Fauna of the National Parks of the United States 2: Wildlife Management in the National Parks ()

Because of various proposals involving reduction of buffalo, elk, deer, and other species, as outlined in the foregoing report on the Current Status of Large Mammals in the National Parks, it is felt that an explanation of these contemplated actions is due. It is believed that the explanation most satisfactory and economical of time and energy is to be found in the reports submitted by the Wildlife Division from time to time, which portray conditions as we have found them. Therefore, a representative list of such reports is given herewith.

Throughout, the reports are submitted practically verbatim, with only such slight changes in text as would be conducive to greater clarity, or in matters involving personnel or administrative routine which would have no place here. In no case has the meaning or purpose of any report been changed.

It should be noted that the first series of reports deals with restoration measures. The second series of reports deals with the administrative phase of wildlife management. Only such reports are included as are necessary to indicate and explain the national parks wildlife restoration and administrative program.

REPORT UPON WINTER RANGE OF THE
NORTHERN YELLOWSTONE ELK HERD AND
A SUGGESTED PROGRAM FOR ITS RESTORATION

It is felt that the following pictures portray the precarious status of the Yellowstone elk winter range far more adequately and briefly than would a written description of these conditions. Therefore no written account of the range is submitted in this report.

It may be said, however, that the recent acquisition of some 7,000 acres of additional winter range near Gardiner will not alleviate materially the present situation because much of that territory comes to the park in an already overgrazed condition. It has been the sustenance of domestic stock for many years prior to its acquisition by the park.

The range condition portrayed in these pictures is not a merely transient one nor is it of purely recent occurrence. The pictures have been secured in Yellowstone National Park by members of the Wildlife Division over a period of 4 years. The range was in deplorable condition when we first saw it, and its deterioration has been progressing steadily since then. It is noticeably worse now than it was in 1929.

Something must be done to establish a safe relationship between the number of elk and the available forage before another winter is encountered and further damage done. In considering a program to accomplish this purpose there are two particularly significant points to consider.

First, there is more certainty for the perpetuation of the elk herd if it is composed of 6,000 healthy animals on a good range than if it numbers 12,000 starving animals whose resistance to cold and disease is gone.

Second, a herd of elk reduced to the carrying capacity of the range. will mean that three other important game species of this park can be saved and a fourth reintroduced. These are Rocky Mountain bighorn, Rocky Mountain mule deer, American pronghorn, and plains white-tailed deer, respectively. Many others, including bison and beaver, will be greatly benefited.

All observers who have been studying this problem are agreed that the northern elk herd is hovering on the brink of disaster. The first hard winter will bring hideous starvation and wastage. The longer the hard winter is deferred, the greater will be the catastrophe. Mild winters mean that less forage is produced, that the elk utilize it to greater extent, and that larger calf crops are produced.

There is little justification for our depriving the elk of their winter range, concentrating them for three-fourths of the year on what would normally be their spring and fall range, and then permitting the herd to increase until that range is exhausted, with starvation inevitable in the end. It would be an inhuman thing to do in the face of our knowledge of the incontrovertible facts.

One is to acquire more winter range. Every effort should be made to do this as soon as possible. The only ultimate solution of this problem is to provide adequate and suitable winter range. But even this will not bring immediate relief, because most of the territory which might come into the park as winter range is already overgrazed. It would take several years of reduced grazing pressure to restore the land to its normal productivity.

The other method is to reduce the size of the herd. It is the only way which will be immediately applicable and effective to save the range, the elk, and the other animals.

Therefore, it is proposed that a plan to reduce the northern elk herd be adopted now, so that all will be in readiness to act this coming winter.

It is suggested that 3,000 elk be taken, each winter, until the herd can be supported by the range. Of course, the number could be modified after the first year either to decrease or increase the number removed according to the results that were being obtained. At the rate indicated here, it would take 3 or 4 years or more to bring the herd to proper proportions, since there is an estimated yearly increase at present in the neighborhood of 2,000.

There are two ways to accomplish this, and they are discussed here in the order of attention which they should receive:

1. Increase hunting adjacent to the park with the objective of disposing by this means of as large a proportion as possible of the number set for reduction each year.

2. Slaughter and distribute to the Indians the balance between what the hunters take and the total number it is desired to weed out.

Montana is aware that the National Park Service is favorable to a larger kill. The plan is to secure an understanding with the State that the season will be closed when the kill reaches the desired total. This now is possible. But there are obstacles. The legislature there will not meet again to make any changes in the game laws effective before 1936. It then should be possible to increase the take by raising the bag limit, lengthening the season, further developing the system of open and closed periods so as to encourage the elk to come out of the park, advertising of the hunting, etc.

