 pounds, these interests benefited because they have greater access to
required infrastructure. As such, 'growth-oriented' segments of the industry have attained a privileged position within the industry,
while alternative interests and practices (such as grass-fed production) have been marginalized. The secular nature of American
governance is important here. Government purchasing decisions are largely determined by 'neutral' quantitative criteria (e.g. cost and
quantity). As such, these decisions often conflict with cultural perceptions of bison that are infused with conceptions of the sublime. In
a secular state, these concerns are considered to be outside the purview of administrative decision making. This is not to suggest that
the USDA has not made some attempt to widen the scope of its influence. In the past, for example, some purchase programs have
required that the bison be grass-fed and come from Native American sources. This was largely in response to objections from tribal
communities. Nonetheless, the impact of governmental purchases has remained highly skewed (USDA 2004). Thus, even in cases
where government programs are meant to remedy the health and cultural concerns of tribal communities, actors with countervailing
priorities have benefited economically. Be this as it may, interviews with industry members indicated that many producers view the
large distributors, and particularly the NABC, as inappropriate representatives of the industry and the cause of the industry's problems.
Some have criticized the NABC because it prompted a surge in production and prioritized growth rather than a sustainable form of
development. Yet others criticized the NABC and other large producers for raising bison like cattle. From this perspective, the
activities of some producers are transforming the nature of bison rather than restoring its qualities.
31
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON ADVANTAGE
CORPORATE CONTROL OVER BISON ENCOURAGES GREATER REGULATIONS
AND STATE INTERVENTION IN THE BISON INDUSTRY
LULKA 2008
With regard to the latter criticism, the potential spatial and ethical ramifications of the present transition to a meat-based industry can
be illustrated with two brief examples. The first relates to methods of processing bison and their relation to governmental
classifications. Unlike many other forms of livestock, bison are classified by the USDA as a non-amenable species. In contrast to
'amenable species' such as cattle, pigs and sheep, the federal government does not require bison products to be inspected before
shipping them across state lines. While, at first glance, this appears unproblematic, many producers choose to have their animals
processed and inspected at a federal slaughterhouse in order to address the safety concerns of their customers. Unfortunately, since
bison are a nonamenable species, the USDA does not provide free inspections, but rather charges an hourly inspection fee. As a result,
an effort is underway to change the classification of bison in order to eliminate the additional cost of processing animals at a federally-
authorized facility. The crux of the debate within the industry centers around the effect this reclassification would have on ranchers
who prefer (for cultural and ethical reasons) to field kill their animals.[ 3] Ultimately, this issue revolves around the manner in which a
recently 'domesticated' species will be incorporated into the contemporary environment of the US. For some ranchers, whether
influenced by Native American practices, a desire to avoid any appearance of industrialization, or a wish to reduce the amount of
stress inflicted upon their animals, field kills comprise an important aspect of their operations and a viable alternative to other
methods. The preference for such methods may be compounded by the inadequacy of existing slaughter facilities, which were
designed and constructed for other forms of livestock. As such, problems in processing bison are not uncommon. As one
representative noted in regard to the difficulties associated with processing bison: "Some of the smaller plants, then, what they will
actually do is drop the animal on the trailer before they bring it in." Such difficulties touch at the heart of the endeavor and the
meaning that raising bison holds for ranchers. For the large meat distributors who process more animals, the expense of voluntary
inspections may entail a sizeable (and some would undoubtedly say unnecessary) cost. For them, this cost is unacceptable because it
cuts into their profit margins and places them at a comparative disadvantage. The impetus for change is likely to increase as the
industry grows, and the possibility of remaining outside of these governmental inspection regimes may decrease if food security issues
rise in prominence.
32
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON IMPACT—BIODIVERSITY
BISON RESTORATION IS CRITICAL TO PLAINS BIODIVERSITY
BUFFALO FIELD CAMPAIGN 2008
(“The ecological importance of bison in mixed-grass prairie ecosystems,” June 10,
www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/legal/tribalbriefing/Bisonecosystemfactsheet.doc)
The northern Great Plains ecosystem of North America was once inhabited by free ranging herds of bison ranging in the millions. In the 1800s,
human settlement in the area led to large scale slaughter of bison and conversion of much of the grass prairie to agriculture. Only relatively recently have restoration and
conservation efforts led to protected tracts of mixed-grass prairie and bison herds. Since reestablishing this relationship, scientists have documented the many
beneficial roles that bison play as a keystone species in their ecosystems. Through their unique grazing behavior, bison contribute to
changes in plant and animal species composition, alterations of the physical and chemical environment, increased spatial and temporal
heterogeneity in vegetation structure, soil resource availability and a variety of ecosystem processes (Knapp et al. 1999). Grazing One of
bison’s greatest impacts on mixed-grass prairie ecosystems is grazing. Bison tend to graze in patches, revisiting areas throughout the season and therefore leaving a
mosaic of grazed and ungrazed areas. Because bison selectively graze on dominant grasses while avoiding most forbs and woody species, the
resulting patchy distribution of vegetation favors increased plant species diversity by allowing forbs to flourish (Collins et al. 1998). The
dynamic spatial and temporal nature of bison grazing allows the productivity of grasses to recover while the presence of diverse forbs
enhances gas exchange, aboveground biomass, density and plant cover (Fahnestock and Knapp 1993, Hartnett et al. 1996, Damhoureyeh and Hartnett
1997). Photosynthesis rates are also increased by bison grazing patterns due to increased light availability and reduced water stress
(Wallace 1990, Fahnestock and Knapp 1993). Finally, bison grazing increases animal diversity on the landscape. Bison grazed areas increase
the foraging efficiency of prairie dogs which in turn are the main food source of ferrets (Krueger 1986). Prairie dogs also provide food for foxes,
hawks and eagles and their colonies are home to other small mammals and reptiles. Nutrient cycling Bison also affect the nutrient
cycling in prairie ecosystems. Nitrogen is an essential element for plant productivity that is found in both plant material and soils. By consuming plant biomass,
bison then return labile nitrogen to the soils in the form of urine which is more effective than the slower mineralization of nitrogen from plant litter breakdown (Ruess
and McNaughton 1988). At the same time, grazing increases the amount and quality of plant litter that is returned to the soil as well as the
plant uptake of nutrients (Ruess 1984). Fire, which is a natural compnent of prairie ecosystems, has also been a standard land management practice for years.
Fire causes the loss of nitrogen by burning plant material. However, bison grazing limits the loss of nitrogen by reducing the aboveground plant
detritus and increasing the patchiness of the fire (Hobbs et al. 1991). These changes in nutrient cycling and nitrogen availability in prairie
ecosystems lead to increased plant productivity and species composition (Seastedt et al. 1991, Blair 1997, Turner et al. 1997, Gibson et al. 1993,
Wedin and Tilman 1993). Wallows Wallows are a unique ecological feature of prairie ecosystems created by bison. By rolling repeatedly in exposed soil,
bison increase soil compaction in certain areas which aids in water retention. In the spring, these wallows produce temporary pools that
can support ephemeral wetland species (Uno 1989). In the summer, the wallows support a different vegetation structure and composition
that is more drought and fire resistant (Collins and Barber 1985). The combined effect of bison wallows is an increase in spatial
environmental heterogeneity and local and regional biodiversity (Hartnett et al. 1997). Food source for wildlife Bison are an important food
source for predators and scavengers including birds, small mammals, gray wolves and grizzly bears. While wolves show a preference for elk, they also feed on
bison particularly in the winter when bison are compromised or when elk are less abundant (Smith et al. 2000). In a study of ungulate use by grizzly bears in
Yellowstone, researchers found that grizzlies were more likely to feed off of a bison carcass than an elk and they rarely used deer (Green et al. 1997). Furthermore, a
decrease in grizzly bear mortality and an increase in their reproductive success in the mid 1980s were attributed to a shift in the bears’
diet including the greater consumption of ungulate meat including bison (Gunther and Haroldson 1997). Carcasses Decomposition of bison
carcasses benefits the prairie grasslands. At an experimental site at the Konza Prairie in Kansas, scientists have studied the effects of naturally decomposing
bison carcasses on the surrounding ecosystem. Initially, large amounts of nitrogen rich fluids are released that are toxic to the plants under the carcass. Within three
years, however, the original carcass site is two to three times as nutrient rich as nearby sites and is dominated by early successional species (Knapp et al. 1999, Towne
2000). The remains of scavenged carcasses would have similar effects. Bison carcasses therefore create a unique local disturbance event that
ultimately results in increased productivity. Conclusions Bison have a unique ecology that has profound effects on mixed-prairie
ecosystems. Their grazing style provides spatial and temporal heterogeneity which benefits plant and animal species diversity. Bison also increase overall plant
productivity by enhancing nutrient cycling and nitrogen availability. Their distinctive behavioral trait of wallowing further creates spatial patchiness of resource
availability and boosts plant species composition. Finally, predators and scavengers benefit from consuming bison while the remains confer rich nutrients to prairie soils
and plant communities.
33
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON ARE KEYSTONE SPECIES
KNAPP ET AL 1999
(Alan K. Knapp, John M. Blair, John M. Briggs, Scott L. Collins, David C. Hartnett, and Loretta C. Johnson are professors, and E.
Gene Towne is a research associate, in the Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506. Collins is also an
adjunct professor with the Department of Zoology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, and a program director in the
Division of Environmental Biology, National Science Foundation, BioScience, January)
The net effects of selective bison grazing activities at the landscape, patch, and individual plant level include shifts in plant species composition,
alterations of the physical and chemical environment, and increased spatial and temporal heterogeneity in vegetation structure, soil
resource availability, and a variety of ecosystem processes (Figures 4, 5, and 6). Before bison reintroduction at Konza Prairie, the long-term burning
experiments produced clear patterns of response in the vegetation. As fire frequency increased, the dominance of C4 grasses increased, and the cover of C3 grasses,
forbs, and woody species decreased (Figure 4; Gibson and Hulbert 1987). Overall, plant species diversity declined as fire frequency increased in ungrazed tallgrass
prairie (Collins et al. 1995). These patterns in community structure, which had developed over 20 years of burning treatments at Konza Prairie,
are being rapidly and dramatically altered by the grazing activity of the reintroduced bison. In particular, grazing by bison has lowered
the abundance of the dominant C4 grasses, increased the abundance of the subdominant C3 grasses and forbs, and markedly increased
plant species diversity (by 23%), richness (by 38%), and community heterogeneity (by 13%) relative to ungrazed sites, even under annual burning
conditions (Hartnett et al. 1996, Collins and Steinauer 1998, Collins et al. 1998). Because of the multiple and dramatic effects of bison on this
landscape, we believe that bison are keystone species in the tallgrass prairie. Other authors have noted the potential of large grazing mammals to act as
“keystone herbivores” capable of maintaining open grassland vegetation that would otherwise undergo succession to shrubland or
woodland (Owen-Smith 1987). Indeed, the disappearance of a grazing megafauna at the end of the Pleistocene may have played a major role in the widespread
transition from steppe to tundra at that time (Zimov et al. 1995). However, the concept of keystone species has been controversial since its inception
(Power et al. 1996). One of the problems with this concept has been the variable interpretation of criteria by which species are determined to be keystone. Power et al.
(1996) consider a keystone species to be “one whose impact on its community or ecosystem is large, and disproportionately large relative to its abundance.” To make
this definition operational, these authors proposed a measure of community importance (CI) to be used as an index of the strength of the impact of
a given species: CI = [(tN – tD)/tN][1/pi] where tN is a quantitative measure of a trait (e.g., diversity) in an intact community, tD is the measure of the trait when
species i has been deleted, and pi is the proportional abundance (biomass) of species i before it was deleted. CI values “much greater than 1” indicate that a species is
keystone. We estimate bison biomass at Konza Prairie to be approximately 11–12 g·m2 (Collins and Steinauer 1998), which is approximately 1% of the total vegetative
biomass. On Konza Prairie, diversity is significantly higher (10–33%) on grazed sites than ungrazed sites (Hartnett et al. 1996), and these values yield a range of CIs
from 6 to 25. For this reason and others, we consider bison to be keystone species in tallgrass prairie ecosystems.
BISON GRAZING CREATES A VARIED MOSAIC OF PRAIRIE GRASSES AND

ENHANCES PROTEIN, DIGESTIBILITY, AND NITROGEN CYCLING
TRUETT ET AL 2001
[Joe C., senior biologist with the Turner Endangered Species Fund, Ph.D. in wildlife biology from the University of Montana, and Russell Miller, Turner Enterprises,
Great Plains Research, “Managing Bison to Restore Biodiversity”, 11 pg. 127-128, http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsresearch/541]
Grazing itself induces long-term effects on grazing distribution, partly by elevating the nutritional quality of grasses. Numerous
investigations (e.g., Heitschmidt et al. 1989; Cid et al. 1991; Coughenour 1991a; Detling 1998) confirm that grazing increases the quality of forage by
enhancing both the protein (N) content and digestibility of the forage (McNaughton 1984; Milchunas et al. 1995; Bailey et al. 1996;
Detling 1998). The improved nitrogen content of grazed forage results from the elevated rate of nitrogen recycling in the ecosystem
via conversion of grass to urine and feces (Hobbs 1996), the higher nitrogen content of regrowth (Detling 1998), and also from other factors such as
reduced plant biomass and concomitant lower competition for the available soil nutrients by individual plants (Vinton et al. 1993). Bison (Knapp et al. 1999), like
cattle and other grazers (Bailey et al. 1996; Hobbs 1996), are attracted to the relatively high-quality forage in previously grazed areas. Over time
this creates a patchwork of heavily grazed sites, to which the animals repeatedly return, and lightly grazed and ungrazed sites (Hobbs
et al. 1991; Hartnett et al. 1996; Knapp et al. 1999). The visible signature of this mosaic is appreciable in tallgrass prairie (Knapp et
al. 1999) but less so in shorter grasses (Milchunas et al. 1995), as would be expected given the relative heights of the ungrazed grasses.
34
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON ARE KEY TO ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
CHADWICK 2006
Ecologically, the bison throngs of yesteryear added up to a force like wind or wildfire. Their grazing, trampling, dust wallowing and
constant movement altered and renewed habitats decade after decade, creating niches for all kinds of creatures. Predators and
scavengers large and small followed in the herds' wake. Pronghorns and prairie grouse favored the herbs and grass sprouts that
appeared after buffalo had mowed down the taller growth in passing. An estimated six billion prairie dogs--along with black-footed
ferrets, cottontail rabbits, amphibians and other animals living in or around the rodents' underground metropolises--were also tied to a
bison-dominated community. The cows that followed in the wake of the bison's near-demise are, by contrast, an uneasy fit with prairie
flora and fauna. They tend to wander much less than bison and will graze sites until native plants give way to weedy invaders. Since
cattle need more water than bison do, they are particularly hard on streams and streamside vegetation--to the detriment of nesting
birds, native fish and a host of other wildlife. Cattle are also less hardy than bison, and require more day-to-day attention--including
feed grain and protection from predators--by a livestock owner.
BISON KEY TO BIODIVERSITY – GRAZING CREATES A VEGETATION MOSAIC

