Western North American Naturalist

Volume 61 Number 3 Article 6

7-27-2001

Mountain goats in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosytem: a prehistoric and historical context

Paul Schullery National Park Service, Yellowstone Center For Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming

Lee Whittlesey National Park Service, Yellowstone Center For Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan

Recommended Citation Schullery, Paul and Whittlesey, Lee (2001) "Mountain goats in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosytem: a prehistoric and historical context," Western North American Naturalist: Vol. 61 : No. 3 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan/vol61/iss3/6

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Western North American Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Western North American Naturalist 61(3), © 2001, pp. 289–307

MOUNTAIN GOATS IN THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM: A PREHISTORIC AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Paul Schullery1 and Lee Whittlesey1

ABSTRACT.—Because the relatively recent colonization of portions of Yellowstone National Park by introduced moun- tain goats (Oreamnos americanus) from public game lands in Montana raises important policy and management ques- tions for the park, it is necessary to understand the prehistoric and early historical record of mountain goats in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. We reviewed previous paleontological, archeological, and historical studies of goat presence and examined a large body of historical material for evidence of goats. Native mountain goat range most closely approached the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to the west, but no modern authority claims goats were resident in the ecosystem in recent centuries. Historical accounts of goat presence in the region prior to 1882 (and thus prior to any known introduction of goats by Euro-Americans) are limited to one possible sighting by unreliable observers and a few casual mentions of goat presence by people of limited or unknown familiarity with the ecosystem. Other early observers in the region specifically stated that goats were not native. Between 1882 and 1926 other observers and resi- dents agreed that mountain goats were not native to the park, or to the larger area around it. It is impossible to prove absolutely that there were no goats in the ecosystem prior to modern introductions, but historical evidence demon- strates that if present, such goats must have been exceedingly rare and uncharacteristically unsightable. National Park Service policy relating to exotic species developed gradually after the creation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872, moving from a general receptivity to introduction of at least some favored nonnative species to a general prohibition on all such introductions. Current policy, while disapproving of all nonnative species, seems to reserve special efforts at removal of nonnatives for those species that pose the greatest threat to native species and ecosystems. Current policy is not helpful in defining the minimum amount of evidence needed to prove a species was present or absent, or whether or not an introduced nonnative species is causing sufficient harm to justify its removal.

Key words: mountain goat, nonnative species, National Park Service policy, Yellowstone National Park, Greater Yellow- stone Ecosystem, ecological historiography.

This paper will summarize the historical magnitude. In modern Montana, for example, record of mountain goats in the Greater Yel- the public depends upon the enjoyment or lowstone Ecosystem (GYE) and then will employment of brown trout (Salmo trutta), review the development of National Park Ser- pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), horses (Equus vice (NPS) policy relating to exotic species. caballus), cattle (Bos taurus), and many other Finally, it will consider current goat coloniza- species of animals and plants from other con- tion of the park in light of history and policy. tinents. Most of these species are deeply It seems especially appropriate, even if embedded in the national consciousness as entirely accidental, that Yellowstone National constituting part of the “traditional” western Park (YNP) hosted a conference on nonnative scene. species over Columbus Day weekend in Octo- Of course, the mountain goat is different: it ber 1999. It has become a standard practice, is native to North America. Euro-American almost a cultural act, among those concerned influences have not been confined to bringing with the health of native ecosystems, to divide new species to this continent. We have also the history of the New World at a point that is transported native species long distances our own equivalent of B.C.—Before Colum- around the continent. Mountain goats in YNP bus. The enormously complex and breathtak- provide an excellent case study of the com- ingly swift overhaul of the North American plexities of issues relating to nonnative species landscape that has occurred since 1492 is now in national parks. such a fact of life that most Americans give it Because the boundaries of YNP are largely little thought and may not even be aware of its artificial and reflect little regard for ecological

1National Park Service, Yellowstone Center for Resources, PO Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190.