However, even this will not accomplish the results desired. In mild winters the elk simply do not come out in sufficient numbers.

Until the problem is solved permanently, Yellowstone must be prepared each season to slaughter elk as it does buffalo. Preparation, of course, would have to be made in advance and the work undertaken before the season becomes so advanced that the animals are too poor to be fit for consumption. January would be the month.

There is nothing in this proposed program that is not feasible. Its essence is (1) to decide each fall how many elk should be taken from the herd, (2) to notify the game commission of Montana so it may plan to get as many of this number as possible for the hunters, (3) to perfect the plan for killing and distributing as many elk as are left in the year's allotment when the hunters are through.

2. The most important game herds in that park depend upon the narrow strip of land between the Yellowstone Plateau and the north boundary of the park.

3. The prolonged abuse of this strip of land by the elk is the one great danger to the existence of the elk themselves and the other species as well.

4. This danger can be averted at present only by reducing the elk to about half their present number.

5. This cannot be accomplished unless hunting is supplemented by regulation of numbers within the park.

Before Grand Canyon became a national park there was extensive cattle grazing up to the south rim of the canyon. Both browse and grass were abundant. Water was present in sufficient amount to provide for game, but was insufficient to provide for domestic stock. Therefore, ponds, or earth tanks, were constructed at various localities over the range, mostly outside of what is now the park. The water impounded in these tanks was utilized by cattle, sheep, horses, burros, and wild game.

During this period of utilization, hunting and range depletion caused a reduction in the number of deer inhabiting the region. When the boundaries of Grand Canyon National Park were drawn, they provided only a narrow strip of protected territory along the south rim of the canyon. Outside of this narrow protected strip, deer are still hunted, the range is still utilized by domestic stock, water is caught and retained in the tanks, and salt is provided for domestic stock.

It becomes evident that in order to provide for deer in the park, south of the canyon, compensating measures must be undertaken to restore the wildlife of this limited region to its former independence,

1. A 5-wire fence has been constructed along a considerable portion of the south park boundary. The lowest wire averages about 24 inches from the ground—this to exclude unpermitted cattle from the park range and to allow the free passage of deer. It is contemplated that the protection here afforded the range will allow normal range recovery and forage production. It will soon provide better browse for deer within the park than can be found outside.

2. Water holes, or tanks, are being constructed within the park to catch and retain water for deer and other forms of wildlife. It is felt that this is necessary in order that game will not be forced out of the park in the search for water. Eight such tanks have been constructed during the winter of 1933-34 by Civil Works Administration labor, and it is hoped that about 8 more may be finished. The limestone formation of this region is porous; ruin-off is slight, and precipitation is erratic. It is improbable that these tanks will all contain water at the same time, but it is thought that if a sufficient number is constructed there will be certainty of available water for deer and other wildlife within the park. Moreover, these will become places where there is greater probability of park visitors seeing and becoming acquainted with the wildlife of the park.

Such a program has been devised by the administration of Grand Canyon National Park to counteract the encroachment of civilization and to maintain wildlife of the area in its primitive independence.

Additional features of the Grand Canyon wildlife restoration plan are given in the following report.

In accordance with your request for a definite plan of Wildlife Division procedure, a wildlife management plan for Grand Canyon us submitted. This plan is the result of field reconnaissance of Grand Canyon National Park and conferences which Mr. Thompson held with Superintendent Tillotson and Chief Ranger Brooks.

In submitting this report it was understood that only such points should be included as met the approval of all members of the conferences * * *.

This report is not in the form of a formal 5-year program, but if accepted by you will be used as a basis upon which such a 5-year program will be constructed for Grand Canyon.

(b) By improvement of the range. (NOTE.—A large portion of the South Rim deer range is now enclosed within the fence being built to exclude domestic stock and to allow free passage of deer, but the range as a whole has been overbrowsed and overgrazed generally.)

An essential step in range restoration is: (1) to construct perhaps 15 fenced range study quadrates, with an equal number of unfenced check plots, to be distributed along the South Rim at desirable places.

(d) By allowing the native predatory animals equal protection with other forms of the park's wildlife.

(e) By continuing the practice of hunting immediately adjacent to the south boundary.

(f) By discontinuing, as soon as possible, all artificial feeding of deer and allowing the tame herd to go wild.

(a) By cooperative agreement with the Forest Service to the end that the deer population of the whole North Rim-Kaibab area may be kept low enough, by hunting, to permit range recovery.

(a) By cooperative agreement with the Forest Service in the regulation of hunting.

3. To allow the normal predatory animals equal protection with other forms of the park's wildlife.

4. To practice no artificial feeding of the native animals, except the Kaibab squirrel, other rodents, and nongame birds which are sometimes fed by visitors.