THAT SUPPORTS LARGE PLANT AND ANIMAL POPULATIONS
TRUETT ET AL 2001
[Joe C., senior biologist with the Turner Endangered Species Fund, Ph.D. in wildlife biology from the University of Montana, and Russell Miller,
Turner Enterprises, Great Plains Research, “Managing Bison to Restore Biodiversity”, 11 pg. 127-128,
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsresearch/541]
Bison played a significant role in maintaining the historic abundance and diversity of Plains biota. For example, as the principal large
converters of grass to animal biomass, they supported large populations of predators and scavengers, such as aboriginal humans,
wolves, bears, wolverines, bald eagles, ravens, coyotes, and swift foxes (Mead 1899; Roe 1970:155-58; Bogan 1997). They grazed
heavily in some areas and lightly in others, thereby creating a mosaic of vegetation (Hartnett et al. 1996; Knapp et al. 1999), which
influenced not only the plant community but a diverse suite of animals as well (Cody 1985; Clark et al. 1989). Our purpose here is to
describe the influences of bison on prairie plants and animals and, on this basis, layout some approaches to biodiversity conservation
in the context of modern-day bison grazing.
BISON GRAZING AND THE MOSAIC EFFECT ENHANCE THE DIVERSITY AND
RICHNESS OF PLANT SPECIES
TRUETT ET AL 2001
[Joe C., senior biologist with the Turner Endangered Species Fund, Ph.D. in wildlife biology from the University of Montana, and Russell Miller,
Turner Enterprises, Great Plains Research, “Managing Bison to Restore Biodiversity”, 11 pg. 127-128,
Grazing enhances not only diversity of vegetative type and form but also richness of plant species. Part of the increase in richness
results from the mosaic effect, for example, replacement of a single plant assemblage without grazing by a combination of grazed and
ungrazed types. But richness also increases because both opening of the vegetative canopy and disturbance of the soil by grazing and
trampling encourage the invasion of early successional forbs and, in some places, cool season grasses (Hartnett et al. 1996; Knapp et
al. 1999). Enhancement of vegetation diversity by moderate grazing is not unexpected. It conforms to the well-known "intermediate
disturbance" hypothesis (Petraitis et al. 1989).
35
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON GRAZING KEY TO REDUCE THE FREQUENCY AND IMPACT OF PRAIRIE
FIRES THAT DRAMATICALLY REDUCE VEGETATION DIVERSITY
TRUETT ET AL 2001
[Joe C., senior biologist with the Turner Endangered Species Fund, author of Land of Bears and Honey: A Natural History of East
Texas and Circling Back: Chronicle of a Texas River Valley, and coeditor of The Natural History of an Arctic Oil Field: Development
and the Biota, Michael Phillips, Executive Director of the Turner Endangered Species Fund, B.Sc. in Ecology, Ethology, and
Evolution from the University of Illinois, and M.Sc. in Wildlife Ecology from the University of Alaska, Kyran Kunkel, affiliate senior
conservation scientist for the Turner Endangered Species Fund and Ph.D. in wildlife biology from the University of Montana, and
Russell Miller, Turner Enterprises, Great Plains Research, “Managing Bison to Restore Biodiversity”, 11 pg. 128,
Fire interacts with physical features and grazing to intensify the patchwork effect on the vegetation. Prior to settlement, fire in tallgrass
prairie occurred as often as once everyone to five years (Collins and Gibson 1990). Fire frequency generally declined with distance
westward, as tall grasses were replaced by mid- and shortgrasses (Sieg 1997). Fire reduces the height of vegetation and attracts
foraging bison for at least the first few years postburn (Shaw and Carter 1990; Vinton et al. 1993; Hartnett et al. 1996; Knapp et al.
1999). Grazing in turn reduces natural fire frequency (Hobbs 1996), causing ungrazed sites to burn selectively thereafter. Burning
tends to favor grass dominance over that of woody species, which in fire-prone prairies may be restricted to riparian zones, draws,
north-facing slopes, and other topographic refuges where fires seldom burn (Sieg 1997). Burning in the absence of grazing tends to
reduce vegetative diversity. Burning tallgrass prairie selects for the dominant warm-season grasses and against cool-season grasses,
forbs, and woody species (Vinton et al. 1993; Hartnett et al. 1996). This reduces the structural diversity of the vegetation as well
as the species richness (Gibson and Hulbert 1987). The encroachment of woody species into grasslands since European settlers
instituted fire suppression suggests the dramatic effects that fire previously had induced in Great Plains grasslands (Wright and Bailey
1980).
36
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON KEY TO CULTURE

BISON ARE KEY TO INDIAN CULTURE AND HEALTH
CHADWICK 2006
Bison were once a wellspring of sustenance and spiritual strength for the Sioux and other Plains Indians. Today, tribes across the country
are working to return herds to their lands. This is far more than an effort to simply re-establish a keystone species and improve habitats
for other grassland wildlife. To bring back bison is to regain a primary source of healthy natural food amid the modern epidemic of
obesity and diabetes afflicting Native Americans, re-invigorate cultural traditions and provide new economic opportunities. A lot of people
out West, including Native Americans, prefer the old word for these animals: buffalo (not to be confused with true buffalo, which live in Asia and Africa.) By any name, Bison bison are the largest native grazers in the
Western Hemisphere, with adult males, or bulls, standing six feet at the shoulder and weighing one ton or more. They were once North America's most abundant big mammal, one that came to characterize the size and
perhaps 20 million or more--they ranged through eastern woodlands and into northern boreal forests, as well
fertility of this continent. In numbers almost beyond reckoning--
as across thousands of miles of prairies. Then, in an eyeblink, they were taken away. By 1889, only a few hundred had survived the whites'
campaign of slaughter. More than a century later, in 1992, representatives from various native groups formed the South Dakota-based InterTribal Bison
Cooperative (ITBC) to promote buffalo restoration on Indian lands. The organization now has 57 tribal members in 19 states. Between them, they oversee close to 18,000 buffalo.
Four hundred of those live on the Fort Belknap reservation of the Assiniboine and Gros Ventre tribes in north-central Montana. Considering that 800,000 bison hides were shipped from nearby Fort Benton in the year 1876
alone, 400 animals doesn't seem like many. But it's a start, and that number just jumped to 402. "There's a real new-looking little guy," says Mike Fox, a Gros Ventre, former fish and wildlife director for the reservation and
interim executive director of the ITBC. He's pointing to the second new calf we've seen this morning up on Snake Butte. Three massive bulls stride together along the rimrock. Bands of females and subadults pattern the
broad valley beyond. And the prairie sweeps largely unbroken from there all the way to the snowy Bears Paw Mountains on the west and Little Rockies on the south. It is a vision of what was, and what
could be once more. The Fort Belknap herd was started in 1974 with 35 bison. Defenders of Wildlife and other non-profit groups provided funds to add more over the years and purchased supplemental feed
during times of drought. Meanwhile, the portion of the 645,500-acre reservation made available for buffalo increased from 1,900 acres to 15,000. Knowing that bison and prairie dogs have a long history of mutually
beneficial co-existence, tribal authorities granted prairie dogs on the pastures protection from shooting and poisoning, a rare reprieve out West. That was followed by reintroduction of the endangered predator that depends
almost exclusively on these animals: black-footed ferrets. Ecologically, the bison throngs of yesteryear added up to a force like wind or wildfire. Their grazing, trampling, dust wallowing and constant movement altered and
renewed habitats decade after decade, creating niches for all kinds of creatures. Predators and scavengers large and small followed in the herds' wake. Pronghorns and prairie grouse favored the herbs and grass sprouts that
appeared after buffalo had mowed down the taller growth in passing. An estimated six billion prairie dogs--along with black-footed ferrets, cottontail rabbits, amphibians and other animals living in or around the rodents'
underground metropolises--were also tied to a bison-dominated community. The cows that followed in the wake of the bison's near-demise are, by contrast, an uneasy fit with prairie flora and fauna. They tend to wander
much less than bison and will graze sites until native plants give way to weedy invaders. Since cattle need more water than bison do, they are particularly hard on streams and streamside vegetation--to the detriment of nesting
The many
birds, native fish and a host of other wildlife. Cattle are also less hardy than bison, and require more day-to-day attention--including feed grain and protection from predators--by a livestock owner.
advantages of raising bison must be weighed against the fact that the herds require tall, stout fences to hold them in. These fences are
expensive, and even the strongest won't always hold a big bull with wanderlust. Managers also need to make the herd profitable to overcome
resistance from those who think the land should be grazed by cattle. Much as tribal members value ancient traditions, many have
adopted ranching traditions as well. This is the 21st century, and it seems that bison are going to have to pay their way into it. Bison-
raising experienced a flurry of commercial popularity during the 1970s and 1980s, when people could readily sell breeding stock to others chasing the next
big thing. What was missing was a steady demand from consumers, and the market soon flattened out. "People are used to fatty beef," Fox explains. "They also
don't know how to cook buffalo. It has to be roasted slowly at a lower temperature than beef. The meat dries out quickly because it's so lean." The buffalo market has picked up a bit lately, driven by the growing ranks of
Americans who want their red meat to be organic and low on lard. At 2 percent fat, compared to an average of 12 percent for beef, buffalo fit the bill. Their flesh and excrement aren't laden with residues of antibiotics and
growth hormones either, and they can't give you mad cow disease. Around the northeastern Montana towns of Wolf Point and Poplar sprawls the Fort Peck reservation of the Assiniboine and Sioux tribes. At 2.1 million
acres, it is roughly the size of Yellowstone National Park and currently holds around 170 buffalo. Some came from Fort Belknap in a move sponsored by Defenders, which also supplied Belknap buffalo to Montana's
Blackfeet reservation just east of Glacier Park. As at Fort Belknap, the challenge at Fort Peck has been to expand the range available to the herd. Here again, this involves competing for pastureland with cattle ranchers.
practically everyone in the community recognizes an ancient kinship with the
Farmers raising wheat and other grains also claim a large share of the reservation. Yet
shaggy beasts, which once provided staple foods, hides for tipis and bedding, bones for tools and skulls for sacred rituals. When the
modern herd first arrived at Fort Peck in 2001, tribal elders were on hand to sing the old songs of welcome. The tribes have since started a Buffalo Run
in which young people race in relays 27 miles from the pasture back to town. Buffalo roasts and buffalo pemmican are served at an annual cultural
camp for youth and their families, where the entertainment includes rides on horse-drawn buffalo hides. "I ranch cattle myself," says Robbie Magnan, director of the tribal fish and wildlife department.
"But the way things are set up, cattle only benefit individual families, whereas buffalo benefit the whole tribe. We contribute the meat from five
[bison] every year to our diabetic diet program [which emphasizes lean protein over processed food.] More buffalo meat goes to a food program
for our elders. We'd like to develop two herds. One would be a traditional herd that roams without much interference from us. Whatever surplus we harvest would be used for cultural purposes like our Sun Dance
ceremony. The second group would be our business herd, producing animals we can sell. We have 5,000 fenced acres of range now. Our Tribal Council's land committee is meeting very soon to decide whether or not we can
add more." That afternoon, Magnan takes me to see a different sort of habitat acquisition on the reservation--1,800 acres of marsh in the floodplain of Big Muddy Creek. The area is slated to be set aside as a tribal wildlife
refuge, chiefly for waterfowl, shorebirds and rare species such as Baird's sparrow, white-faced ibis and the only Franklin's gulls known to nest in the region. Over time, Magnan hopes, the tribe may protect several thousand
adjoining acres in this wetland complex, which continues north toward the federal wildlife refuge of Medicine Lake. The following day, Magnan has more good news: the council just voted to enlarge the bison range by 3,300
acres. That ought to make the burrowing owls happy as well. According to the tribe's bison manager, Bruce Bauer, these birds were scarce on the reservation before the buffalo returned. Sage grouse, another declining
species, also occur on the current pasture. So do mule deer, Bauer has found; the largest ones on the reservation live side-by-side with the buffalo. Bauer goes on to introduce me to Straight Horn, a five-year-old female bison
37
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
BISON KEY TO CULTURE

with a yearling calf; Half Horn; and Skimpy, a thin-necked juvenile. Beside them are Number 21, "who's so friendly and so nosy," he says, and Number 96, "the lead cow. When she goes, they all go. This is a matriarchy. One
reason Indian people respect buffalo so much is that they are very family-oriented. They're smart too." While they would avoid a strange vehicle, these animals know Bauer's truck and even come over to rub against it. "When
I feel like taking a break from work, I just go sit with the buffalo," he says. "They have a lot to teach us. Sometimes, I make offerings to thank them." There are centuries-old rings of tipi stones on the hilltops we pass and
three brand-new calves at the edge of a coulee. Across the way are the McDonald Breaks, the countryside that will be added to their home as soon as it can be fenced. Farther west, 10 swift foxes provided by the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks will be introduced to the reservation this year to help promote recovery of this cat-size predator of the open plains. The Crow tribe has 1,500 to 2,000 bison on its huge reservation
tribal
between Billings, Montana, and Sheridan, Wyoming. The Cheyenne River Sioux of central South Dakota oversee 1,200 to 1,500. Other tribes manage smaller numbers elsewhere in the region. All told,
reservations now have more bison than all federal parks and refuges. But these reservations aren't nature preserves--they are
homelands where native people make their living. Gradually, however, they are becoming true homelands for buffalo and for more of
the other animals in the great circle of life. I can almost feel the past and future merging here beneath the boundless prairie sky.
BISON MEAT IS CRUCIAL TO PRESERVE INDIAN CULTURES