289 290 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 61 realities, we will address the question of moun- goats in the GYE. Paleontology, archeology, tain goat prehistory and early history from the and history are more successful at establishing broader and slightly less artificial perspective that a species was native than at proving that of the entire Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem it was not. The prehistoric and historical evi- (GYE; Fig. 1), using recent definitions of it as dence is always assumed to be incomplete. an area upwards of 20 million acres encom- Even if it provides no indication a species was passing the highlands in and around Yellow- present, we are always left with at least a lin- stone and Grand Teton national parks (Glick et gering uncertainty because negative evidence al. 1991). can always be overridden later by new posi- The prevailing scientific consensus is that tive evidence. The next paleontological inves- native mountain goat populations existed most tigation, the next archeological dig, or the next closely to the west of the GYE, in central newly discovered early trapper’s journal may Idaho along the Idaho-Montana border (Ride- yield suggestive or conclusive evidence that out 1978, Chadwick 1983, Laundré 1990). Per- the species in question was here after all. haps the most popular contemporary defini- Several reasons have been suggested for tion of the GYE, proposed by the conservation possible underrepresentation of mountain goats group known as the Greater Yellowstone Coali- in a survey of archeological and paleontologi- tion (Glick et al. 1991), places its western cal sites (Laundré 1990, Hutchins 1995, Lyman boundary somewhat short of that historic native 1998). The use of evidence from such sites to goat range, perhaps less than 50 miles (impre- determine presence or abundance of a given cision is the result of vagueness of current def- species in past times is fraught with difficul- initions of GYE boundaries). ties (Grayson 1981), including the following: 1. Even if mountain goats have fully occu- ISSUES OF EVIDENCE pied the available habitat in a region, they will probably be neither as numerous nor as acces- The search for evidence that may not exist sible to hunters as other ungulate species and is one of historical scholarship’s most interest- thus may not be harvested as often, thereby ing enterprises because investigators run the not finding their way into archeological sites risk of committing what Fischer (1970) de- as frequently as other species might. scribes as the “fallacy of the negative proof”: 2. Living as they do in steep country, when they die their remains may fall considerable It occurs whenever a historian declares that distances and be scattered rather than find “there is no evidence that X is the case,” and their way into paleontological sites (e.g., pack- then proceeds to affirm or assume that not-X rat middens). is the case. . . . [A] simple statement that 3. If most archeological and paleontological “there is no evidence of X” means precisely what it says—no evidence. The only correct investigations are conducted at lower eleva- empirical procedure is to find affirmative evi- tions, they may include only, or primarily, dence of not-X—which is often difficult, but lower-elevation species. never in my experience impossible (Fischer 4. The native people who occupied the site 1970:47). and left animal bones there were operating under unknown cultural systems, with now In the case of mountain goats in the GYE, incompletely understood attitudes and prefer- we suspect that Fischer would be faced with ences relating to which animals they killed difficulty in describing for us “affirmative evi- and which they did not; they certainly would dence of not-X.” It appears that it will be prefer some species over others, thus intro- extremely challenging to establish an unequiv- ducing a bias into what their archeological ocal affirmative proof that absolutely no sites “collect” for us to study. mountain goats inhabited the GYE prior to the 5. Last, even an identifiable piece of bone arrival of Euro-Americans. We also believe or horn from a mountain goat may in some cases that our study has provided an interesting test not be proof the animal lived in the immediate of the concept of negative evidence, a test that vicinity of the site in which it was found. If the we will discuss later. bone or horn had potential value (for example, But Fischer’s point about negative evidence as a tool or ceremonial device), it might have is very important in the question of mountain been carried a considerable distance to the site. 2001] MOUNTAIN GOATS IN GREATER YELLOWSTONE 291

Fig. 1. The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Figure by Renée Evanoff. 292 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 61