5. To reintroduce and maintain a herd of native antelope in Toroweep Valley, with no other means of artificial sustenance or protection than will be necessary to establish the herd and to provide water. It is thought that the antelope range (some 25 square miles lying south of the stockproof fence) should be given 2 or 3 years to recover before antelope are placed there.

1. To assign a wildlife ranger, a portion of whose duties will be the study and investigation of local wildlife problems and wildlife administration.

(2) A study of the food, habits, and abundance of bobcats, and their relation to other forms of life in the canyon.

(3) A study of the rate of recovery and condition of range, using the quadrates and all other field and printed material available.

NOTE.—Since the status of pronghorn is unsatisfactory generally, the Grand Canyon National Monument report has been included in the series to indicate activities of the National Park Service in providing for pronghorn in the Southwest. It should be noted here that the Petrified Forest National Monument range for pronghorn—some 40 square miles—has already been fenced against cattle, and the Grand Canyon National Monument fence and water development program (see report) is under way.

The grazing and agricultural utilization of the area is treated in detail in the report of Superintendent Tillotson. These factors are, however, important from the standpoint of wildlife administration and will be briefly discussed here.

In Tuweep¹ Valley, homesteads extend from the upper portion to within about six miles of the lower end of the valley. Cattle and sheep graze in the Mount Trumbull section of the monument and perhaps 40,000 head of sheep winter on the plateau section between Tuweep Valley and Kanab Creek. The entire area covered in the three and a half days of reconnaissance showed varying degrees of overgrazing. In the plateau area, growth of the sparse grasses is encouraged by removal of sheep as soon as the snow disappears. The region then is untouched until snowfall late in the year. This practice has been developed because of the lack of water in the area. Thus a system of deferred grazing is actually in effect. Browse plants, however, receive little benefit from this practice because they can be overbrowsed during the winter months, a condition illustrated by the Kaibab winter deer range. Grass and such shrubs as Atriplex and the browse plants listed for the Sandrock area could be improved in Tuweep Valley and the Sandrocks by further protection. Superintendent Tillotson's suggestion that the south line of W. A. Kent's homestead be the deadline for grazing in the valley and that all of the valley south of Kent's place and north of the river be preserved for American pronghorn range, should result in improved conditions in this portion of the valley. It is Mr. Tillotson's plan to prohibit grazing in the Sandrock area also.

The southern portion of the Trumbulls shows no over-grazing, but the northern portion of the mountains within the monument is over grazed, principally by cattle. The homesteaded land is, of course, at present largely useless for wildlife considerations.

Since the abolition or severe restriction of grazing in the monument area would impose an undue hardship upon ranchers who live there, no such course seems justified at present. However, an advised restriction of the number of stock allowed to use the range throughout the monument—other than the southern portion of Tuweep Valley, which should be entirely closed to grazing—will be necessary to keep the range from further deterioration. With the granting of no new grazing or homestead privileges the region should become available for wildlife and for national-park purposes in the future, at which time full development of the native wildlife resources will be possible. For the present, the possibilities of wildlife reinstatement are few.

It is reported by W. A. Kent, who first came into the region in 1914, that American pronghorn (probably Antilocapra americana oregona) were then plentiful in Tuweep Valley and in the region in general. (The pronghorn at Indian Gardens are probably of this species.) A band of six roamed just west of the Trumbulls until about 5 years ago, but Kent does not know of their having been seen since.

The proposed pronghorn range in the southern portion of Tuweep Valley comprises an estimated area of 25 square miles. This is sufficient territory to support perhaps several hundred animals when the range is in normal condition. The herd would be a natural and important attraction along the road to Toroweep Point. In that the range would be restricted to this relatively small area, however, the set-up would not be entirely natural, for it is highly probable that the pronghorns in former times roamed widely over the entire area from the Vermilion Cliffs to the river.

The question of water in this proposed refuge will have to be considered. A small seep is found at the base of the eastern cliff of Tuweep about midway along the pronghorn range. The water flow is small and is limited to about 3 months of the year. This would be insufficient. If the animals were allowed to roam the entire region as they did formerly, they could find enough water to subsist and any artificial water supply would be unnecessary. But since their restriction to the lower end of the Tuweep Valley is necessary at present, an artificial water supply to meet the demands imposed by an artificial limitation would seem to be justifiable.

It seems likely that this demand could be met at comparatively small cost. An old lake bed, perhaps a quarter section in area, lies just north of Vulcan's Throne at the south end of the pronghorn range. This has been used by the stockmen of the vicinity, who have thrown a small dirt dam across the spillway to impound water. With a more durable type of construction, water probably could be impounded the year round. The experiment seems worth making.