BRAUN 2004
(Sebastian Felix Braun, Assistant Professor, Department of Indian Studies,
University of North Dakota, Contemporary Tribal Bison Ranching on the Great Plains: Economic, Ecological andCultural
Restoration?, CULTURE ET NATURE DANS LES AMERIQUES, November 20 2004,
http://www.und.edu/instruct/sbraun/Braun_SSA_Geneve_2004.pdf)
Some Indian reservations, and individuals on reservations, had kept bison herds of varying sizes for a long time. In the early 1990s,
however, a concerted effort began to increase tribal bison herds on reservations. With this goal in mind, the InterTribal Bison
Cooperative was founded in 1992. In its first six years, the number of tribal buffalo programs more than doubled, and the number of
buffalo on reservations increased from 2,800 to about 8,000. Around 500 tribal jobs were created by the buffalo programs, either
directly or indirectly (ITBC 1998:9). Bison herds have since been growing on many reservations. Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation
in South Dakota alone has grown its herd to about 3,500 animals. Many of these tribal herds were spawned and increased by bison
from national parks, as the park system offered surplus bison to the tribal governments. While ITBC is placing emphasis on the sound
economic foundations of tribal herds, the main goals of establishing tribal bison operations are not only economic, but just as much
cultural. The simple physical return of buffalo to native lands by itself is seen by many of those who work towards traditional goals as
an irreversible trigger for cultural revitalization. Bison represent the traditional society and its ways of life; they also represent
traditional virtues, such as respect, responsibility, and generosity. With the current social problems on most reservations -
unemployment, systemic poverty, alcoholism, violence, drug abuse, and epidemic diabetes - a return to certain aspects of traditional
culture and a revival of traditional virtues seems to avoid the downfalls of total assimilation and its negative consequences. Bison have
been and are used by some reservations and tribal courts as teachers for neglecting parents and drug users. In accordance with
traditional notions that bison brought Plains Indians their culture, longterm observance of the animals and their social behavior as a
model instills responsibility in people. Bison meat, which is very low in cholesterol, is hoped to alleviate the spread of diabetes. Many
reservation residents blame the disease on changes in diet. A return to the traditional diet, they hope, will make people healthier.
BISON HERDS CULTURALLY UNIFY INDIAN COMMUNITIES

BRAUN 2004
(Sebastian, Assistant Professor of Indian Studies at the University of North Dakota, November 19, “Contemporary Tribal Bison
Ranching on the Great Plains: Economic, Ecological and Cultural Restoration?”, http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:g7aterdqg-
EJ:www.und.edu/instruct/sbraun/Braun_SSA_Geneve_2004.pdf)
Even though it might not contribute to direct subsistence or economic gain, bringing a community together is the basis for all other
activities because it shows people, or at least makes them reflect upon, who they are as a community. This is most important in
societies whose history, culture, and knowledge have been challenged by colonial powers, often in direct conjunction with forced
assimilation into a capitalist economy that runs counter to traditional values. Reinstating pride in one's culture, and a feeling of self-
worth and knowledge that one can achieve complex tasks, is fundamental to community health, and only healthy communities can
achieve long-term economic success. Symbolically powerful animals such as reindeer, whales, salmon, or buffalo, or symbolically
powerful plants such as trees or corn can be a catalyst on which the community can build. This is as much true for Plains Indians as
it is for other indigenous societies.
38
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
DEMAND KEY
AMERICAN INDIANS WANT TO RAISE BISON TO RESTORE THEIR CULTURES –
A WEAK MARKET FOR MEAT IS THE OBSTACLE
SUNDAY GAZETTE-MAIL 2002
[Judith Graham, “Buffalo farming is a labor of love for tribes”, 11/10/02, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-14735254.html]
Fifty-two Indian tribes in 18 states are raising more than 12,000 buffalo today, trying to build herds into viable economic enterprises
on the reservation and renewing bonds with traditions in which this shaggy creature has a prominent, sacred role. Vine Deloria Jr.,
a renowned Native American historian, draws a connection with moves by Indians in the Pacific Northwest to preserve the salmon or
hunt whales. "What you're seeing are growing attempts of all kinds by Native Americans to return to a more traditional relationship
with nature, a restoration, really, of their cultures," he said. "The elders have wanted to do this for a long time. Finally, tribes are in
a position where they can devote resources to this effort." Tribes, however, face many hurdles, including weak markets for buffalo
meat and other products, opposition from cattle ranchers who don't want competition, and a lack of public understanding about why
these large animals are so important to Indian traditions.
39
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
TRADITIONAL FOOD GOOD

TRADITIONAL FOODS ARE UNIQUELY KEY TO INDIAN CULTURE: THEIR
REPLACEMENT WITH COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS IS UNDERMINING INDIANS’
HEALTH AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
HALPERN 2007
Traditional foods often have spiritual and social values; for example, they represent purity, healthfulness and strength – symbols of a
pre-reservation culture, in contrast to the modern day diet (Story et al, 2000). And, food is considered a gift from the creator
(deGonzague, 1999). Many traditional belief systems include the concepts of harmony and balance in respect to food, and these
concepts can motivate individuals and communities to increase their use of traditional foods and adopt healthier lifestyles (Story et al,
2000). Examples of these types of foods include: wild rice (Minnesota), berries, teas, blue corn (Southwest), squash, roots, beans,
salmon (Pacific Northwest) and other fish, fermented foods (e.g., heads and eggs of salmon) seal, beaver, bison (Plains) caribou, deer
meat, wild game, whale. Most of these traditional foods are high in protein and low in fat and sugar. However, some studies report that
traditional foods seem to be consumed only occasionally; for example on special occasions or in ceremonies (Brown & Brenton, 1994,
Grant et al, 2000, Phillips & Finn, 2000). The data reflect the change from a traditional mode of obtaining food to one of buying store
bought goods. Fast food restaurants and convenience stores are often utilized as places to eat, similar to off-reservation trends (Grant
et al, 2000). Furthermore, the limited use of traditional foods has been accompanied by a loss of social communication and a
reduction in the teaching and knowledge passed down from elders to the next generation in regard to harvesting and consumption
(deGonzague et al, 1999, Phillips & Finn, 2000). However, one study reported that the extent and use of traditional foods and
harvesting practices is often unrecognized or underestimated by non-Native health care providers. For example, DeGonzague et al
(1999) in their study of Ojibwe Indians found that at least 50 percent of respondents (N=104) engaged in hunting, fishing and
gathering practices.
TRADITIONAL DIETS ARE PROVEN TO BE HEALTHIER – THEY REDUCE RISK

FACTORS FOR DIABETES AND HEART DISEASE
HAMILTON AND ROSSI 2002
[William L. and Peter H., Food Assistance & Nutrition Research, Economic Research Service/USDA, Effects of Food Assistance and
Nutrition Programs on Nutrition and Health / FANRR-19-3, “Chapter 13: Food Distribution Programs on Indian Reservations”, p. 299
, http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:lsavUn--54AJ:www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr19-3/fanrr19-3m.pdf+
%22chapter+13:+food+distribution+program+on+indian+reservations%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us]
Research has provided some evidence that traditional diets may reduce metabolic risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease
—for example, blood levels of glucose, lipids (fats), and insulin) (Murphy et al., 1995; Gittelsohn, et al., 1998; Swinburn et al., 1991;
McMurry et al., 1991). In addition, a study that followed a group of Pima Indians over a 6-year period, found that, among women,
individuals who consumed an “Anglo” diet were more likely to develop diabetes than those who consumed a traditional diet or a
mixed diet (Williams et al., 2001).
40
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
INDIAN CULTURE KEY

VIOLENCE AGAINST INDIANS SETS UP VIOLENCE AGAINST ALL GROUPS
Churchill 1997
(Ward, Professor of Ethnic Studies at University of Colorado at Boulder, A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the
Americas, 1492 to the present, p. 346)
In days gone by, when a real miner’s canary began to show signs of distress, its owners could immediately abandon it to its fate,
themselves scurrying to safety at the mouth of the mine. The cynically analogous use of indigenous nations in the context of nuclear
proliferation is unworkable. As should by now be apparent, in this case there is quite simply nowhere safe to run. Rather than serving
as an early warning of avoidable danger, then, the fate of radioactively colonized native peoples – whether concentrated in the Grants
Uranium Belt or scattered across the upper reaches of Saskatchewan, around the Nevada Test Site or far out in the northern Pacific –
should be seen merely as a prefiguration of what will happen – indeed, is happening – to everyone else. “The chickens,” as Malcolm X
once put it with typically eloquent bluntness, have truly “come home to roost.”
41
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
FEDERAL DECOLONIZATION MODELED

FEDERAL RESPECT FOR INDIAN CULTURE IS MODELED WORLDWIDE
MORRIS 1999
Glenn T. Morris, (Native American, he formerly served as Co-Director and is now a member of the Leadership Council of the
American Indian Movement of Colorado, associate professor of political science at the University of Colorado at Denver) 1999
http://www.cwis.org/fwdp/International/int.txt
Although this chapter has implications for the status of all indigenous peoples, its concentration is primarily within of the United
States toward indigenous nations has frequently been emulated by other states. The fact that a treaty relationship exists
between the United States and indigenous nations, and the fact that indigenous nations within the U.S. retain defined and
separate land bases and continue to exercise some degree of effective self-government, may contribute to the successful
application of international standards in their cases. Also, given the size and relative power of the United States in international
relations, and absent the unlikely independence of a majority- indigenous nation-state such as Guatemala or Greenland, the successful
application of decolonization principles to indigenous nations within the U.S. could allow the extension of such applications to
indigenous peoples in other parts of the planet
42
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
FDPIR KEY
FDPIR IS KEY - 5 REASONS
WHITING AND RIKOON 2006
ERIN FEINAUER WHITING and Dr. J. Sanford Rikoon,
“UNDERSTANDING RESERVATION HUNGER: FOOD ACQUSITION ANDFOOD SECURITY AMONG THE NORTHERN
CHEYENNE” Department of Sociology University of Missouri-Columbia August 2006
http://edt.missouri.edu/Summer2006/Dissertation/WhitingE-060606-D5359/research.pdf JD
For example the USDA tribal commodities food distribution program is able to be more effective in this community because it is able
to take local views and needs into account, can communicate in the language of the clients, and work more closely with members.
Preferences of reservation residents for certain kinds of foods, e.g., buffalo and venison are more easily considered as well as other
needs such as food delivery to the elderly and handicapped. These findings suggest that program differences, rooted in historical
meanings, may be important to understanding choices related to program use for this economically depressed reservation community.
CURRENT EFFORTS TO EXPAND CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE FOOD ARE

LIMITED BUT SHOW THAT THE FDPIR CAN SUCCEED
WHITING AND RIKOON 2006
ERIN FEINAUER WHITING and Dr. J. Sanford Rikoon,
“UNDERSTANDING RESERVATION HUNGER: FOOD ACQUSITION ANDFOOD SECURITY AMONG THE NORTHERN
CHEYENNE” Department of Sociology University of Missouri-Columbia August 2006
http://edt.missouri.edu/Summer2006/Dissertation/WhitingE-060606-D5359/research.pdf JD
Miller (1994) suggests that the role of this program is important on reservations in Montana. He reports that FDPIR is the main source
of food for almost 52% of participating households and the only source for 7% of participating households. Because food commodity
programs are smaller and designed for more specific populations, research has not been as extensive. Usher and associates (1990)
found that FDPIR participants tended to be older and with incomes closer to program limits. This is in part due to the more tolerant
requirements as FDPIR benefits are calculated based on household size and are not decreased as income rises, as are Food Stamps.
However, there is some concern over the quality of food available for reservation populations through USDA food distribution
(termed the “commod bod” by reservation residents). Some argue that health problems increasingly prevalent among Natives on
reservations are linked to poor diet and food availability associated in part with the FDPIR program (Geishirt Cantrell 2001; Dilliger et
al 1999; Finegold et al 2005). Beginning in 1998, this concern has lead to a stronger effort from the USDA to provide fresh and
culturally appropriate food. Although still limited in the scope of this new direction, there is some evidence that this is making a big
impact for participation on some reservations (Ward et al 2000). Additionally, 71 because FDPIR is created especially for tribes and
tribal members, there is a sense that this program has fewer barriers for local participants and a stronger connection to local
communities (Ward et al 2000; Miller 1996, 1998; Usher et al 1990). Nevertheless, some research indicates that participation rates are
declining although it is not clear whether this is due to increasing participation in the Food Stamp program or whether it represents
households that are going without food assistance (Finegold et al 2005).
43
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
PLAN POPULAR
THE PLAN IS POPULAR IN CONGRESS
LULKA 2006
Whether this line of reasoning was solely responsible for the transformation of the FDPIR is far from certain, however. Rather, it is
just as likely that these health concerns were layered together with economic factors to create a more formidable force for change.
Around the time bison were first introduced into the FDPIR, the bison industry was beginning to experience a downturn. In the early
1990s the demand for live bison had instigated a breeder's market, which eventually led to an oversupply of the animal. By 1999 the
value of bison dropped dramatically. Members of the industry sought support from their congressional representatives to alleviate the
problem. Thus, the inclusion of bison in the FDPIR allowed congressional representatives (particularly those in the Northern Plains) to
respond to tribal and nontribal communities at one and the same time. They were thus able to kill two birds with one stone.
44
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
T—POVERTY
FDPIR ONLY GOES TO PERSONS LIVING IN POVERTY
HARPER ET AL, 2008
(Edward Harper, Rebecca Orbeta, Lisa Southworth, Karen Meade, Rosalind Cleveland, Sheldon Gordon, Michael Buckley, Jay
Hirschman, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, FDPIR Food Package
Nutritional Quality: Report to Congres, November 2008, p.1)
The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) is a Federally funded nutrition assistance program that provides
USDA foods and nutrition education to eligible households. Eligibility is limited to low-income households located on Indian
reservations or in approved areas near reservations or in Oklahoma, and Alaska Natives. Eligible households not located on a
reservation must include at least one member of a Federally recognized tribe. FDPIR is administered at the Federal level by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). The program is administered at the local level by the States or by Indian Tribal Organizations
(ITOs). FDPIR serves as an alternative to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).3
FDPIR USES THE SAME STANDARDS AS FOOD STAMPS