Another potentially useful kind of evidence European diseases on numbers and activities of pre–Euro-American wildlife conditions is of native people; the adoption of the horse, provided by rock art: pictographs and petro- firearms, and other iron tools by native peo- glyphs. These are sometimes problematic as ple; and European livestock diseases—were well. A rock-art image does not necessarily all potentially at work affecting the landscape. prove that the animal represented lived Such effects may or may not have been pro- nearby. Often it is difficult or impossible to nounced enough to significantly alter plant or identify the species depicted; sometimes the animal communities from their earlier appear- animal shown was not a “real” species but the ance, but if they were, the first white observers product of visions that are closely associated would have been describing a landscape not with rock art in the region. Species represented entirely free of their own culture’s effects in rock art in our region tended to have a set (Schullery 1984, 1997, Kay 1994). of cultural values unlike species preferred for Terminology is often treacherous in early food (J. Francis personal communication). Still, historical accounts. For example, in some west- like other archeological as well as paleontolog- ern 19th-century accounts, coyotes were known ical evidence, rock art images provide a poten- as “prairie wolves.” Black bears (Ursus ameri- tially useful information source. canus) were sometimes called “cinnamon” bears Written historical accounts likewise present depending upon their color, but a cinnamon- researchers with a variety of obstacles. Accounts or brown-colored bear might be a misidenti- are often hard to locate or may not exist for all fied grizzly bear; and, of course, a black-col- localities. Writers of early accounts were often ored grizzly bear might simply be described as of unknown education, familiarity with wildlife, a “black bear” with no intention of indicating and bias. These writers tend to exhibit prefer- species. Early 19th-century writers sometimes ences for topics depending upon personal referred to elk as red deer, their European interests; these preferences, while not pre- name. And quite a few early writers on the dictable for each individual, can be gauged for West, including some who traveled through certain types of observers. As a general rule, the GYE, referred to pronghorn (Antilocapra for example, commercial trappers emphasized americana) as “goats” (e.g., Stuart 1935, Lewis fur-bearing animals and habitats in their writ- and Clark 1987). Casual use of other terms ten accounts. On the other hand, some wildlife could complicate the problem, as when a species, such as grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), writer referred to a “buck” but meant a “bull” were of at least some interest to many types of elk (Cervus elaphus). Careful reading of the travelers, probably because of their greater material and close attention to the context can threat or their formidable presence in most settle many such confusions, but some are northern human cultural traditions. From yet almost irresolvable and are always compli- another perspective, very few early writers, of cated by observer ignorance as well as our any persuasion, bothered to mention small ignorance of just how well informed the ob- mammals. Early visitors to YNP had still server might have been. another bias introduced into their narratives: We do not wish to cast so much doubt on the park’s primary attraction was its geother- paleontological, archeological, and historical mal activity. YNP visitors, though many did evidence as to suggest that these sources of hunt in the park during its first 11 years, were information are valueless. They may be the best here primarily to see the famous geological tools we have, and they are often excellent oddities. Wildlife did not become an impor- tools indeed. It is our experience, however, tant visitor attraction as an object of touristic that the tools must be used with great care attention (i.e., wildlife watching as recreation) and discretion if they are to serve our needs. until the later 1880s and 1890s (Schullery 1997). PALEONTOLOGICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL It has also been pointed out that even in EVIDENCE OF MOUNTAIN GOATS the earliest period of Euro-American visitation of lands that would eventually become national Love (1972) conducted an archeological parks in the northern Rockies, roughly survey and historical literature review of the 1800–1880, various influences of Euro-Ameri- Jackson Hole region, and, though he discussed cans on the landscape—such as the effects of all other relevant large mammals, he mentioned 2001] MOUNTAIN GOATS IN GREATER YELLOWSTONE 293 no mountain goats in either record. We assume them as nonnative. The paleontologists argued this is because he found none. Cannon (1992) that burros were “the ecological equivalents of reviewed archeological and paleontological late Pleistocene equids” that had become ex- evidence for the northern and central Rockies tinct in the area about 11,500 years B.P. In this physiographic provinces, including 31 late- instance the ensuing court case supported the Pleistocene–Holocene sites in northwestern NPS managers’ interpretation that the ecologi- Wyoming, southern and western Montana, cal equivalent argument was not in keeping and near the Idaho-Wyoming and Idaho-Mon- with NPS policy. tana borders in Idaho. No mountain goats were To reach beyond published literature, we reported in any of these sites. It is interesting consulted with a number of experienced GYE that 2 of the Idaho sites he reviewed, Veratic archeological and paleontological investiga- Rockshelter and Jaguar Cave, are relatively tors. Their familiarity with GYE sites, through close to areas known to have been native their own published and unpublished work mountain goat habitat along the Idaho-Mon- and that of others, included no knowledge tana border. Laundré (1990) also reviewed of any mountain goat fossils from the Holo- paleontological and archeological reports from cene (J. Francis, E. Hadly, C. Hill, A. Johnson, the GYE and found no fossil or archeological J. Schoen, personal communication). evidence of goats in the Holocene. However, Faunal images in rock art sites in the GYE he reported that fossils of ancestral goats (Ore- have not to our knowledge been inventoried amnos harringtoni) at least 70,000 years old by species for the entire ecosystem. Greer were recovered from a site at Palisades Reser- and Greer (1998) reviewed images at 50 sites voir in Idaho. This is in the southeastern quad- in southwestern Montana. A few contained rant of the GYE. “zoomorphs,” including 7 bison (Bison bison), In an interesting interpretation of the pale- 4 bears (Ursus spp.), 2 deer (Odocoileus spp.), ontological evidence as it might be applied to 2 snakes, 2 mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis), modern management issues, Laundré (1990:40) 2 horses, and 5 “four-legged generic descrip- suggested that because the GYE’s “native flo- tions that cannot be identified at this time due ral and faunal components” are suitable for to lack of information on the site forms” goats, “goats could also not be considered [an] (Greer and Greer 1998:61). Again, our consul- ecological exotic.” To our knowledge, this is tation with a number of regional authorities on the only time the concept of “ecological exotic” rock art revealed no knowledge of any moun- has been introduced into the published scien- tain goat images in GYE rock art (S. Conner, tific dialogue relative to mountain goats in J. Francis, M. Greer, A. Johnson, M. Pavesic, YNP. The concept has not fared well, or had J. Schoen, personal communication). noticeable effects on today’s dialogues over So far, therefore, the archeological and mountain goats in YNP, perhaps because palentological evidence is entirely negative for National Park Service (NPS) management poli- mountain goat presence in the GYE prior to cies do not endorse such a generous definition the arrival of Euro-Americans. of native. However hospitable the ecosystem might be to introduced goats, a continuous THE HISTORICAL RECORD 70,000-year gap in the known record of goat The earliest review of the historical record presence is too large to ignore. Though it (i.e., written documents and recollections of could likewise be argued that Yellowstone early residents) of YNP for evidence of moun- Lake’s native components are suitable for lake tain goats was probably that conducted by trout (Salvelinus namaycush), no one seems to novelist Owen Wister, who sought references be mistaking the clandestinely introduced lake to goats anywhere in the state of Wyoming trout that now threatens native fish in the lake (Wister 1904). Wister’s report, though infor- for some type of “ecological native” (Varley mal, was apparently based on considerable and Schullery 1998). effort in communicating with experienced local Houston and Schreiner (1995) describe a residents and hunters. He concluded: parallel situation in Grand Canyon National Park, in which some paleontologists objected There seems to be a sort of goat tradition in to the removal of burros (Equus asinus) from Wyoming, here and there. This myth is, to be that park by NPS managers who regarded sure, highly sublimated. You don’t hear that 294 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 61