A State deer refuge borders the entire west line of the monument. This refuge was created in 1930 because of the unwarranted killing of deer in the Trumbull Mountains. It was reported that one man had killed 30 deer to be fed to his chickens. Such chickens seem to he voracious, but the story is taken for what it is worth. Last fall Kent saw a band of 35 deer on the north side of the Trumbulls. Deer, however, are not numerous in the mountains. During 1 day's ride from the floor of the valley to the crest of the mountain, along the crest to the south end, and return, we saw no deer and few deer tracks. In the plateau portion of the monument deer are reported present, especially along the points near the river, but are not numerous. We saw no deer the day we rode over the plateau.

It is not probable that deer were ever abundant in the monument area because of its aridity, but it is certain that they were more numerous in former times than at present. Deer forage is plentiful in the Trumbull section and is sufficient to meet all normal needs in the plateau section and down on the Sandrocks where deer winter.

If given protection these animals should increase perceptibly in the next few years, although protection will be difficult with the presence of sheep herders in the areas.

Mr. Kent reported seeing two Desert bighorns along the cliffs east of Tuweep Valley the week before we arrived. He reports them common along the cliffs north of the Sandrocks, also. Prohibition of grazing in the Sandrock area should give the bighorns needed protection. Since they are scarce in Grand Canyon National Park, their presence in the monument is a valuable asset to the limited game resources.

These may be treated briefly. Ringtail, spotted skunk, badger, gray fox, kit fox, coyote, and bobcat are reported present. There is some winter trapping practiced in the vicinity, and the foregoing are reported caught. Cougars at one time were plentiful in the Trumbulls but have been hunted so persistently that they now are very scarce. Prairie dogs are not found north of the canyon although they are present south of it. Jack rabbits and cottontails are numerous, but they are reported to have decreased suddenly about 3 years ago. Before that time they were so numerous as to be considered a pest. One porcupine was seen, and a few porcupine scars on small yellow pines, but the damage is so slight in the area as to be negligible. The little cinnamon ground squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus cinnamomeus) was seen from the Sandrocks to the yellow pines of the mountain.

1. Excepting the possibility of reintroduced American pronghorn, the fauna of the monument probably never will be spectacular, because of the aridity of the region.

2. Grazing should be eliminated from the proposed pronghorn range and the Sandrocks.

3. It seems desirable to attempt the reintroduction of the American pronghorn (Antilocapra americana oregona).

4. The production of an artificial water supply for pronghorn appears necessary and justifiable to counteract the unnatural restriction of the animals to the refuge. If in the future sufficient range were available to support them, the artificial water supply might not be necessary.

5. Restricted grazing throughout time remainder of the monument seems to be the only justifiable course for the present. But, owing to the overgrazed character of most of the range, restriction of the number of stock grazed will be necessary to prevent further deterioration. The actual number of stock which the range can support must be determined by further study.

NOTE: The opportunity to do something constructive for Merriam turkey and Mexican bighorn seems to be gradually shaping itself at Mesa Verde. But several obstacles must first be removed. They are indicated in the excerpts from the October 24, 1933, report. In the May 11, 1934, Wildlife Restoration Plan for Mesa Verde, these same difficulties are presented with what steps have been taken toward solution. Also, wildlife possibilities for the Mesa are indicated.

July 5-7, 1933, I accompanied Supt. C. Marshall Finnan on a pack trip up the Mancos Canyon from Ute to Stevens Canyon, exploring several of the intervening side canyons en route, and covering the Big Mesa portion of the Ute Indian Reservation lying between the southeast corner of Mesa Verde National Park and the Mancos Canyon. The present report is to recommend the acquisition by the National Park Service of that portion of the Ute Reservation bounded by Mancos Canyon, Navajo Canyon, and the present southeast boundary of the park. If such were accomplished, Mesa Verde National Park would comprise the whole of the Mesa Verde Plateau north of the Mancos River, with the exception of the more arid western section, which is now outside the park.

In order to give the perspective which makes the acquisition of this Ute territory desirable, it is necessary to give the faunal possibilities of an enlarged Mesa Verde National Park.