Nutrition Programs on Nutrition and Health / FANRR-19-3, “Chapter 13: Food Distribution Programs on Indian Reservations”, p.
297, http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:lsavUn--54AJ:www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr19-3/fanrr19-3m.pdf+
Income eligibility for the FDPIR is based on federally defined income eligibility requirements used in the FSP. However, the FDPIR
does not impose FSP requirements related to employment and training or time limits for able-bodied adults without dependents
(ABAWDs). All households residing on Indian reservations are eligible to participate in the program if they meet income and resource
standards. Households living in approved areas near reservations or in Oklahoma are eligible to participate if at least one member of
the household is a member of a federally recognized tribe.155
45
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: ECONOMIC MOTIVES BAD

ECONOMIC MOTIVES WILL NOT OVERCOME CULTURAL ONES—BOTH CAN
COEXIST
LULKA 2006
All of this is not to say that tribes are uninterested in the economic potential of bison. Indeed, there are signs that some tribes may shift
their management approach in order to place a greater emphasis upon economic variables. Currently, these divergent interests impinge
upon one another within each of these individual communities, and those responsible for managing the bison are seeking to find an
equitable balance. For example, the 1997 annual report of the ITBC stated: Although tradition takes precedence over technology, the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's Pte Hca Ka Inc. is taking steps to re-establish their buffalo herd as the central element of the Tribal
economy. This dynamic, culturally sensitive project combines Lakota tradition and modern technology to establish a harmonious
relationship to human, natural, and financial resources. (ITBC 1997: 13) At the minimum, this chronicle of events suggests that the
cultural and spiritual aspects of bison remain at the forefront of tribal considerations even in the midst of economic development.
Presently, it is not necessary to say that traditional cultural priorities always prevail over economic considerations, but simply to note
that these noneconomic factors weigh substantially upon the decision-making process. This indicates their continuing importance.
Such matters must be considered when evaluating the relationship between bison and the FDPIR.
46
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: INDIANS DON’T WANT FDPIR

FDPIR ALLOWS INDIANS TO CHOOSE WHICH FOODS THEY WANT TO
RECEIVE – INDIANS LIKE IT
USDA 2009
(United States Department of Agriculture, March 22, “An Evaluation of the Prime Vendor Pilot of the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations”, http://www.mypyramidforkids.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/FDPIRPrimeVendor.htm)
The Prime Vendor Pilot was conducted as part of U.S. Department of Agriculture's Business Process Re-engineering efforts to
improve the administration and operation of the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). Under this pilot, USDA
partnered with the Department of Defense, which had an existing contract with commercial vendors and distributors. Reinhart Foods
was selected as the prime vendor and was responsible for accepting food orders directly from 23 Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) in
the Midwest Region, procuring pre-approved food products, storing and delivering the foods to the ITOs. The evaluation compared
results from the first year of the prime vendor pilot (July 2001 - June 2002) with the traditional FDPIR commodity distribution system
that operated in the previous year (July 2000 - June 2001). Pilot Objectives: Objectives of the pilot included: (1) improving the
commodity distribution system for FDPIR by improving program operations and administrative efficiency while improving product
acceptability and procurement flexibility; and (2) reducing Federal staff resources in the food ordering and delivery process for
FDPIR. Findings: Key findings from the first year of the pilot include: Program Operation and Administrative Efficiency. The
number of households served by FDPIR in the 23 ITOs increased slightly (2.4%) although the actual number of participants decreased
by less than one percent as household size declined by over three percent. ITOs expressed greater overall satisfaction and reported
great improvements in program operation, product quality, commodity pack size, variety and labeling. Nearly all ITOs (96%) rated
FNS' operation and administration of FDPIR as good to excellent during the first year of the pilot compared to only 70% during the
previous year. On average, the frequency of food ordering increased from once every 1-2 months to once a week. Food deliveries
increased from an average of 8 times per year before the pilot to 15 times per year under the pilot. Under the pilot, all orders were
delivered within 3 days to 2 weeks depending on the time the order was placed relative to the regularly scheduled delivery date,
compared to over 1 month prior to the pilot; the convenience of ordering at any time was reported as the best feature of the Pilot. Food
delivered increased from 26 cases per participant to 27 cases. ITOs expressed far more satisfaction with food ordering (65% vs. 9%)
and food delivery (91% vs. 4%).
47
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: LANGUAGE CRITIQUES

FOCUS ON TERMINOLOGY RESULTS IN POLICY PARALYSIS AND
PERPETUATES COLONIALISM
ALFRED 1999
Taiaiake Alfred Peace Power Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto Director of Indiguious Governance Program U. of Victoria pg
83 1999 JD
What does it mean to be called an 'Aboriginal' people? In Canada recently there has been a turn towards politically correct, non-
offensive terminology that attempts to assuage the guilt of colonialism, but in fact it is only a cover for the state's continuing abuse of
indigenous peoples. What good does it do indigenous people to be called 'Aboriginal' if the state continues to deny them legal
recognition as the owners of their lands? What good does it do to be called a 'First Nation' (a popular term in some provinces of
Canada) when the authority to govern is no more than that of a band council under the Indian Act? The only value in the word play is
for white people, who do not have to face the racism built into the structure of their supposedly enlightened country. Natives face the
same conditions and suffer the same abuses, except that now the problem is less obvious because, instead of being Indians governed
by the state as wards under the Indian Act, they are now recognized as 'Aboriginal' peoples with an 'inherent right' to 'self-
government'. Go to a reserve, look around, and ask yourself if Indians are any better of( because white society has relieved itself of its
terminological burden. 'l> Intellectual dishonesty is one of the essential elements of colonialism. We need to stop believing the lies
that have been perpetuated by Europeans to normalize the tempest of ruin they have inflicted on other peoples. Native people have
become wrapped up in these lies; now they are hostage to the status quo, unable to move.
48
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: WORD “INDIANS” BAD

THE WORD “INDIANS” IS BETTER THAN “NATIVE AMERICANS”—RETAINS
HISTORICAL MEANING
Russell Means leader of the American Indian Movement (AIM) “I AM AN AMERICAN INDIAN, NOT A NATIVE AMERICAN!”
1996 http://www.peaknet.net/~aardvark/means.html JD
I abhor the term Native American. It is a generic government term used to describe all the indigenous prisoners of the United States.
These are the American Samoans, the Micronesians, the Aleutes, the original Hawaiians and the erroneously termed Eskimos, who are
actually Upiks and Inupiats. And, of course, the American Indian.I prefer the term American Indian because I know its origins. The
word Indian is an English bastardization of two Spanish words, En Dio, which correctly translated means in with God. As an added
distinction the American Indian is the only ethnic group in the United States with the American before our ethnicity. At an
international conference of Indians from the Americas held in Geneva, Switzerland at the United Nations in 1977 we unanimously
decided we would go under the term American Indian. We were enslaved as American Indians, we were colonized as American
Indians and we will gain our freedom as American Indians and then we will call ourselves any damn thing we choose. Finally, I will
not allow a government, any government, to define who I am. Besides anyone born in the Western hemisphere is a Native American.
THE WORD “INDIAN” IS GOOD—IT’S AN APPROPRIATE TERM AND A VALID

LEGAL CATEGORY
ALFRED 1999
Taiaiake Alfred Peace Power Righteousness An Indingous Manifesto Director of Indiguious Governance Program U. of Victoria 1999
Mohawks have been referred to as Rattlesnake People by the other tribes. But the rattlesnake is a very peaceful creature, raising its
offspring on its own homeland; if its territory is large enough, it will run away. But if you persist, he warns you with his tail— please
stay away! If you come closer he warns you more loudly, and finally if you give him no choice, then he will strike you. We are called
rattlesnakes because we have that character. . . . Tom Porter speaks the truth eloquently as usual. Nonetheless, in this book references
to 'Iroquois', the Six Nations, and the people of the Confederacy will use the Kanien'keha word 'Rotinohshonni', meaning 'people of
the long house'. In broader discussions I will use various terms: 'Indian' (it should be noted that the area now known as 'India' was still
called 'Hindustan' in the fifteenth century; the term 'Indian' as applied to indigenous Americans is derived from Columbus's original
name for the Taino people he first encountered, 'una gente in Dios', or 'Indios', meaning 'a people in God'; 'Indian' is also a legal term,
and in common use among indigenous people in North America); 'Native' (in reference to the racial and cultural distinctiveness of
individuals, and to distinguish our communities from those of the mainstream society), 'American Indian' (in common use and a legal-
political category in the United States), 'Aboriginal' (a legal category in Canada; also to emphasize the primacy of the peoples who
first occupied the land), and 'indigenous' (in global contexts, and to emphasize natural, tribal, and traditional characteristics of various
peoples). All are quite appropriate in context and are used extensively by Native people themselves?) -f 7 - Notes to the text, keyed to
page numbers, can be found following p. 147.
49
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: WORD “BISON” BAD

BISON IS THE PROPER TERM FOR THE ANIMALS ON THE FRONTIER -
CENTURIES OF MISUSE INCORPORATED "BUFFALO" INTO POPULAR SPEECH
DYAL 1981
[Donald H., Director of the Cushing Library at Texas A&M University, Rangelands, "Buffalo!", 3:5 pg. 186, JStor,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3900483]
The word buffalo itself entered the language of the frontier through the French and Spanish. In its original latin form, Babalus
signified several species of wild cattle such as the Cape or African buffalo and the water buffalo of Asia. Never-theless, travellers
indiscriminately labelled all sorts of new wildlife "buffalo" and the term almost became a generic description for wild hoofed
animals. Thus, historical records indicate that European explorers, travellers and trappers often described bison, elk, and moose all as
"buffalo." Soon the colonists were more discriminating, however. By 1700, the big woolly hump-backed denizen of woods and plains
was universally called buffalo. By the time naturalists decided that the wood buffalo (Bison athabascae) and the plains buffalo
(Bison bison) were really bison, it was too late to change popular speech. Indeed, popular speech would never be the same as
before the encounter with the buffalo.
AMERICAN ANIMALS ARE CALLED BISON – BUFFALO ARE ONLY FOUND

OUTSIDE THE US BUT THE WORD IS COMMONLY MISUSED
GILLESPIE 2004
[James R., BS and MS in Agricultural Education from Iowa State University, has degree as an Education Specialist in School
Administration from Western Illinois University, Modern livestock & poultry production, pgs. 868-869, Google Books]
The American bison is a member of the Bovidae family, genus Bison, species bison. The Bovidae family includes cattle, sheep, and
goats (see Unit 1, Table 1-1). It is believed that the bison crossed the Bering Strait land bridge from Asia to North America
approximately 20,000 to 30,000 years ago. The Bering Strait land bridge was a landmass that emerged during an ice age when a large
amount of the earth’s water was frozen in ice sheets and glaciers. When the ice melted at the end of the ice age, the seas rose in depth
and the land bridge was again covered by water. The American bison is related to the European bison, Bison bonasus, a species
that is almost extinct. The European bison is known as the wisent; only a few specimens remain, mostly in parks and zoos. The name
“buffalo” is often used when referring to the bison. This is not a correct use of the word. Buffalo refers to the Cape Buffalo or
Water Buffalo found in other parts of the world but not in the United States.
50
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: NON-INDIAN INVOLVEMENT BAD