goat used to be upon this or that definite seems to us highly improbable that the party mountain, or that So-and-So saw a man who would detour 50 or more miles south of their saw a goat, or whose wife or uncle saw one; it intended goal (Emigrant is about 60 miles due never comes as near as that; yet still faintly in east of Alder Gulch) to reach the true head- the air of the Continental Divide there hov- waters of these streams. We suspect that they ers this vague rumor of the animal (Wister simply traveled east and crossed those streams 1904:248). well above their best-known reaches but also A more formal search for historical evidence well below their true headwaters. We recognize that this is conjecture on our part, but it seems of mountain goats in Wyoming was made by unlikely that these men would have detoured Skinner (1926), who interviewed many knowl- so far out of their way, or that they could have edgeable locals and found no reports of goats done so and still reached the Emigrant area in anywhere in Wyoming or in YNP. Laundré the time they did. Due to the rough country (1990) reviewed a few early accounts of the (e.g., “we were delayed several times by the GYE and reached the same conclusion. dense pines that grew so thick in some places For some years we have been searching all that we had to chop our way through” [Vaughn available documentary evidence of wildlife in 1900:35]), it took them 7 days to reach the Yel- the GYE prior to 1882 (Schullery and Whittle- lowstone River somewhere “many miles” up- sey 1992, 1995, 1999a, 1999b, Whittlesey 1992, stream from Emigrant. This would suggest 1994, Schullery 1997). We are unaware of any that they reached the Yellowstone River not previous investigator who has used more than far north of present YNP (the north boundary about 20 early accounts of YNP to determine of present YNP is roughly 30 river miles south wildlife conditions and abundance in the early of Emigrant). historical period (roughly 1800–1880). As men- Vaughn mentioned that on their way to tioned above, the overwhelming majority of Emigrant, in unspecified mountains, they dis- early accounts of YNP were concerned with covered “a great quantity of petrified wood” in other matters, especially the park’s well- a small valley (Vaughn 1900:35). Petrified wood advertised geothermal wonders and scenery, exists in the Specimen Creek drainage of north- but a surprising number of people did at least western YNP and is common in drainages far- mention wildlife in their accounts. We are now ther north in the Gallatin National Forest as well past 250 separate accounts of pre-1882 well. We assume that the petrified wood was wildlife in the GYE and are preparing a book- found in one of these drainages. It was also in length manuscript analyzing them. these mountains, apparently, that they made In that considerable body of material, obser- their mountain goat sighting: vations of mountain goats are practically non- existent, and even discussions of mountain goats The mountains were very steep. On a cliff are very rare. Because these few discussions about one hundred yards off stood a Rocky are of interest both historically and historio- mountain goat. At first we thought it a domes- graphically, we will review them in detail here. tic sheep, for it was very white, bleated, and Two early accounts by actual visitors to the acted as if it was glad to see us. But then, as region stated that mountain goats were pre- there were no settlers within several hun- sent in the GYE. Both are instructive exam- dred miles, we could not imagine how a ples of the difficulties of using these early sheep could get to such a place. While we were discussing the matter, the animal accounts. In September 1864 a prospector leaped over cliffs and up the mountain as if it named Robert Vaughn and companions trav- was on level ground, and this satisfied us all eled from the gold diggings at Alder Gulch, that it was a Rocky mountain goat. Not one of Montana, near present-day Virginia City, to us had seen one previously (Vaughn 1900:35). newly discovered gold-bearing areas at Emi- grant, Montana, on the Yellowstone River north This is the only firsthand report of an ob- of present YNP (Fig. 1). Vaughn’s account of served mountain goat in the GYE that we have their trip is brief and vague as to their travel yet located from the period before 1882. For route. He said they crossed “the headwaters of several reasons, it is problematic as evidence. the Madison, Jefferson, and Gallatin rivers” These observers had never before seen a moun- (Vaughn 1900:35). The true headwaters of the tain goat. We do not know if Vaughn was able Madison and Gallatin rivers are in YNP, but it to distinguish a goat from a bighorn sheep. For 2001] MOUNTAIN GOATS IN GREATER YELLOWSTONE 295 all we know, he was like many first-time visi- numbers of visitors as they reported wildlife tors to present-day YNP and other western sightings; neither of us would regard this as a mountain parks, who, in our long experience trustworthy mountain goat sighting and would with such people, refer to bighorn sheep as consider it more likely to have been a sighting goats. Some of these people are simply unaware of a bighorn sheep ewe or young ram. that there are two animals, or that the distinc- The second report is not an actual observa- tion between them might be significant to tion but a statement of mountain goat pres- other people. Others confuse the names, the ence. Photographer Henry Bird Calfee and his way many regional residents today refer to local companion Macon Josey visited the park area ground squirrels (Spermophilus armatus) as in 1871 and left several mentions of wildlife “gophers” (Thomomys talpoides is the local there. Calfee stated that while the two were pocket gopher, but most people are probably camped near Mud Volcano (Fig. 1), and nearly unaware of what gophers look like specifically, out of provisions, there was no cause for con- and just assume that small burrowing animals cern: can fairly be called gophers). There are also questions about the descrip- Meat however was in abundance. It consisted tion of the animal itself. Bighorn sheep are of buffalo, moose, elk, bear, wolverine, black and white tail deer, antelope, mountain sheep, often quite pale and, again in our experience, goat or ibex, wolf, lion, fox, coyote, badger, are sometimes described as white by YNP vis- otter, beaver, mink, marten, sable, rabbit, itors. Bighorn sheep ewes have small horns muskrat, porcupine, rock dog, squirrel, chip- about the same size as goat horns. Sheep are munk, grouse, goose, duck, swan, pelican, quite agile on cliffs. Again, based on our own crane, brant, eagle, owl, hawk, crow, raven, experiences, we know that some park visitors blackbird, blue-jay, snow bird, curlew, sage see sheep in conditions like these and call hen, prairie chicken, and wormy trout, with them goats (on the other hand, it is likewise which the upper Yellowstone and Lake possible that some early traveler who did see abounded. This bill seems elaborate, but all could be gotten within five miles of our camp goats might have called them sheep). and in a very short time (Calfee 1896:2). Yet, though the account is speculative, it cannot absolutely be proven in error. We must This is a singular list, not only because it consider the known proclivity of the occa- seems to suggest that Calfee was willing to eat sional mountain goat to make a long-distance quite a few things most modern travelers would foray, such as is occasionally witnessed in YNP not consider appetizing, but also because he today. Apparently, it is not impossible that a mentioned both sheep and goat. Calfee would goat from the native population farther west make later visits to the park area, but this was was just then traveling in this region, just as it probably his first. He is to some extent a known is possible that this was not only a goat but a personage, with a documented local history member of some resident band of goats that that gives us no particular reason to discount Vaughn and his companions did not see. After his observations outright. all, it is an interesting coincidence that of all Nevertheless, his statement’s worth as evi- the locations in the GYE in which such a sight- dence is compromised in at least 3 ways. ing could have been reported, this one occurred First, there is no suitable mountain goat reasonably close to the western edge of the habitat within 5 miles of Mud Volcano (nor is ecosystem, that being the edge closest to known there suitable sheep habitat). This is a key point native mountain goat habitat farther west. because if Calfee had not placed that limita- Our conclusion is that this report must be tion on his statement, and were it not compro- treated as modern park naturalists would treat mised in the other ways listed below, he a similar report. Based on the low level of potentially would be a considerably more cred- knowledge of the observers and the vagueness ible witness than Vaughn. of the description (Were the horns light or Second, the sequence of the naming is con- dark? Was the hair long or short? Did the fusing. When he wrote “mountain sheep, goat body have the angularity of a goat’s?), such a or ibex,” was he in fact giving 3 alternative sighting would be regarded as intriguing but names for the same animal (as a writer today unreliable. In many years of dealing with the might say “the wolverine, glutton or carcajou”)? public in YNP, we have both dealt with great Or was the mountain sheep meant to be one 296 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 61 animal, and the “goat or ibex” meant to be in later documents relating to park manage- another? ment, such as Senator George Graham Vest’s If the latter, then we have our 3rd compro- unsuccessful 1885 bill to strengthen law en- mise of the evidence, because if he regarded forcement in the park (e.g., Forest and Stream “goat” and “ibex” as interchangeable terms, it 1885). seems likely that he was thinking of a sheep- It must be kept in mind that most observers like animal rather than a mountain goat–like of that period, including almost all park admin- animal. Ibex (Capra ibex and others) are Eur- istrators, had no formal scientific training and asian and African animals with relatively long, little awareness of taxonomy (in 1880, Super- curved horns; in both coat and general confor- intendent Philetus Norris stated that there mation they much more nearly resemble North were 6 kinds of bears in Yellowstone). In any American bighorn sheep than North American case, no park administrator from this period mountain goats (Nowak 1991). suggested that mountain goats actually did This reasoning on our part necessarily reside in the park. assumes that Calfee was in fact knowledgeable On the other hand, Superintendent Norris enough to know what an ibex looked like. It is specifically stated that he was unaware of any our suspicion, in any case, that Calfee was goats in the park. In his annual report for merely listing any and all even marginally edi- 1880, Norris said that ble species of Rocky Mountain wildlife he could think of at the time, rather than intending for although the web-footed, snow-loving white readers to draw a 5-mile-radius circle around sheep, or Rocky Mountain goats are numer- Mud Volcano and seriously expect to find inside ous in many of the adjacent snowy regions, I it everything he mentioned. have never seen one within the Park, but the A 3rd statement from the period (though true big-horn sheep are abundant on all the just after 1882) also suggested by implication mountain crests, as well as on their craggy that mountain goats were present. In the spurs and foot-hills throughout the Park, announcement of the prohibition of public which they never leave (Norris 1881:40). hunting in YNP, issued on 15 January 1883, Acting Secretary of the Interior H.M. Teller Here again we see the interchangeability of said this: names: to Norris, the mountain goat was also the “white sheep.” Also, Norris suggested that The regulations heretofore issued by the goats inhabited “snowy regions” adjacent to Secretary of the Interior in regard to killing the park. Whether by this he meant neighbor- game in the Yellowstone National Park are ing mountain ranges or had in mind some far- amended so as to prohibit absolutely the ther-reaching sense of the word region, we killing, wounding or capturing at any time, of cannot tell. Writing in the somewhat florid any buffalo, bison, moose, elk, black-tailed or prose of the day, Norris tended sometimes to white-tailed deer, mountain sheep, Rocky speak in sweeping terms, so we are hesitant mountain goat, antelope, beaver, otter, mar- to interpret “adjacent snowy regions” to mean tin, fisher, grouse, prairie chicken, pheasant, fool-hen, partridge, quail, wild goose, duck, lands immediately adjoining the park. robin, meadow-lark, thrush, goldfinch, flicker The only other specific mentions of moun- or yellow hammer, blackbird, oriole, jay, snow- tain goats prior to 1882 were statements of bird, or any of the small birds commonly their absence in large portions of the GYE. known as singing-birds (Teller 1883). Charles Blackburn spent nearly 2 years pros- pecting “in the country lying about the head- Like Calfee’s list quoted above, this list waters of the Yellowstone and the other great reveals a curious mixture of ignorance and rivers that have their sources in the Wind knowledge of the native fauna of YNP. Some River Mountains” (Blackburn 1879). The dates listed species did not occur in the park, and at are uncertain, but he probably began in the least one other is listed twice (bison and buf- region in 1877, and his article was published falo). It has been suggested that this list was in July 1879. In a section entitled “Zoology,” most likely compiled in Washington, perhaps he described the wildlife: by a clerk with limited knowledge of the park (Schullery 1997). The text of the letter, includ- Elk and mountain sheep are very plentiful ing the mention of mountain goats, reappeared through all the ranges of the Yellowstone 2001] MOUNTAIN GOATS IN GREATER YELLOWSTONE 297