MEXICAN BIGHORN were probably native to the Mesa at one time. Nordenskiold called one of the branches of the Navajo Canyon "Sheep Canyon", and early explorers of the Mesa found mountain sheep horns. There are no sheep there now, but forage is abundant and conditions suitable for their reintroduction, except that the territory is too limited. Under the present set-up they would be exposed constantly to poaching. It probably would be impossible to have mountain sheep in the park with the present boundaries. But if the proposed boundary extension were consummated it would be desirable to reintroduce this species.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN MULE DEER are present within the park in limited numbers. Last fall deer were reported plentiful in migration, from the La Platas and from the northern part of the Mesa, moving southward toward the lower reaches of the Mesa along the Mancos Canyon. During the winter various observers reported fresh buckskins seen at Ute camps. While the Navajos do not kill deer themselves, they are willing to barter with the Utes for the buckskins—a double reason for the annual toll of deer. Few deer were reported during the spring immigration. I saw very few deer tracks anywhere on the Mesa and saw only one deer during the 3 days of time pack trip. This is a very unfortunate circumstance in that nowhere in the West have we seen finer or more abundant deer forage than is to be found on the Mesa Verde. It is a unique haven for deer, yet deer are noticeably scarce. In fall and winter when they move down into the Ute Reservation they are unprotected. This is also the "happy hunting ground " for other inhabitants of the region, whose activities are not strictly limited to the legal seasons. If these hazards could be removed, and this choice winter range acquired, Mesa Verde might have its natural component of deer.

FUR BEARERS.—The present area of the park is too small to protect the roving fur-bearing animals. Five cougars are reported killed in the immediate vicinity of the park within the last 2 years—probable result, a porcupine problem still exists within the park. Two years ago fox and coyote tracks were numerous over the Mesa; at present they are scarce—probable result, an abnormal increase of prairie dogs is noticeable. Beaver workings are numerous along the Mancos River. The beaver-cut logs and stumps range in age from those almost obliterated to last year's workings. The record portrayed in these cuttings seems to be that of repeated invasions by the beavers, a brief occupancy, and repeated disappearances. With beavers unprotected in the Mancos Canyon it is improbable that a permanent beaver population can be maintained.

WILD TURKEYS were kept by the cliff dwellers. This custom is prevalent among the Indian Pueblos of the Southwest today. However the record is sufficiently indefinite to make it impossible to ascertain whether wild turkeys were at one time native to the Mesa. In various of the canyons Ponderosa Pine is present to a limited degree. Mr. J. Stokley Ligon says that he has never found turkeys away from this pine. I think, however, that there is sufficient pine in the Mesa canyons and sufficient turkey food to provide suitable range for the Merriam turkey in Mesa Verde. Water holes would have to be developed on the Mesa for these birds, as well as for the other forms of wildlife, to augment the springs found in the canyons. The development of such water holes seems reasonable because the cliff dwellers built small reservoirs at various places on the Mesa. The wildlife undoubtedly profited by this added supply of water. Since the wild turkey played such an important part in the life of the cliff dwellers, its reintroduction is very desirable. But the present territory of the park is too limited to maintain turkeys.

The DUSKY GROUSE, at present fairly abundant on the Mesa, probably would thrive by the added protection of increased territory and water supply. If the Ute section of the Mesa is ever developed by the building of a road up the Mancos Canyon and the introduction of domestic sheep on the Mesa, grouse, as well as all other forms of life within the present park, probably will suffer heavily. * * *

VEGETATION OF THE AREA UNDER CONSIDERATION.—Although some sheep grazing occurs in the Ute Reservation immediately southeast of the park, the vegetation is still in a fairly normal condition. Wheat grass still is present and bunch grasses are widespread. It is notable that the grasses still grow under the juniper and piñon forest, as all early explorers have reported, which condition is rarely found in the Southwest today. Wild flowers are abundant; this section of the Mesa is really green. Large clumps of Gambel Oak, an excellent browse plant, are numerous in the section nearest the park. Cereocarpus, Amelanchier, Fendlera, and Purshia are unusually abundant. Much of the area was burned, perhaps 50 to 60 years ago. In this portion, browse and grasses have returned, almost to the exclusion of the juniper and piñon. This is some of the finest deer winter range I have ever seen. It is equally valuable for domestic sheep, but is unsuited to their continued utilization. If it is turned into sheep range, this excellent forage will be destroyed, and the area then will be useless for either grazing or wildlife purposes. The area is not large enough to be of great value to the reservation, but it is the critical area from the park point of view.

Grazing has been practiced in the Mancos Canyon for years and exactly what is predicted here for the Mesa has happened on the floor of the canyon. Grass is gone; we scraped the soil in a few places where there was no visible sign of grass and found old grass root stubs. All desirable browse is cropped close to the ground: Gamble Oak, Artemisia, and Atriplex, the most palatable plants, are heavily browsed and reproduction is scarce. Indians have burned patches of willows and arrow-weed to open the ground for grass. These burned areas are practically barren.

ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES.—The Mancos River is the logical boundary for the park on the south and east. It has the advantage of definiteness and forms a more natural faunal unit by segregating the section of the Mesa north of it from everything else of similar altitude amid biotic character. It virtually is impossible to keep sheep grazing and poaching out of the park with the present arbitrary boundary skirting this Ute segment of the plateau. Sheep watering tanks were found on the Mesa so near the park boundary that it was impossible to tell whether they were inside or outside of the park. And numerous signs of sheep grazing were evident within the park.