EVEN IF WE ARE NOT AMERICAN INDIANS WE CAN STILL RALLY FOR
JUSTICE AS INTELLECTUALS
ALFRED 1999
Taiaiake Alfred Peace Power Righteousness An Indingous Manifesto Director of Indiguious Governance Program U. of Victoria xxiv
1999 JD
Its unconventional structure reflects a self-imposed demand for accessibility, particularly among Native people. It is shaped by
concerns, issues, and demands for guidance arising from within Native communities, together with a commitment to searching within
indige¬ nous traditions to find the answers we need to move forward. If we are to effect real change, however, non-indigenous people
must come to share the objective of justice. Hence this essay must also be accessible to non-Native readers, and convincing as a work
of scholar¬ ship. If I am successful in conveying some of the wisdom inherent in our cultures, perhaps that wisdom will help others as
well to deal with dysfunctional aspects of their own societies and to live better lives, collec¬ tively and individually. In a way, this
book is an extension of the work I began with Heeding the Voices of Our Ancestors, a study of Kahnawake's history and
Kanien'kehaka nationalism. That book required that Native readers penetrate a fairly thick layer of academic convention and language
to gain access to knowledge that could help them to understand their past and present conflicts. This book starts from the opposite
perspective. It asks non-indigenous people to join in an indigenously oriented dialogue aimed at moving beyond those conflicts. As an
academic project, it is an extended exercise in the self-critical study of indigenous political cul¬ tures. As is evident in the subtitle, my
goal is to prepare the philosophical ground for the eventual development of a broad 'indigenous'—as opposed to narrow tribalist—
critique of politics and the state. However, these theoretical and philosophical elements are only two among many layers of meaning
that I hope will emerge from this essay's rhetoric, which is rooted in indigenous ground.
51
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: DEMAND ONLY REGIONAL

BUFFALO IS DEMANDED BY TRIBES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY—IT IS NOT
LIMITED TO INDIVIDUAL TRIBES OR REGIONS
LULKA 2006
The rationale for acquiring these products varies somewhat from tribe to tribe. A representative for the Oglala Sioux mentioned the
importance of cultural traditions. The food manager for the Sac and Fox stated that they purposely acquired more "buffalo" than
"bison" in order to promote tribal production. Although the Cherokee do not have a strong historic association with the species, they
have also acquired these products in part to support the tribes who occasionally win contracts with the USDA. The large amount of
bison products procured by the Cherokee and the Navajo are partially generated by the high level of participation in the FDPIR within
these communities. Consequently, for some tribal food administrators, pragmatic secular concerns overshadow the traditional cultural
concerns noted above_ Thus, in addition to cultural and nutritional concerns, bureaucratic influences appear to impact the
geographical distribution of these products. Some food managers noted that they acquired bison products from the FNS on an
experimental basis in order to see if there was any interest in the products. Even when there was not a clamor for these products,
several food managers found that tribal members readily requested and consumed these products. In part, this was prompted by the
fact that bison products were designated as a "bonus" item, which meant these products did not count against the personal allotments
of individuals. For such reasons, some food distributors intended to acquire bison products in the future, even though there is no strong
cultural tie to the species_ The extent of interest suggests that bison is not a "regional" food_ Indeed, the apparent lack of interest
shown by the Northeast and Southeast was actually due to the relative lack of reservations in those regions. (Only five FDPIR
distribution outlets are located in the Northeast and Southeast.) The widespread interest in bison products may indicate that other
concerns, namely nutritional and bureaucratic concerns, extend the scope of tribal interest in bison beyond cultural tradition.
52
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: STATES
ONLY THE USFG HAS AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH
INDIANS
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY CENTER 2002
(non-profit serving the Midwest Indian community the Center focuses on research, policy development and education on critical
Indian issues, “State-tribal relations”, http://www.airpi.org/projects/statetrb.html )
Conflicts over resource management, taxation and regulation erupt because state governments fail to understand or recognize the
sovereignty of tribes. The U.S. Supreme Court clearly defined the relationship between Indian tribes and state governments in 1832. In
Worchester v. Georgia, Chief Justice Marshall wrote, "The Cherokee Nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying its own
territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia
have no right to enter, but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with the acts of congress.
The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our constitution and laws, vested in the government of the
United States." The framework set forth in this case (and two others that comprise the Marshall trilogy) make it clear that states are
specifically excluded from relationship between two sovereign nations. These cases echo the constitution which specifically prohibits
any state from entering into a treaty with another nations, and, through the commerce clause, gives congress the sole authority to deal
with Indian nations. That a state government would try to exert taxation or regulatory authority over an Indian nation makes no more
sense than if that same state government tried to tax Canada.
THE USFG IS OBLIGATED TO UPHOLD THE TRUST DOCTRINE

AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY CENTER 2002
(non-profit serving the Midwest Indian community the Center focuses on research, policy development and education on critical
Indian issues,” Trust responsibility”, http://www.airpi.org/projects/trustdct.html )
What has changed in the twentieth century is not the legal relationship between United States and Indian tribes, but rather the
perspective. As the United States followed Manifest Destiny westward consuming land and resources, tribes began to be looked upon
as dependent domestic nations instead of as foreign nations. As domestic nations within another nation, the federal government has a
responsibility to protect the interests of Indians. "The trust relationship evolved judicially and survived occasional congressional
attempts to terminate the government's obligations to Indians. In theory, the trust relationship exists to protect tribes and individual
Indians. However, in practice, the federal trustee has at times not worked in the best interests of the intended beneficiaries," according
to attorney Larry Leventhal, writing for the Hamline Law Review. One way to conceptualize trust responsibility is to think of it as
treaty responsibility, said Dennis King, an Oglala tribal council member. The federal government still has the responsibility to honor
agreements and treaties, which is why it is important for Indians to be knowledgeable about the treaties that affect them. Often the
promises made by the United States in treaties are enforceable under the trust doctrine. In a 1983 decision, United States v. Mitchell,
the Supreme Court developed a standard for determining liability arising from a breach of trust responsibility. It's important to note
that although federal trust responsibility arises out a the nationhood of tribes, the trust doctrine also applies to individual Indians. This
is unlike sovereignty and sovereign immunity, which can only be applied to nations. The American Indian Policy Review
Commission, set up by Congress in 1975, called federal trust responsibility the most important as well as the most misunderstood
concept in Federal-Indian relations. Part of the misunderstanding may stem from actions of Congress. The federal government has
often acted inconsistently with and in opposition to the principles of trust doctrine, leaving the public and many tribes confused. The
AIPRC defined the United States as a fiduciary whose actions were to be judged by the highest standards. Because the federal
government has so much control over the resources of Indian nations and individual Indians, the trust doctrine is implied in dealings
even if not implicitly stated. Trust responsibility affect everything the federal government is involved in, from education and health
care to trust lands and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In his term in office, President Bill Clinton acknowledged the broad trust
responsibility of the federal government. In an Executive Memorandum, he directed all cabinet heads and departments to work with
tribes in a government-to-government relationship.
53
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: STATES
THE USFG’S TRUST DOCTRINE WITH THE INDIANS OBLIGATES THEM TO
FULFILL THE NEEDS OF THE TRIBES
PEVAR 2006
at least(Stephen, ACLU attorney, “THE FEDERAL-TRIBAL TRUST RELATIONSHIP:ITS ORIGIN, NATURE, AND SCOPE”,
http://www4.nau.edu/itep/trainings/docs/ECI_PevarTrustResponsibility08.pdf )
The relationship between the United States and Indian tribes is based on and built around the doctrine of trust responsibility. As the
Supreme Court noted in 1983, a principle that "has long dominated the government's dealings with Indians. . . [is] the undisputed
existence of a general trust relationship between the United States and the Indian people." United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 225
(1983). In 2003, the Supreme Court confirmed "the general trust relationship" between Indian tribes and the federal government. See
United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488, 490 (2003). The trust doctrine is both a fundamental concept in federal Indian law and a
motivating force. Virtually every law enacted by Congress during the past 40 years involving Indians and tribes has cited to, and
found its support in, the federal government's trust obligations. For example, the Indian Tribal Justice Support Act of 1993, 25 U.S.C.
Secs. 3601-3631, which seeks to support the work of tribal courts, states as its first two congressional findings: "(1) There is a
government-to-government relationship between the United States and each Indian tribe; [and] (2) the United States has a trust
responsibility to each tribal government that includes the protection of the sovereignty of each tribal government." C. Between 1785
and 1871, the U.S. entered into nearly 400 treaties with Indian tribes. The goal of the United States in signing these treaties was to
obtain Indian land without further bloodshed. In exchange, the tribes received a set of promises. Almost every treaty tribe was
promised that its sovereignty, remaining lands, and its people would be protected by the United States. For example, the Treaty of
Hopewell, signed with the Cherokee Nation in 1785, guarantees "peace to all the Cherokees" and promises to "receive them into the
favor and protection of the United States of America." See Documents of United States Indian Policy 7 (Francis Paul Prucha ed., 2d
ed., U. Neb. Press 1990). Many treaties expressly require the United States to provide food, clothing, and shelter to the tribe, but the
most important guarantee was that of federal protection. D. These promises, the Supreme Court has held, create a unique bond
between the United States and each treaty tribe, imposing on the federal government "moral obligations of the highest responsibility
and trust." Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 296-97 (1942). Indian tribes relinquished their sacred lands in exchange
for these promises, and the United States should keep its word.
54
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: STATES
THE USFG HAS A TRUST RESPONSIBILITY TO THE TRIBES INCLUDING
SOCIAL SERVICES
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION 08
(4/8, “Issues: Native Americans and Federal Responsibility, The Origins of our Trust Responsibility Towards the Tribes”, Quaker
Lobby in Public Interest, http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1300&issue_id=95 )
The federal government has a general trust responsibility towards the tribes, meaning that it should look out for the welfare of tribal
members. This derives first and foremost from the many treaties entered into by the tribes and the U.S. government. In addition, the
underlying perception of Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries was that Native Americans were not able to look after their own
affairs, and needed to be looked after. The general trust concept has become solidified in law and policy, and has become a keystone
of decisions regarding American Indians reflected in congressional policies, executive branch directives and decisions, and judicial
opinions. In the 1831 case of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Supreme Court held that relations with tribes were a matter exclusively
reserved for the federal government to the exclusion of the states. In his decision in that case, Chief Justice Marshall coined the phrase
"domestic dependent nations" to describe the relationship between the United States and the tribes, a phrase that has been used
frequently ever since. Marshall went on to say, "They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will, which
must take effect in point of possession when their right of possession ceases. Meanwhile they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation
to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian. They look to our government for protection; rely upon its kindness and
its power; appeal to it for relief to their wants; and address the President as their Great Father."
That approach has persisted in Supreme Court decisions issued ever since. In an 1886 decision we find it articulated: "These Indian
tribes are the wards of the nation. They are communities dependent on the United States, – dependent largely for their daily food;
dependent for their political rights....For their very weakness and helplessness, so largely due to the course of dealing of the federal
government with them, and the treaties in which it has been promised, there arises the duty of protection...." As recently as 1983 the
court noted "the undisputed existence of a general trust relationship between the United States and the Indian people" which "has long
dominated the government’s dealings with Indians."In a 1970 Special Message on Indian Affairs, President Nixon stated, "The
government has agreed to provide community services such as health, education and public safety, services which would presumably
allow Indian communities to enjoy a standard of living comparable to that of other Americans." This statement has become a primary
source of governmental policy towards the tribes since then. A 1977 Senate report stated it similarly: "The purpose behind the trust
doctrine is and always has been to ensure the survival and welfare of Indian tribes and people. This includes an obligation to provide
those services required to protect and enhance Indian lands, resources, and self-government, and also includes those economic and
social programs which are necessary to raise the standard of living and social well-being of the Indian people to a level comparable to
the non-Indian society."
55
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: SELF-D—NOT UNIQUE

NON-UNIQUE: INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION OF KOSOVO’S
INDEPENDENCE MEANS SECESSION IS BEING MODELED NOW
BORGEN 2008
(Christopher J. Borgen, American Society of International Law, “Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence: Self-Determination,
Secession and Recognition”, Feb. 2008, p.4-5, http://slomanson.tjsl.edu/2.4_KosSecession.pdf)
By contrast, the Russian Duma issued a statement that read, in part: The right of nations to self-determination cannot justify
recognition of Kosovo’s independence along with the simultaneous refusal to discuss similar acts by other self-proclaimed states,
which have obtained de facto independence exclusively by themselves. Moreover, Bosnian Serbs had earlier stated that, should
Kosovo declare independence, they would seek independence for “Republika Srpska,” the selfproclaimed Bosnian Serb ethnic enclave
within Bosnia…. It can be argued that Kosovo is different from other secessionist claims because Kosovo has been under international
administration as the international community considered the situation so volatile. Reintegrating such a territory is different from
assessing a claim by a separatist group that, on its own, is seeking to overturn the authority of the pre-existing state and unilaterally
secede. While secessions are primarily an issue of domestic law, Resolution 1244 internationalized the problem. It also moved Kosovo
from being solely under Serbian sovereignty into the grey zone of international administration. This is a highly controversial position.
Various reactions to the “uniqueness” argument include that such a contention is "absurd" or that it is an esoteric legal point that will
be forgotten in the rush of politics. . . . [T]he international community may be creating precedent that we will see cited by other ethnic
enclaves seeking separation, be they Russians in Abkhazia or Krajina [Croatian] Serbs. Previously, neither of these groups was viewed
as having a strong claim for the privilege of secession, as neither of these groups is a “nation” in the ethnographic sense, but rather
fragments of Russian or Serb ethnic groups. But their arguments may be strengthened, and one of the bulwarks of international law
against facile secessions may be weakened, if the facts of the Kosovo claim are not carefully and narrowly construed.
56
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: SELF-D—NO LINK

NO LINK - THE PLAN ONLY FUNCTIONS TO INCREASE INTERNAL SELF-
DETERMINATION FOR AMERICAN INDIANS - THAT’S DISTINCT FROM
SECESSIONISM
BORGEN 2008
(Christopher J. Borgen, American Society of International Law, “Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence: Self-Determination,
Secession and Recognition”, Feb. 2008, p.3, http://slomanson.tjsl.edu/2.4_KosSecession.pdf)
The legal concept of self-determination is comprised of two distinct subsidiary parts. The default rule is “internal self-determination,”
which is essentially the protection of minority rights within a state [textbook §2.4.C.]. As long as a state provides a minority group the
ability to speak their language, practice their culture in a meaningful way, and effectively participate in the political community, then
that group is said to have internal self-determination. Secession, or “external self-determination,” is generally disfavored.
57
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON

KOSOVO INDEPENDENCE SET A PRECEDENT FOR SECESSIONIST
MOVEMENTS INTERNATIONALLY - WORLD LEADERS AGREE
SUN 2008
(Sun Yunlong, reporter for China View News, “UNSC debates Kosovo in emergency session”, Feb 9 2008,
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-02/19/content_7629471.htm)
The United Nations Security Council on Monday held an emergency session on the self-proclaimed independence of Kosovo, but
council members remain split on Pristina's unilateral move. Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin condemned
the Feb. 17 declaration of independence by Kosovo's local assembly as "a blatant breach of the norms and principles of international
law... which undermines the foundations of the international relations system." "The situation developing as a result of the illegal
steps of the province's leadership poses a threat to peace and security in the Balkans," Churkin told the session, which was attended by
Serbian President Boris Tadic. Churkin expressed firm support for Serbia's demand that the UN secretary-general's representative
and head of the UN mission in Kosovo declare the province's unilateral declaration of independence null and void. "The illegal acts
of the Kosovo Albanian leadership and of those who support them set a dangerous precedent," Churkin said. "They are fraught with an
escalation of tension and inter-ethnic violence in the province, destructive consequences for international relations that took decades to
build." South Africa's UN Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo stressed that Kosovo's unilateral move "presents the international
community with a serious challenge." He expressed the regret that Kosovo's step "was not taken in conformity with a legal and
political process envisaged by Security Council Resolution 1244," noting that "there remains space for dialogue and negotiation that
could help contribute to the long-term peace in the Balkans." China and Indonesia expressed concern over Kosovo's unilateral
move, urging continued efforts toward a mutually acceptable agreement through dialogue and negotiation. Chinese Ambassador to
the United Nations Wang Guangya warned that Kosovo's unilateral action may "rekindle conflicts and turbulence in the region, which
in turn would cause serious humanitarian crisis and adversely impact the entire Balkan region and beyond." "China is deeply
concerned over this," Wang said. Wang stressed that UN Security Council Resolution 1244 remains the political and legal basis for
the settlement of the Kosovo issue, and that before the adoption of any new resolution by the Security Council, "all efforts and actions
for the settlement of this issue should conform to the relevant provisions of Resolution1244." Indonesia's UN Ambassador Marty
Natalegawa expressed "profound concern" over "the latest political development in Kosovo," adding that Indonesia "regrets the failure
to reach a solution on Kosovo through dialogue and negotiation." "We maintain our strong belief that a mutually acceptable
agreement emanating from this process will better guarantee peace and stability in the region," he said. Vietnam's UN Ambassador
Le Luong Minh said Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence "will only add to tension in Kosovo and the Balkans, and deepen
division in Europe." "By creating a dangerous precedent, this development has negative implications for international peace and
stability," he said, urging all parties concerned to "act responsibly, exercise restraints, refrain from acts of violence" and undertake
measures to protect civilians and UN personnel on the ground.
KOSOVO SETS A PRECEDENT FOR SEPARATIST MOVEMENTS GLOBALLY -

JUST BECAUSE IT’S A SPECIAL CASE DOESN’T MEAN IT’S NOT MODELED
ASH 2008
(Timothy Garton Ash, author and reporter for the Los Angeles Times, “The Kosovo precedent”, Feb 21 2008,
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ash21feb21,0,6880108.story)
Is this a precedent, as some fear and others hope? Of course. Russian-backed leaders in South Ossetia and Trans-Dniester are
muttering about following the example of the American-backed Kosovars. Basque and Catalan separatists are taking note, and the
Spanish government has reacted against the declaration of independence with startling sharpness. Kosovo is the top story on the
website of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, which has 69 members, from Abkhazia to Zanzibar. "Kosovo is a
special case," says its declaration of independence, going on to insist (hear the advisor's whisper again) that it is not a precedent. But
the 68 other members of UNPO are special cases too. Kosovo's declaration of dependent independence is the least-worst way forward,
but don't let us pretend that it's not a precedent. Both statements are true: Kosovo is unique, and there will be more Kosovos.
58
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON

NON-UNIQUE - RUSSIAN RECOGNITION OF SOUTH OSSETIAN INDEPENDENCE
SET A PRECEDENT FOR A CHAIN REACTION OF SECESSIONISM
CARBONNEL 2008
(Alissa de Carbonnel, reporter for Europe News, “The Kosovo precedent: Recognizing Georgia's regions”, Aug. 25 2008,
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1426844.php/The_Kosovo_precedent_Recognizing_Georgias_regions_
_News_Feature_)
Moscow (dpa) - When the West recognized Kosovo's independence half a year ago, Russia's leaders warned the move would open
'Pandora's Box' in the Caucasus. The mountainous region's patchwork of ethnicities and states have long been difficult to reconcile
into coherent nation states. The bloody ten-day war between Russia and Georgia last week over the former Soviet states' rebel region
of South Ossetia is the realization of that Pandora's Box scenario. Russia has long supported Georgia's two ethnically separatist
provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but stopped short of recognizing their independence - until now - fearing that secessions in
those provinces would provide a dangerous precedent for other minority nations within the Russian Federation. Nevertheless,
Russian lawmakers on Monday unanimously passed a motion urging President Dmitry Medvedev to recognize Georgia's rebel regions
as independent - 15 years after they won de facto autonomy in a war of succession from Tbilisi in the early 1990s. By some counts
over 80 per cent of the populations in the regions have been issued Russian passports under an especially generous Russian policy that
Saakashvili decried as the creeping annexation of Georgian territory. As Russian tanks rolled into South Ossetia on August 8 to push
back Georgia's offensive to re-assert control, Medvedev took the national stage, invoking the army in defence of Russian citizens. In a
series of interviews by Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa after Kosovo's independence in February, Russian analysts foresaw a military
flare up, but did not predict the possibility that Moscow's policy could turn to recognizing the regions. The threat that Kosovo could
stand as a secessionist precedent in the Caucasus had formed the Kremlin's most vivid protest to the province's break from its ally
Serbia. But while Moscow is still confronted by the problems that the Kosovo precedent raises, paradoxically, the comparison has
now been turned into a justification of South Ossetia and Abkhazia's right to self-determination. Western leaders have labelled
Russia's move to recognize Georgia's regions as hypocrisy, while Russian leaders hit back with the accusation that a double standard
has been applied in the case of Kosovo. The resolution passed on Monday argued that by its assault on civilians Tbilisi had forgone
all moral right over the area, drawing a direct link between Russia incursion and the justification of NATO's bombing campaign in
Serbia in 1998. Appealing before Russian lawmakers South Ossetia's President Eduard Kokoity repeated what has become a maxim:
'We have more political-legal grounds than Kosovo does to have our independence recognized.' But Professor Yury Kolosov of the
Moscow Institute of International Relations threw cold water on the much-cited 'Kosovo precedent.' 'There is no such thing as a
'precedent' in international law ... And, if this is a precedent, then it's a bad one,' Kolosov, an eminent member of Russia's Association
of International law, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa. In other words, the Kremlin has the last word. While the threat of recognizing
the breakaway region adds to its bargaining power with the West, analysts said it would look for ways to delay such recognition, for
example, by requesting the provinces hold a new referendum. 'It seems to me that now politically it would be more favorable to leave
this situation hanging,' Moscow-based analyst Vyacheslav Nikonov, head of the Politika foundation, told news agency Interfax on
Monday. The Kremlin and its allies, meanwhile, aren't deaf to its own warnings that seizing on Kosovo as a precedent could spark a
'chain reaction' in the region. Medvedev sought to reassure the Molodovan and Azeri presidents - who have similar secession
worries to Georgia - on Monday over the respective breakaway regions of Nagorno Karabakh and Transnistria. South Ossetia's
ultimate ambition to unite with Russia's ethnically-similar region of North Ossetia is no less problematic. Russia's ties to Abkhazia,
which seeks only self-determination, have traditionally been stronger, as has its economic interest in the region. A poll by the
independent Levada centre in the aftermath of the conflict show near half of Russians - or 46 per cent - say South Ossetia should
become part of Russia. Only 4 per cent of those surveyed in interviews with 2,100 adults believed the province should remain part of
Georgia. But whatever the populations of the Caucasus think, with the fate of both provinces of intimate interest to Moscow and
beyond, the situation is likely to remain - for now - in legal limbo.
59
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: BISON NOT KEY

BISON ARE CRUCIAL SYMBOLS OF CULTURAL REVIVAL EVEN IF THEY
AREN’T INNATE PARTS OF INDIAN CULTURES
LULKA 2008
The importance of these different histories is apparent to tribal members. These alternate trajectories and upheavals affected relations with bison in two distinct ways.
On the one hand, historical events altered perceptions of the animal and its significance. As one tribal representative commented: Its more of a
restoration of that cultural and historical connection for Oklahoma tribes because, you know, they have been through relocations on the
move and to a certain degree assimilated over 150 years. Where you can go to the Northern Cheyenne reservation in Montana, I mean, their reservation is
considerably smaller than it was pre-Columbian, but nevertheless where they are has been their land since time immemorial, and they actually have a spiritual belief
that when the bison, when the last bison dies, they die… These words suggest that, in the process of being moved, the cultural systems and cultural
identity of the tribes were often disrupted or lost. The shifting geography of the tribes quite literally signified their dislocation from
previous ways of being. Similarly, the role of movement in the formation and loss of interest in bison was more explicitly noted by
another tribal representative when he stated that: I would venture to say, and I dont have any written proof of this anywhere, but we started out in Louisiana
and moved into, we moved into eastern Texas and then up into western Arkansas and southeast Oklahoma and then moved from there to here. The last move was to
here, just before the Civil War, and I would venture to say that we did not see buffalo probably until we moved into Texas and even then it would
have been limited. So, we dont have, we dont have… We have a buffalo dance, we have a buffalo song, that is an old, we have an old recording of it. So we
know that we did have a buffalo dance and a buffalo song, but nobody knows the dance and theres very few people that knows [sic] the song, but nobody
knows how the dance goes at all. In these situations, not only do customs need to be regained, but more simply the significance of the species.
Establishing a sense of connection with the species (and the obligations that this entails) may thus be more akin to work than a
reflection of a groups innate essence. As such, the affinity between tribes and this iconic species may be conceived more accurately as
a common goal rather than a ‘‘natural’’ impulse. Indeed, many members of ITBC tribes are apparently indifferent to the presence of bison.
BISON IS A CRUCIAL SYMBOL OF PAN-INDIAN UNITY

BERZOK 2005
Linda Murray Berzok “American Indian food” s a food writer and historian who has contributed articles and essays to Encyclopedia
of Food and Drink in America and Encyclopedia of Food and Culture, among others Published by Greenwood Publishing Group. pg
38 Google-books 2005 [JD]
During the socially and politically conscious 1960s, Native Americans, like black Americans, began to develop ethnic pride. A
generation of activist pitted traditionalism against assimilation. The Red Power movement encouraged tribes to elevate their
“Indianness,” which, of course, included celebration of traditional foods as symbols of cultural identity. Just as soul food became a
rallying point for African American identity, traditional Indian foods, their preparation and sharing became a ritual of the new revival.
In 1968, the militant anti-assimilation group American Indian Movement (AIM) was formed. Native Americans began holding inter-
tribal gatherings known as powwows where they could celebrate their ethnic identity. A set of “Indian” foods including fry bread,
bison steaks and wild rice were often part of this pan-Indian movement. These foods spread along the intertribal pow-wow circuit. Fry
bread entered a new era in the twentieth century and became a symbol of intertribal Indian unity. This is ironic considering that it is
not at all a traditional dish but rather a testament to the foreign powers that invaded North America.
60
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: SPEAKING FOR OTHERS

NO LINK—THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS IS THE
LARGEST AND MOST REPRESENTATIVE INDIAN GROUP IN AMERICA—THEY
DIRECTLY REQUESTED THE PLAN
NCAI 2004
(The National Congress of American Indians Resolution #FTL-04-046, “Call For An Increase in Funding in USDA’s Food Stamp
Program To Purchase Bison Meat as a Permanent Part of the Food Package of FDPIR,” Oct 10-15,
www.ncai.org/ncai/data/resolution/annual2004/ftl04-046.pdf)
WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians of the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the
Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign rights of our
Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which
we are entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public toward a better understanding of the
Indian people and their way of life, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise promote the health, safety and welfare of the
Indian people, do hereby establish and submit the following resolution; and
WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national
organization of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments; and
WHEREAS, diet related diseases including diabetes, cardiovascular disease and obesity are near epidemic proportions on most Indian
Reservations; and
WHEREAS, NCAI finds that range fed bison produced by Native American producers has great potential to address these health
conditions and that it is important that Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservation participants to have access to the natural
range fed bison produced by Native Americans; and
WHEREAS, bison meat is lean, high in protein and low in cholesterol and generally healthier source of food when compared to beef;
and
WHEREAS, the Congress, through the FY 2005 appropriations bill, temporarily authorized Agricultural Marketing Services, which
purchases food for the Food Nutrition Services which administers the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, to purchase
up to $ 4,000,000 in bison meat on an annual basis; and
WHEREAS, NCAI desires to call for a $4,000,000 increase in funding in USDA’s food stamp program for bison meat as a permanent
part of the food package of FDPIR.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the NCAI does hereby call for an immediate $4,000,000 increase in funding in USDA’s
food stamp program (for a total of $8,000,000 in annual funding) to purchase bison meat as a permanent part of the food package of
FDPIR and to provide this funding to this program on a recurring basis; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI further calls for a set aside for the purchase of bison meat for Native American producers
to supply FDPIR programs.
61
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: ONLY BUY TRIBAL BUFFALO