country, being generally found near the snow is the same Ward who would later become in the summer, where the grass is new and well known for his scientific instrument com- tender. The mountain goat (Aplocerus mon- pany). On the other hand, in 1875 he had been tanus) was not observed in any of the ranges, sentenced to 15 years in the territorial prison but has been reported by Indians to exist in the mountains farther north (Blackburn for his part in the wrongful death of another 1879:2904). man (Bozeman Avant Courier 1874, 1875a, 1875b). This is not a feature of his biography Blackburn evidently understood that there that tends to strengthen confidence in his is a distinction between sheep and goats (we credibility (he evidently did not serve the full are assuming he could likewise distinguish sentence because he was free to talk with them in the field). Beyond that we know noth- Grinnell in 1883). Like many other early infor- ing of his qualifications as an observer of mation sources, his reliability is not completely wildlife. His delineation of the country he had understood. Such are the vicissitudes of these in mind is imprecise, but probably included anecdotal historical sources, but we know of the YNP area, and perhaps even the entire no reason why Rea would intentionally mis- northern half of the GYE. Native mountain state his impression of mountain goat absence goat populations “farther north” apparently from the region. If we assume that native would be those populations associated with mountain goat range was at that time similar the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem to what we believe it is today, then it appears (Chadwick 1983), which is slightly west of that Rea agreed with modern mountain goat north of the GYE. authorities, as cited above, on the range of the Our last mention of goats also covered a species. wide and not clearly defined region. In an extended account of a trip through YNP in YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK 1884, the naturalist-anthropologist George IN EARLY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT Bird Grinnell reported on the opinion of a local hunting guide, one of the Rea brothers. YNP was established by act of Congress in The Reas ran a stage station near the Henry’s 1872, with very little institutional direction Fork, in eastern Idaho, not far west of YNP. provided. Early managers were left largely on The brother that Grinnell questioned had their own to develop policies (Haines 1977, “been in the country seventeen years and may Schullery 1997, Pritchard 1999). Some of the therefore be supposed to know it fairly well.” most important values we associate with national parks today were barely embryonic in Ameri- He stated in a conversation I had with him can society at that time, and wildlife manage- that game is still quite plenty here. There are a few moose; elk and deer are rather abun- ment policy in YNP could hardly be said to dant, as are also bears, the black and cinna- exist outside minimum standards common on mon being common, while the grizzly is not other public lands. Public hunting was permit- often seen. Mountain sheep are very scarce. ted in YNP until 1883 (see discussion of Teller In reply to specific inquiries as to white letter, above). In that year political pressure, goats and caribou, he stated that he had primarily from sportsmen, resulted in hunting never known of either being found in the being outlawed. Abruptly the park became a neighborhood or in the vicinity of the Park. The nearest points where goats are to be wildlife reserve of great size and unrealized found is, he said, between Bitterroot and the opportunity. Bighole, a long distance to the westward But most details of management policy were (Grinnell 1885:3). still unresolved, or would undergo scrutiny and reconsideration. It was simply assumed, Rea was an experienced local observer, but for example, that the landscape and its wildlife it is our impression based on our reading of could be “improved” by the introduction of this region’s history that he was something of a nonnative species. Several species of sport fish self-promoter. He had some credentials as a were successfully introduced; native fish species wildlife expert. In 1874 he was apparently col- suffered tremendous declines and even disap- lecting specimens for “Prof. Ward’s Natural pearances in many drainages during this pro- Science Academy” in Rochester, New York (this cess (Varley and Schullery 1998). 298 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 61