Mesa Verde National Park needs the natural faunal picture to supplement the archeological story presented. The wildlife of the Mesa at the time of the cliff dwellers was as much a part of their civilization as the artifacts and buildings. Without the wild life there could have been no Mesa Verde culture. It is important that this phase of the picture be preserved and presented today. Such a course is impossible with the present boundary, and will be even more remote if the Ute section of the Mesa is turned into domestic sheep pasture. Mountain sheep, deer, all the fur bearers, turkeys, grouse, and all the other forms of native wildlife of the Mesa should be there today. We have not yet begun to realize the wildlife possibilities of this park.

On the morning of March 24, 1934, a conference on wildlife restoration possibilities in Mesa Verde National Park was held by Superintendent Leavitt, Park Naturalist Franke, Ranger Markley, and Thompson, of the Wildlife Division. Every aspect of the problem evident to us at this time was discussed, ideas pooled, and the following suggested program developed for your consideration:

1. Boundary adjustments. — Every phase of wildlife preservation and restoration in Mesa Verde is contingent upon the securing of an adequate biological unit for the park, as outlined in Wildlife Division report of October 24, 1933. Response to the boundary adjustment proposal of this report has come from Mr. D. H. Wattson, superintendent of the Consolidated Ute Agency, under date of December 21, 1933. Superintendent Wattson states:

It is the feeling of those at Mesa Verde that the area under consideration is of such vital importance to the integrity of the park that the matter should be further pursued. Therefore, Superintendent Leavitt proposes, as a first step, to ascertain which lands, if any, are open to and suitable for transfer, in the hope that a specific proposition may be worked out to submit to you and to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

As has been stated previously, Mesa Verde National Park must some day include the whole of Mesa Verde north of the Mancos Canyon if its game feature is ever to be anything but a skeleton.

2. Eradication of private holdings within the park. — A second vital contingency of wildlife restoration is the eradication of private holdings within the park. (Refer to memoranda on private holdings, Sept. 15, 1931, of Mrs. Phoebe H. E. Stevens and Mr. Clarence Teague.) The holdings of Mrs. Stevens (160 acres in Morfield Canyon and 320 acres in Prater Canyon) include the territory and water supply most suitable for wild turkeys. The upper valleys of these canyons could provide excellent grass and brush cover suitable to game birds, but because of cattle grazing these areas are kept relatively bare. Cattle must cross a portion of the park to reach this range.

Government funds for the purchase of these private holdings are impounded because they cannot be matched by private funds. These private holdings should be secured and added to the park as soon as possible.

3. Confinement of horses. — The horses belonging to a guide and horse concessioner in the park have grazed along the approach road in the vicinity of Far View junction throughout the winter. This local concentration and the range utilization have been augmented by the present mild winter. Unfortunately, the horses have remained in the locality most preferred by deer. Hereafter, according to Superintendent Leavitt, the horses are to be removed to the mesa between Spruce and Navajo Canyons, and a fence constructed to confine them there. This measure will liberate a local deer range from too heavy utilization.

4. Water supply. — Old surface wells exist in the following canyons: One each in Navajo, Soda, Moccasin, Morfield, White, and School Section; three wells in Prater. It is proposed to develop water for game at various places on the mesa, either by repair and installation of windmills or by construction of surface reservoirs. The windmills probably would provide a more constant supply of fresh water. They would not be visible from the entrance road.

Unfortunately, the most desirable wells are in Morfield and Prater Canyons on private holdings.

5. Ponderosa pine. — Ponderosa pine is considered essential for wild turkeys. This pine is limited to a few groves and isolated trees on the mesa. Young pines have been cut and used in the past for construction of cabins. Pine reproduction m Morfield Canyon has been seriously retarded and impaired by stock grazing. To combat this situation, Park Naturalist Franke suggests an experimental planting of ponderosa pine seedlings in the Morfield-Prater vicinity.

6. Introduction of the Merriam turkey. — Since the wild turkey played such an important role in the life of tine cliff dwellers, it is proposed that wild turkeys be planted in at least two places on the mesa. It is thought that the ponderosa pine grove, near water at the head of Morfield Canyon, is the most favorable spot for turkeys. Superintendent Leavitt and Park Naturalist Franke suggest that a second planting be made near headquarters, where the turkeys may be cared for and seen by the public until they establish themselves in the region.

In this connection the following is quoted from Mr. J. Stokley Ligon's letter of April 14, 1934:

7. Introduction of Mexican bighorn. — Since mountain sheep were probably native on the mesa until recent years, it is proposed that they be reintroduced, provided the above-mentioned boundary adjustment is made.