PURCHASING ONLY TRIBAL BUFFALO EXHAUSTS SUPPLY AND COLLAPSES
BISON HERDS
LULKA 2006
Yet if tribes limit themselves to the consumption of their own bison via traditional distribution systems, the scale and magnitude of
bison consumption would be constricted for the time being. Local and regional economies could persist, but many tribes without live
bison might lose access to such foods. For some, this reduction may not mean much, given the availability of other healthy foods and
the cultural importance of bison. Nonetheless, tribal representatives, particularly among influential organizations, must evaluate the
costs and benefits of each approach.
62
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: HURTS BEEF INDUSTRY

BEEF DESTROYS THE ENVIRONMENT—BISON SOLVES THIS
Time “Why the Buffalo Roam” Thursday, Mar. 15, 2007 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1599697,00.html JD
Plus, there's another reason to eat bison: doing so is good for the planet. Bison are leaner than cattle because they are still wild
animals who range and eat grass; they do not tolerate confinement well, and so they cannot be fattened the way we do cattle, which we
have bred to eat rich corn mixtures their entire adult lives. Growing corn to feed cattle costs the nation dearly in terms of pesticide and
fertilizer runoff. The pollution and inhumanity of the confinement-feedlot beef system make it one of postwar America's biggest
ecological blunders. Bison, on the other hand, eat grass that grows freely, and the manure they produce is a natural fertilizer. True,
some bison ranchers are irresponsibly corralling and then "finishing" their animals with a fattier diet of grain just before slaughter.
This makes the meat richer, more like beef. Ted's Montana Grill serves grain-finished bison, for instance, although CEO George
McKerrow Jr. says the chain is testing grass-finished meat for consistency and quality.
63
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: MAINSTREAM BISON GOOD

EVEN IF PRODUCTION-BASED AGRICULTURE KEEPS BISON NUMBERS HIGH,
IT WILL CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE ANIMALS—THIS UNDERMINES BISON
ECOLOGY AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
LULKA 2008
The place of bison within the North American landscape has become increasingly intertwined with the success of the bison industry.
In reference to consumers, a North Dakota producer alluded to this point by saying, "Little do they know, the more they eat buffalo,
the more popular it becomes, the more buffalo there will be." The paradoxical nature of the industry cannot be expressed more
succinctly. Yet, these are quantitative distinctions rather than qualitative criteria. There is no indication of the price to be paid during
this process of reintroduction. In certain respects, this recalls Baudrillard's (1983,pp. 22-23) comments with regard to Native
Americans: Americans flatter themselves they brought the number of Indians back to what it was before their conquest. Everything is
obliterated only to begin again. They even flatter themselves they went one better, by surpassing the original figure. … By a sinister
mockery, this overproduction is yet again a way of destroying them: for Indian culture, like all tribal culture, rests on the limitation of
the group and prohibiting any of its 'unrestricted' growth. … Demographic promotion, therefore is just one more step towards
symbolic extermination. While these words are overly strident, they illustrate an important point. If the physical and behavioral
characteristics of the species are transformed in the process of establishing a market for bison products, the success of this endeavor
will be much more questionable. Although several specificities distinguish the US bison industry from other agricultural enterprises,
recent events within the industry point more generally to the potential difficulties associated with the commodification of wild species
and the formation of alternative food systems.
64
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: VEGETARIANISM
EATING BISON IS GOOD—CREATES AN INCENTIVE TO PROTECT THE
SPECIES
Time “Why the Buffalo Roam” Thursday, Mar. 15, 2007
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1599697,00.html JD
Sometimes you have to eat an animal to save it. That paradox may disturb vegetarians, but consider the bison: 500 years ago, perhaps
30 million of these enormous mammals inhabited North America. By the late 1800s, several forces--natural climate changes and
Buffalo Bill--style mass killings among them--had slashed the bison population to something like 1,000. And yet today North America
is home to roughly 450,000 bison, a species recovery that has a lot to do with our having developed an appetite for them.
This year usda-inspected slaughterhouses will kill approximately 50,000 bison for human consumption. In 2000 the figure was just
17,674. Although bison consumption remains minuscule compared to beef eating--Americans ingest the meat of 90,000 cattle every
day--bison is by far the fastest-growing sector of the meat business. We like bison because it's much leaner than beef but still satisfies
that voluptuary jones for red meat. (Market research shows that men in particular enjoy bison, which Americans have long called
buffalo even though the species known zoologically as Bison bison is not a true buffalo.) An entire restaurant chain, Ted's Montana
Grill (named for one of its founders, Ted Turner, former vice chairman of Time's parent, Time Warner Inc.), has largely defined itself
through bison offerings, which include burgers and tenderloin that taste stronger, somehow meatier, than beef. Next month the chain
plans to open its 48th location, this one in Naperville, Ill.
HUMAN CONSUMPTION OF BISON IS NOT THE REASON WHY THE BISON

POPULATION IS LOW- CLIMATE WAS THE REAL CULPRIT
Time “Why the Buffalo Roam” Thursday, Mar. 15, 2007

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1599697,00.html JD
How can any of this be good news for the mythic, native (and rather dim) kings of the American plains? And
now that we have revived bison as a
species, can we figure a way not to screw it up again--to manage and slaughter them sanely and humanely? The
answers to these questions must begin by correcting a misapprehension: that the 19th century white man's greed
for hides and virtual policy of genocide toward Native Americans led to the extermination of tens of millions of
bison. Not exactly. As the late bison expert Dale Lott demonstrates in his acclaimed natural history American
Bison (2002), the bison population often shrank dramatically in preindustrial times when the jet stream moved
south and brought dry air to the plains. In 1841, before William Cody (the most famous of several men known
as "Buffalo Bill") was even born, a freak cold snap left a layer of ice over the Wyoming prairie so thick that
even the biggest bison bulls--which can weigh a ton--couldn't break through to eat grass. Millions of bison
perished, and the species never returned to that state's grasslands.
65
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: VEGETARIANISM
TURN: THE BISON MEAT MARKET SAVES MORE BISON THAN
CONSERVATIONISTS- PREFER OUR EVIDENCE ITS COMPARATIVE
Time “Why the Buffalo Roam” Thursday, Mar. 15, 2007 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1599697,00.html JD
But climate changes alone weren't enough to wipe out 30 million bison. Humans played a big role. By 1700 Native Americans were
riding horses, which allowed them to kill prey much more efficiently than by approaching on foot, as they had done for the previous
9,000 years. Steam power allowed for the cheap transport of bison hides, and in the 1870s tanners learned to make useful leather from
them. Demand soared, and the new Sharps "buffalo rifle" allowed hunters to meet that demand. The last significant bison hunt ended
in 1883, when there were almost none left. Conservationists saved a few--there were probably more bison at the Bronx Zoo in 1900
than there were in all of Oklahoma--and gradually bison were reintroduced to natural habitats like the Wichita Mountains Wildlife
Refuge. But it wasn't until the '70s, when ranchers began acquiring bison with an eye toward encouraging a boutique meat market
(Native Americans, Old West enthusiasts, health nuts), that the species rebounded in numbers significant enough to ensure genetic
diversity and protection against disasters like that 1841 freeze. Today private owners care for 97% of the world's bison population,
according to Cormack Gates, who chairs the World Conservation Union's North American Bison Specialist Group. The ranchers care
for bison because they can make money selling their meat. And so bison are flourishing again because they have the evolutionary
advantage of tasting good and having survived to a time when we all need to eat leaner. We win, and bison win. Of course, the
individual bison we eat lose, but the nature of the paradox is that most never would have a chance at life at all if we didn't provide a
reason for their husbandry. Vegetarians may argue that no life is better than one cut short at slaughter, but in terms of
maximizing their genetic expression, Bison bison would have to disagree.
66
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
A2: CRITIQUE SOLVES CASE

THEIR CRITIQUE CANNOT RESULT IN POLICY CHANGE—THE USDA WILL
IGNORE ARGUMENTS BASED ONLY ON CULTURE
LULKA 2006
Yet such subtle transformations do not necessarily fit well with the formulaic nature of national programs. For one, the cultural (and
spiritual) aspects of bison did not conform to the secular priorities of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), who administered the
FDPIR. Indeed, thecultural aspects of bison may have been negatively perceived by the FNS as a threat or a Pandora's box. In this
vein, one tribal member noted at length: The other thing that I think scares FNS about this is that bison or buffalo, some people claim
is a regional food. In other words, it's cultural or liked only by the Great Plains tribes. That's not really true, because I think all over
the United States there are tribal members eating the product, I guess, but. ... Then you turn around and you say, the Northwest tribes
have said, Well, we'd like to freeze the fresh or smoked salmon into a package. The Midwest tribes, of which President Nertoli is a
member of the Midwest region, they want wild rice and fish up on the northern peninsula. Southwest has always asked for blue corn
meal. Oklahoma tribes down in there, they have some other products they want. Consequently, the cultural aspects of food, which are
viewed positively by respective communities, may be viewed negatively by federal agencies because of the pragmatic problems they
may engender. As such, arguments for the inclusion of bison meat (or other products) solely on cultural grounds are likely to be
unsuccessful because they fall outside the comparatively narrow purpose and purview of the FDPIR.
67
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
FOOD STAMPS TURN

THE FDPIR IS THE BEST FEDERAL PROGRAM FOR PROVIDING FOOD—IT’S
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE WITH FOOD STAMPS
LULKA 2006
In 1997 the federal government established the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). The FDPIR was created
in response to the failure of other federal food programs to meet the basic needs of tribal communities throughout the United States.
Previously, federal food programs had been designed with "mainstream" Americans in mind, and did not address the specificity of
tribal life. For example, tribal communities initially received federal assistance under the Needy Family Program, which was created
during the Great Depression of the 1930s. The magnitude of this economic upheaval permeated most segments of society, in part
leading government administrators to adopt a utilitarian approach that met the requirements of the popUlation at large. Unfortunately
for tribes, however, these organizational decisions accelerated a transition in their dietary habits. Above all, this meant that the
commodities distributed through the program were food items typically consumed in Euro-American, rather than tribal, cultures. That
these foods were ill suited (or at least unfamiliar) to tribal communities was not deemed important enough to alter the character of the
program. Consequently, the diet of many tribes was dramatically changed, in effect substituting high-fat modern diets for the
traditional high-fiber, complex-carbohydrate diets of the past. In the years to come, one outcome of this program was a substantial rise
in obesity, diabetes, and heart disease within tribal communities (Indian Health Service 2001). High rates of unemployment and
poverty only exacerbated this problem. Due to high levels of economic dependence (which has persisted long after the Great
Depression ended), tribal members were particularly reliant upon such food sources for many years. In the 1960s the Food Stamp
Program was enacted and replaced the Needy Family Program. This new program allowed participants to select foods at retail
establishments, but it proved problematic for some communities because they were too distant from such retail locations. Accordingly,
the FDPIR was subsequently created. Through the FDPIR, food commodities are shipped directly to distribution centers in and around
tribal reservations. Currently, tribal members may participate in the Food Stamp Program or the FDPIR, but they may not participate
in both at the same time. According to the Indian Health Service (2001), by 1999 an average of 129,466 tribal members received food
from the FDPIR each month.
FDPIR IS BETTER THAN FOOD STAMPS—THE PROGRAM IS GOOD, BUT THE

FOOD IS BAD
METRO SPIRIT 2007
(“Bison in a Can,” August 4, http://www.metrospirit.com/index.php?
ShowArticle_ID=11013107074654929&cat=1211101074307265)
In the Dakotas, Red Gates, then pushing 40, took a job with a new federal program. It went by the clunky acronym FDPIR, or the
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. The program, which now serves 243 tribes, had been created by Congress in
1980, as an alternative to food stamps. “I think it’s a better program, obviously, because I work for it,” laughs Anthony Nertoli. He
runs the distribution program for the Sault tribe of the Chippewa Indians in Michigan. The program’s advantage over food stamps,
Nertoli says, is that “you know the food is getting out there." People living on large, isolated reservations have a hard time making
food stamps work. Supermarkets aren’t around every corner — indeed, the nearest grocery might be down 50 miles of dirt road. A
family’s food allowance could easily be eaten up by the money they spend on gasoline. And then, they might just use the stamps to
buy junk. Better, tribal authorities argued, to take nutritious food directly to the people who need it. The program was seen as a
success. But the food itself? Gates’ memories are foul.
68
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
NEG—SUPPLY TURN
LACK OF BUFFALO SUPPLY MEANS THE PLAN WILL DEPRIVE GREAT PLAINS
TRIBES OF BUFFALO—THIS TURNS THEIR CULTURE ARGUMENTS
LULKA 2006
At first glance, this extension of interest may seem beneficial, but it may also be problematic. A tension may ultimately develop
between the national character of the food and the regional character of the species. The regional character of the animal is important
because ethical attitudes developed out of the long association between bison and Plains tribes. Moreover, these attitudes seem to
possess a holistic quality that places bison within a wide social context. In contrast, many of the tribes in the FDPIR have had limited
engagement with bison in the past. While emerging dietary and bureaucratic regimes entail a new means of finding value in the
species, there is no guarantee that individuals with health concerns or bureaucratic responsibilities will have the same priorities as
those who emphasize the importance of cultural traditions. Conceivably, cultures of the Great Plains could come into conflict with
outlying tribal communities. Similarly, the fact that many of these tribes do not own bison themselves may also create problems, as
they may not be as invested in the fate of the animals. Consequently, matters of consumption may become disconnected from matters
of production.
69
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
NEG—FDPIR BAD
TRADITIONAL DISTRIBUTION IS BETTER THAN THE FDPIR—PREVENTS
COMPROMISE WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
LULKA 2006
Tribal communities must take these factors into consideration when estimating the value of the FDPIR. Above all, they must decide
whether the structure of the FDPIR is the best means of incorporating bison into a native food and agriculture system. This is not
simply a choice between consuming bison or foregoing consumption entirely. Rather, it is a matter of comparing such mechanisms
with other viable means for distributing such items. As the foregoing analysis indicated, tribal patterns of interaction already provide
opportunities for such dispersals. Such social processes may allow tribes to have more autonomy than the FDPIR allows for, in
particular with regard to how bison are managed. Within such formats, tribes may not be required to make concessions that affect a
culturally significant species.
70
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
NEG—NOT ENOUGH BISON