Less well known now are numerous pro- to correspond with one other possible source posals to introduce a remarkable variety of of mountain goats in 1908, it appeared that the nonnative birds and mammals to the park, project just fizzled. We find no record of goats including mountain goats. In 1902, Acting purchased or goats shipped to YNP, or of goats Superintendent John Pitcher pointed out that released in YNP. We have not been able to “the scarcity of birds [in YNP] has frequently determine why or when this idea was aban- been noted, and it has been suggested that the doned, though it could be that when Young capercailzie and blackcock, game birds of left YNP late in 1908 he took with him all northern Europe, might be introduced in the existing administrative enthusiasm for the pro- Park” (Pitcher 1902:7; he was apparently refer- ject. ring to Capercaillie, Tetrao urogallus, and Black The dream of introducing mountain goats Grouse, Tetrao tetrix). Captain Pitcher was to YNP died slowly. As late as 1915, the Game enthusiastic about these proposals and pointed Preservation Committee of the Boone and out that a further advantage of bringing in these Crockett Club recommended that goats be birds would be that “they would spread into introduced into YNP (Trefethen 1961). The the neighboring country and soon afford fine general mood of these and other recommen- bird shooting where there is little or none at dations was that more was better—that nature present” (Pitcher 1902:7). In 1903 as distin- could be enriched, indeed improved upon, by guished a conservationist and naturalist as the judicious actions of humans. The wild set- President Theodore Roosevelt wrote enthusi- ting was not seen as an ecological whole with astically about “naturalizing” some species of some innate integrity; it was seen as the raw pheasant and other game birds to YNP. He material for making the most of a good thing was also eager to bring chamois (Rupicapra by adding more good things. sp.) in, “which certainly ought to do well there” Such manipulations of natural settings and (Roosevelt 1951:470–471). In 1907, Superin- nonnative species were simply routine in North tendent Samuel Baldwin Marks Young pointed America at the time; they were undertaken out that “with intelligent management and widely—and often failed—but have been a comparatively little expense a greater variety staple of professional wildlife management of birds and mammals could be successfully since the late 1800s. But opposing views were added and propagated within the park” (Young surfacing as well in the early 1900s. In their 1907a). important article, “Animal Life as an Asset of Superintendent Young may have come closer National Parks,” published in Science in 1916, than any other early manager to realizing the professional biologists Joseph Grinnell and dream of an artificially enriched ungulate eco- Tracy Storer said that just as dogs (Canis famil- system in Yellowstone. In April 1907, in the iaris) and cats (Felis catus) must be kept from final months of Major Pitcher’s acting superin- roaming free in national parks, tendency, the secretary of the interior autho- rized the expenditure of $300 “in relation to equal vigilance should be used to exclude all the procuring of white goats and domesticat- non-native species from the parks, even though they be non-predaceous. In the finely ing the same in the Yellowstone National Park” adjusted balance already established between (Garfield 1907). When Young replaced Pitcher the native animal life and the food supply, in June 1907 (Haines 1977), he quickly pur- there is no room for the interpolation of an sued this project, corresponding with a variety additional species (Grinnell and Storer 1916: of possible sources of goats in Montana and 379). British Columbia. His plan included what would today be termed a “soft release,” in Without specifically saying why, beyond the which the goats would be held in a pen for assertion that it would upset a “balance,” some time prior to release (Young 1907b). Dan these naturalists firmly opposed any additions Doody, of Nyack, Montana, on the southwest to park fauna. boundary of what would become Glacier These sentiments were soon echoed and National Park (GNP) a few years later, was broadened by the scientific profession. By the selected to capture the goats, but had difficulty 1920s, as the community of wildlife scientists keeping them alive long enough to transport and management professionals matured and them (Doody 1907). Though Young continued grew, a number of societies, such as the 2001] MOUNTAIN GOATS IN GREATER YELLOWSTONE 299