8. Porcupines. — Due to the fact that there is no apparent porcupine damage this winter, it is proposed that porcupine control be discontinued until such time as (and if) it should become necessary.

9. Predatory animal control. — Because of the very small area of the park, no predatory animal control is deemed necessary or desirable.

10. It is understood that the proposals given herewith constitute a restoration program and that no attempt is made to domesticate or semidomesticate any forms of the park's wildlife, or to exhibit them in any artificial manner. The object of this program is to restore the wildlife of Mesa Verde and to maintain it under natural conditions.

REPORT CONCERNING PROPOSED GUADALUPE EXTENSION
OF THE CARLSBAD CAVERNS NATIONAL PARK

NOTE.—An encouraging progress has been made by the National Park Service in pursuing the extension of Carlsbad Caverns National Park with the ultimate goal to include a portion of the Guadalupe Mountains. Wildlife possibilities for the proposed Guadalupe extension were discussed in the previous volume of Fauna.¹ It is to be remembered that American Wapiti (Cervus canadensis canadensis) have been introduced into the Guadalupes within recent years to replace the extinct Arizona Wapiti (Cervus merriami). This project was investigated by the Wildlife Division in March 1934. The following report is given to indicate the unfortunate results of this type of exotic transplant.

April 1 to 4, inclusive I spent at Carlsbad Caverns National Park. Two trips were made in company with Ranger Perry Convis into the Guadalupe Mountains. On April 2 we drove and hiked over the Queen's Mesa, which lies mainly northwest of the caverns. On April 3 we went into McKittrick Canyon in the Guadalupes south of the caverns.

Inasmuch as a report has been sent from this office under date of October 30, 1931, outlining characteristic wildlife of the region and its possibilities as a national park, no detailed report of fauna and flora is submitted herewith. In general, however, my recommendations are these:

(1) It still seems desirable to add to Carlsbad Caverns National Park the eastern portion of the Guadalupe Mountains, extending rom the caverns and Rattlesnake Canyon south to and including El Capitan, the southernmost peak of the range in Texas. Perhaps Dark Canyon drainage could form the western extension of the proposed addition.

The territory lying northwest of the area just bounded is utilized extensively for grazing purposes and is hardly suitable for national-park purposes. The eastern boundary should follow close to the foot of the mountains, in order to escape competition with local grazing which extends practically to the east foot of the escarpment.

(2) McKittrick Canyon, in Texas, is the most scenic of the canyons, cutting into the eastern face of the Guadalupes. Its vegetation cover, ranging from the Agave types of the Lower Sonoran zone to the Douglas fir and yellow pine of the Transition zone, presents a splendid variety of habitat for native wildlife. Most of these canyons, but notably McKittrick, contain ample water for wildlife. McKittrick has a running stream of clear, cold, mountain water well stocked with rainbow trout. It is thought that the hiking and camping features which could be developed in these canyons would be a great inducement to visitors to the Carlsbad region. Moreover, the mountains present possibilities for an unusual wildlife preserve.

(3) A few years ago Canadian elk were introduced into McKittrick Canyon; they now number approximately 60. It was thought at the time that their introduction would be desirable to fill the place left vacant by the extermination of the Merriam elk. It becomes evident, however, that this more northern species of elk is as truly exotic as any transplant might well be. It tends to inhabit the slopes of the canyon nearest the stream bed to the destruction of the native and extremely picturesque vegetation. Because of this maladjustment and the destruction of the choicest section of the canyon—which seems inevitable with further increase of elk—it is recommended that the elk be either greatly reduced or extirpated entirely, if this area becomes a national park.

¹ Fauna of the National Parks of the United States, by George M. Wright, Joseph S. Dixon, and Ben H. Thompson. contribution of Wildlife Survey, Fauna Series No. 1, Government Printing Office, 1932, pp. 87-91.

There is no record of the abundance of breeding swans within the Yellowstone Park area in the early historical accounts, though we do know that trumpeter swans were once abundant in this general region of the United States and that many swan skins were taken at Red Rock Lake. Early superintendents' reports have mentioned the presence of swans in the park. Reports of witnesses indicate that trumpeter swans continuously have occupied Red Rock Lakes near Yellowstone, but we have not been able to ascertain whether there was a period of interruption when the birds did not breed in the park at all, or whether they simply became so scarce as to be generally overlooked. The latter is probably the case.

It is a fact that in recent years there has been an increase in the number of trumpeter swans breeding in the park. To a degree this increase may be more apparent than real, inasmuch as more attention has been focused on the swans than before and, nesting stations recently reported may have been previously overlooked.