CAN’T SOLVE CULTURE—TRIBES DON’T HAVE ENOUGH BUFFALO TO AVOID
MIXING THEM WITH NON-TRIBAL SOURCES
LULKA 2006
In the midst of these developments, tribal representatives have tried to ensure that a significant percentage of the bison meat acquired
by the federal government is purchased directly from tribes. Ideally, these animals would be managed in a manner consistent with
tribal ethics. To this end, negative perceptions of nontribal bison have been expressed during this process. As the FDPIR staff member
noted above described the situation, "They didn't want to mix their product with the white man's. This is exactly the way it was told to
me. 'We don't want to mix our buffalo with the white man's buffalo. You know, it's a poor grade.'" Presumably, these distinctions are
not based upon the natural characteristics of the animals, but rather the effects generated by different systems of production. While this
may be a valid goal, tribes are hindered by the fact that they do not have enough bison to supply such a program by themselves. The
exact numbers vary, but tribes own only about 10,000 bison. An increase in the use of these animals could potentially deplete some
herds. To change this situation, tribes would either have to increase the intensity of production or gain access to more grazing land.
Both options present problems. One suspects the former option would not be acceptable to many tribal members because it resembles
other forms of domestication. Conversely, due to prevailing power structures, a realignment of property rights (or grazing rights) is
unlikely to occur any time in the near future.
71
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
NEG—WORD “INDIANS” BAD

THE DEROGATORY TERM “INDIANS” PROMOTES RACIAL TENSION AND
CREATES CONFUSION—ALSO TAKES OUT SOLVENCY
Berry Christina, staff journalist “What’s in a Name” NO DATE GIVEN
http://www.allthingscherokee.com/articles_culture_events_070101.html JD
As the story goes, when Christopher Columbus landed on an island in the Caribbean he thought he was in India. So naturally he
referred to the Natives he met as Indians. Unfortunately for those Natives he was not in India. However, the name Indian has since
stuck. Many people considered this problematic and wanted an alternative. After all, Columbus labeled the Natives as Indians based
on an incorrect assumption. Also, the term can create confusion because it may be difficult in conversation to differentiate between the
Indians of America and the Indians of India. The term American Indian became popular because it helped with this confusion.
However, to some this was still not an ideal term. It continued to use "Indian" which had been a somewhat derogatory term throughout
US history. In the late 20th century, as political correctness came to the forefront, many of these long standing ethnic terms were
abandoned for new neutral terms or phrases which would clean the slate. By using new terms Americans hoped to move away from
our history of racial tensions and develop a more harmonious society where our new labels could clearly define who we were and also
not open old wounds with old terms.
TERM “INDIANS” DENOTES STEREOTYPICAL AND DEBASING VIEWS OF THE

INDIGENOUS GROUP
Dennis Gaffney, “American Indian or Native American?” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/bismarck_200504A16.html>
4/24/2006. JD
In the 1960s, many people, both non-Indians as well as Indians, challenged the use of the word "Indian." Some argued that it was a
term coined by oppressors, and also a misnomer — they were not, after all, the Indians of the East Indies that Columbus thought he
had met in the Caribbean. The critics argued further that over the centuries the word had gained a pejorative meaning, often conjuring
up images that were simplistic, romanticized and often disparaging that were reinforced by TV serials and Hollywood westerns —
think, for instance, of Tonto of the Lone Ranger series. These cultural critics suggested substituting the term Native American for
Indian. They maintained that Native American was also more accurate, as one meaning of native was "being the original inhabitants of
a particular place," as Native Americans were.
THE USE OF THE TERM “NATIVE AMERICANS” HELPS SOCIETY MOVE AWAY
FROM THE RACIST PAST
Berry Christina, staff journalist, “What’s in a Name” No DATE
http://www.allthingscherokee.com/articles_culture_events_070101.html JD
The reasons are diverse and personal, but there are two popular reasons. The first reason is habit. Many Indians have been Indians all
their lives. The Native people of this continent have been called Indian throughout all of post-Columbian history. Why change now?
The second reason is far more political. While the new politically correct terms were intended to help ethnic groups by giving them a
name that did not carry the emotional baggage of American history, it also enabled America to ease its conscience. The term Native
American is so recent that it does not have all the negative history attached. Native Americans did not suffer through countless trails
of tears, disease, wars, and cultural annihilation -- Indians did. The Native people today are Native Americans not Indians, therefore
we do not need to feel guilty for the horrors of the past. Many Indians feel that this is what the term Native American essentially does
-- it white-washes history. It cleans the slate.
72
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
NEG—CAN’T SOLVE HEALTH

OPPRESSIVE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS CAUSE MALNUTRITION AND A HOST
OF DISEASES IN INDIANS
COUNIHAN 2002
(Carole M. Counihan, PhD, prof. of anthropology at Millersville University, Food in the USA, p. 109)
The process of colonization of the Americas is linked to disease states among the native populations. Until recently the emphasis has
been on infections disease and its recorded effects on Native American populations. This emphasis on introduced pathogens has
tended to ignore the health impacts of political and economic control being placed on native systems. The deliberate destruction of
native subsistence patterns through the reduction of land base, elimination of the bison and ecological changes brought on by intensive
means of production also had an important impact on the dietary adequacy and health of native Americans. Current chronic disease
states among Native Americans have been found to be associated with the oppressive political and economic conditions which have
existed since the formation of reservations. Joe (1991:157), among others, cites the federal government’s control of economic and
political resources on Indian reservation as helping to perpetuate the persistent poor health of Native Americans through inadequate
nutrition and exposure to other health hazards. The nutritional impacts of this relationship were manifested in starvation and
malnutrition in the past and are still evident today in the form of certain chronic diseases such as obesity, cancer, diabetes, nutritional
deficiencies, and poor dental health (Joe 1991: 151).
73
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
NEG—NO HEALTH IMPACT

HEALTH PROBLEMS ON RESERVATIONS ARE EXAGGERATED – USDA FOUND
THEIR HEALTHY EATING INDEX SIMILAR TO OTHER US RESIDENTS
Researchers at USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP) studied the diets of the small subsample of American
Indians (including Alaska Natives) included in the 1994-96 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). Although the
sample was small (n=107), results indicate that American Indians’ overall scores on the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) were not
significantly different from the rest of the U.S. population (Basiotis et al., 1999). In addition, the prevalence of food
insecurity/food insufficiency and hunger among American Indians was similar to that of other minority groups in the U.S. population
(Basiotis et al., 1999).
74
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
NEG—MARKET NOW
BISON MARKETS ARE ALREADY STRENGTHENING – USDA REPORT SHOWS
INCREASING DEMAND FOR BISON IN THE MAINSTREAM MARKET
HIGH PLAINS/ MIDWEST AG JOURNAL – 04
[“USDA begins posting wholesale bison meat prices”, 7/29/04,
http://www.hpj.com/archives/2004/aug04/aug02/USDAbeginspostingwholesaleb.CFM]
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's move to begin posting wholesale bison meat price information is another indication that buffalo
is moving into the mainstream marketplace, according to the Colorado-based National Bison Association. "Development of the new
wholesale price report is a valuable new tool that will assist marketers and buyers alike in establishing new markets for bison meat,"
said Dave Carter, executive director of the National Bison Association. The new report, posted for the first time in July, indicates that
the demand and prices are steadily increasing for bison meat. "The new USDA market reporting service reflects the strengthening
market that is taking place for our meat products," Carter said. The initial market report posted by USDA was based upon price
information obtained from processors accounting for 62.8 percent of the animals processed in June. "This is a very good level of
information upon which to base a national report," Carter noted. The new monthly market report has been under development by
USDA for the past nine months. The agency has been working with the National Bison Association's Commercial Marketers
Committee to develop the report data collection and price reporting format.
75
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
NEG—STATES C/P
STATES CAN RUN FDPIR
The FDPIR is administered at the State and local levels by State agencies and Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs). USDA provides
food and administrative funding to the State agencies and ITOs, which are then responsible for program operations, including food
storage and distribution, eligibility certification, and nutrition education. In FY 2003, the FDPIR was administered by 98 ITOs and 5
State agencies and provided benefits to approximately 243 American Indian tribes (USDA/ FNS, 2003b). In FY 2002, approximately
110,000 individuals participated in the program each month, at an annual cost of $69 million (USDA/FNS, 2003c).
76
MGW 2009
HALL/MATHESON
CANNED BISON
NEG—T POVERTY
FDPIR BENEFITS GO TO PEOPLE ABOVE THE POVERTY LINE
HAMILTON AND ROSSI - 02
In the only nationally representative study of the FDPIR, Usher and his colleagues (1990) found that FDPIR households were very
poor. Nearly 1 in 10 FDPIR households reported having no income. More than one-third had gross incomes that were equivalent to or
less than 50 percent of the 1989 Federal poverty level. Only one in five households had incomes above the poverty level.
77

AFF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AFF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MGW 2009

DESPITE FEDERAL PROMISES THE USDA PROCURES FARM-RAISED BISON

WE MUST CHALLENGE THE UNEVEN DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD AT ANY COST

INDIAN CULTURE IS KEY TO ALL CULTURES—POLICIES IMPLEMENTED FOR

CONTINUES—NO TEXT DELETED

CONTINUES—NO TEXT DELETED

NOW IS THE KEY TIME TO INFLUENCE THE BISON MARKET—CHANGING

PRAIRIES ARE KEY TO OVERALL BIODIVERSITY

In many respects, what tribes

CREATING DEMAND IS KEY—THIS ALLOWS TRIBES TO EXPAND THEIR

INCREASED FUNDING IS KEY TO IMPROVE NUTRITION, DISTRIBUTION, AND

Inasmuch as this portrayal is accurate, other strategies

OUR EXAMINATION OF FEDERAL BISON POLICY IS CRUCIAL TO CREATE

STATUS QUO BARRIERS PREVENT TRIBAL BUFFALO FROM EFFECTIVE

BISON PURCHASES MUST BE APPROVED EVERY YEAR—THE PROGRAM IS

STATUS QUO REGULATIONS FORCE TRIBES TO COMPROMISE BY

BISON MARKETS WEAK

ASSOCIATED PRESS 2008

TRIBAL BISON SOLVES CULTURE

TRIBAL BISON SOLVES CULTURE

TRIBAL BISON SOLVES HEALTH

AMERICAN INDIAN DIETS HAVE SHIFTED FROM TRADITIONAL TO

BISON GRAZING CREATES A VARIED MOSAIC OF PRAIRIE GRASSES AND

BISON KEY TO BIODIVERSITY – GRAZING CREATES A VEGETATION MOSAIC

BISON KEY TO CULTURE

CONTINUES—NO TEXT DELETED

BISON KEY TO CULTURE

BISON MEAT IS CRUCIAL TO PRESERVE INDIAN CULTURES

BISON HERDS CULTURALLY UNIFY INDIAN COMMUNITIES

TRADITIONAL FOOD GOOD

TRADITIONAL DIETS ARE PROVEN TO BE HEALTHIER – THEY REDUCE RISK

INDIAN CULTURE KEY

FEDERAL DECOLONIZATION MODELED

CURRENT EFFORTS TO EXPAND CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE FOOD ARE

FDPIR USES THE SAME STANDARDS AS FOOD STAMPS

A2: ECONOMIC MOTIVES BAD

A2: INDIANS DON’T WANT FDPIR

A2: LANGUAGE CRITIQUES

A2: WORD “INDIANS” BAD

THE WORD “INDIAN” IS GOOD—IT’S AN APPROPRIATE TERM AND A VALID

A2: WORD “BISON” BAD

AMERICAN ANIMALS ARE CALLED BISON – BUFFALO ARE ONLY FOUND

A2: NON-INDIAN INVOLVEMENT BAD

A2: DEMAND ONLY REGIONAL

THE USFG IS OBLIGATED TO UPHOLD THE TRUST DOCTRINE

A2: SELF-D—NOT UNIQUE

A2: SELF-D—NO LINK

A2: SELF-D—NOT UNIQUE

KOSOVO SETS A PRECEDENT FOR SEPARATIST MOVEMENTS GLOBALLY -

A2: SELF-D—NOT UNIQUE

A2: BISON NOT KEY

BISON IS A CRUCIAL SYMBOL OF PAN-INDIAN UNITY

A2: SPEAKING FOR OTHERS

A2: ONLY BUY TRIBAL BUFFALO

A2: HURTS BEEF INDUSTRY

A2: MAINSTREAM BISON GOOD

HUMAN CONSUMPTION OF BISON IS NOT THE REASON WHY THE BISON

Time “Why the Buffalo Roam” Thursday, Mar. 15, 2007

A2: CRITIQUE SOLVES CASE

FOOD STAMPS TURN

FDPIR IS BETTER THAN FOOD STAMPS—THE PROGRAM IS GOOD, BUT THE

NEG—NOT ENOUGH BISON

NEG—WORD “INDIANS” BAD