Ecological Society of America and the Ameri- 1936, based on the 1933 publication of what is can Association for the Advancement of Sci- now known as Fauna No. 1, an influential report ence (AAAS), spoke out against adding more on park animals by George Wright, Joseph nonnative species to national parks. In 1921 Dixon, and Ben Thompson. The report, which the AAAS clarified its opposition to introduc- reviewed nonnative animal problems in sev- ing nonnative species: national parks were “rich eral parks, emphasized in all its proposed reg- fields for the natural sciences . . .” where the ulations the protection of and preference for native flora and fauna were “more nearly un- native species. Native species that had been disturbed than anywhere else” (Wright 1992:37). extirpated were to be brought back (if the In the 1870s, YNP had been recognized by its species in question had become generally ex- first scientific explorers as a kind of laboratory; tinct and no source could be found, it was not the AAAS resolution of 1921 suggested that to be replaced with some “related form” of the park’s value was now increasing because animal). Nonnative species already established its wilderness setting and undisturbed biotic in parks were to be eliminated. If elimination community were becoming increasingly rare was not possible, their numbers were to be elsewhere. YNP was being perceived more “held to a minimum” (Wright et al. 1933). In a broadly as a living museum of primitive condi- passage that might be especially relevant to tions, and the value of such an institution was the current YNP mountain goat situation, likewise being more broadly appreciated (Prit- Wright and his colleagues warned that it was chard 1999). not enough to wait until nonnative species were established: AN EMERGING NPS AND YNP POLICY AGAINST NONNATIVES That the threatening invasion of the parks by other exotics shall be anticipated; and to this Starting after 1900, YNP seemed to develop end, since it is more than a local problem, a policy on nonnative species in rather hap- encouragement shall be given for national hazard fashion, on a case-by-case basis. The and State cooperation in the creation of a earliest official rejection of a nonnative species board which will regulate the transplanting probably occurred in the area of fisheries man- of all wild species (Wright et al. 1933:148). agement: Since 1936, then, nonnative animals have In 1907 a U.S. Fish Commission employee, been officially and decisively regarded as D.C. Booth, was given a reprimand by his unwelcome in YNP. Since that time, through a superior for planting rainbow trout in Yellow- series of revisions and modifications of policy stone Lake. This is the earliest instance of statements, the agency’s position on nonnative which we are aware of Yellowstone fisheries animals has been reaffirmed. All stocking of managers overtly seeking to protect native park waters (with native or nonnative fishes) strains of fish from dilution. And in 1908, ceased about 40 years ago (Varley and Schullery when no less a heavyweight than the U.S. 1998). The language of policies on nonnatives Commissioner of Fisheries proposed that smelt be stocked in Shoshone and Yellow- has evolved to reflect changing understanding stone Lakes, it couldn’t have been easy to say of ecological communities, but the statements no—but the park’s military managers did against exotics have remained. For example, in (Varley and Schullery 1998:97). the 1970 version of Administrative Policies for the National Parks and National Monuments For many years after 1908, nonnative species of Scientific Significance (Natural Area Cate- of fish that were already in the park at that gory), the policy was about as unequivocal as date were still managed and fostered as part of was practically possible: “Nonnative species the park’s very popular sport fishery. All that of plants and animals will be eliminated where happened in 1908 was that the addition of it is possible to do so by approved methods new species was officially disallowed. But that which will preserve wilderness qualities” (NPS was an impressive development considering 1970:56). that at this same time Superintendent Young In 1988, after additional revisions, the policy was shopping for mountain goats. seemed rather less absolute. On the one hand, The sentiment of opposition to nonnatives the definition of an exotic species was still rea- in parks was translated into formal policy in sonably concise: 300 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 61