Prior to 1929 a pair of trumpeter swans had been known to make unsuccessful nesting attempts at Trumpeter Lake in the Lamar Valley. Swans with a family of young also had been reported from Bridger Lake and the pond near Lewis Lake.

The Wildlife Survey began an investigation of the trumpeter swans in 1929 which was carried on without interruption by the Wildlife Division. In September 1929 Mr. Dixon observed a pair of swans at Trumpeter Lake and also photographed a pair on Alum Creek. In 1930 the survey party made studies at the Trumpeter Lake, Tern Lake, and Jackson Lake Lily Pond breeding stations. * * *

Please note that no proper comparisons can he made between the censuses in this period. In the first place certain important nesting stations were not discovered by us in 1931. Red Rock Lakes, for instance, account for approximately half of the total number observed, and are included only in 1932 and 1933. It is practically impossible to secure a true census either on foot or by horseback, and that is why an airplane survey has been recommended for 1934.

To indicate what manner of program is projected for the perpetuation and increase of the trumpeter swans, I quote here a letter addressed to Superintendent Toll on May 1, 1934:

Since we shall not be in the park until late in the summer, permit me to review for you the measures which are proposed for the 1934 continuation of the park's program to assist the swans.

1. Trumpeter Lake should again be protected against all visitors, at least until the eggs hatch and the cygnets are a couple of weeks old. Even after that, it is not advisable to encourage any visitor to come to the lake except when accompanied by a ranger. The decision to keep the Cooke City road location at least as far away from Trumpeter Lake as the present old road is excellent both as a protection to this particular nesting lake and in its recognition of the principle that developments must give proper consideration to wildlife values.

2. Riddle Lake is probably the most favorable nesting water for trumpeter swans in the park. It is proposed that this lake be closed to fishing at least until the end of July. It has been suggested that fishing should be encouraged because of an overabundance of trout in the lake. However, the reports of those who have taken trout at Riddle Lake indicate that the fish there are not good quality anyway, owing probably to the warmth and stagnancy of the water. Therefore, why not close this lake to fishing entirely so long as trumpeter swans nest there?

3. It is urged that local coyote control be carried on at Trumpeter Lake, Swan Lake (if occupied by swans this year), White Lake, and any other of the nesting lakes which are so constituted as to expose cygnets to coyote damage. By this same token I do not consider that coyote control at Riddle Lake, Shoshone Lake, and Heart Lake would render any protective benefit to the swans.

4. It is proposed that the system devised by Ranger Arnold for preventing the trumpeter swans from making land crossings between lakes be used at both Tern Lake and Trumpeter Lake this year. This consists of setting out flags and placing certain other repellents.

5. The proposed plan to construct small nesting islands in those lakes which, while otherwise suitable to trumpeter swans, have no nesting sites, should be undertaken this year under Emergency Conservation Work or other emergency funds, if possible. Heart Lake and White Lake are suggested for this experiment. Ot course, this work should not be done on any lake on which trumpeter swans are going to try to nest this year, until the nesting effort is seen to be a failure or late in the fall when the cygnets have departed.

6. Reconnaissance work should be continued by rangers in their respective districts throughout time season, as in former years. A check should be made of both proven and possible nesting lakes before the eggs hatch, in other words, prior to June 1. A second census should be taken in late July to determine the number of cygnets surviving at that time. Finally, it has been decided that the only way to make a complete and satisfactory census of trumpeter swans nesting in the Yellowstone region is by airplane survey. It is proposed that this survey be made in August when we reach the park. Jackson Hole, Henry's Lake, and Red Rock Lakes, all outside the park, should be included on this flight.

As reported to you from time to time, we are also conducting a program to improve conditions for the trumpeter swans in the areas adjacent to the park, by personal contact, letters, and supplying attractive framed enlargements of Dr. Oastler's trumpeter swan picture with explanatory legend. We have been successful in stimulating the interest of hunting clubs on Red Rock Lake to the point where they have taken up the matter of trumpeter swan protection with the Montana Fish and Game Commission. In response to their request for assistance, the commission posted a reward of $50 for the arrest amid conviction of anyone found guilty of killing a trumpeter swan.

1. Shooting licenses sold throughout Montana to be stamped with a warning to exercise care against accidental shooting of swans.

4. Newspaper publicity to be sent out by the game commission before the opening of the shooting season. We would be glad to furnish data and pictures for such newspaper articles.

5. Metal signs to be posted at intervals along the lake shore bearing a legend similar to the caption on the framed trumpeter swan picture, calling attention to the fact that birds of the year are gray rather than white and carrying notice of the reward offered by the State of Montana.

fauna/2/part2-2.htm
Last Updated: 01-Feb-2016