Exotic species are those that occur in a given whether because the species serves to fill a place as a result of direct or indirect, deliber- role vacated by an extinct native or because ate or accidental actions by humans (not the species is merely appealing for aesthetic including deliberate reintroductions). For reasons. It is both interesting and a little puz- example, the construction of a fish ladder at a zling that neither the policy nor NPS-77 seems waterfall might enable one or more species to cross that natural barrier to dispersal. An to reflect aesthetic concerns, such as the possi- exotic species might also be introduced bility of a visitor experience being compromised through seeds in the droppings of an animal by viewing nonnative species in a national that has fed on an exotic species outside the park, as significant factors in deciding whether park. The exotic species introduced because or not to remove such animals. of such human action would not have evolved with the species native to the place AN INTRIGUING DEVELOPMENT in question and, therefore, would not be a IN RECENT HISTORY natural component of the ecological system characteristic of that place (NPS 1988a:4.11). The more recent history of mountain goats in the GYE provides a fascinating example of On the other hand, the agency’s responsibil- the complexities of policy interpretation. In ity toward exotic species was not as absolute as the past half century, mountain goats have been it had been in earlier policy expressions. established by state game managers of Idaho Instead, agency obligation to control exotics and Montana in hospitable habitats to the operated on the basis of a continuum of risk. north, northwest, west, and southwest of YNP According to NPS-77, the Natural Resources (Peck 1972, T. Lemke and N. Varley personal Management Guideline that complemented communication). Goats from populations intro- and interpreted the policy for managers, duced into Montana north of the park are exotic species most likely to cause harm to the already established in northeastern and north- ecological system were to be fought most western YNP. However, it is regarded as con- aggressively, and those that were relatively ceivable that native goats currently residing benign could apparently be ignored: farther west of the GYE could also make their way into the park by following the crest of the Control or eradication will be undertaken, where feasible, if exotic species threaten to Centennial Mountain Range east to the Gal- alter natural ecosystems; [or] seriously restrict, latin Mountain Range in northwestern YNP prey on, or compete with native populations (Laundré 1990, Wilkinson 1990; Fig. 1). (NPS 1988b:289). A decade ago the very suggestion of the possibility of such a situation attracted the It appears that this guideline would allow attention of the media, as well as then-promi- ecological specialists to determine if mountain nent animal-rights advocate Cleveland Amory goats that have colonized YNP in recent years (Wilkinson 1990). The media report posed an have exhibited any of these listed effects, and interesting dilemma facing managers. By policy, are thus in grave enough violation of policy. YNP managers should resist or at least disap- The policy does not quantify what constitutes prove of the northern invasion because these a sufficiently harmful alteration of a natural goats were from introduced populations. But if ecosystem, or what exactly is meant by serious native mountain goats moving in from the west restriction, predation, or competition. were part of a non-human–caused colonization, A spectrum of interpretations of this policy policy direction seems to be that the animals is possible, and such interpretations are infor- would simply be accepted as a new native mally offered by people engaged in conversa- species. National park ecosystems, like all oth- tions over mountain goats invading YNP. On ers, have hosted invasions of new species for one end of the spectrum are those who take thousands of years; such changes occurred ever what might be called the philosophical high since the ice retreated more than 10,000 years road and regard any nonnative presence as ago, long before Euro-Americans arrived to necessarily a violation of the NPS mandate influence the setting. By implication, at least, and the ecosystem’s fundamental purity. On the current policy (quoted above) seems to the other end of the spectrum are those who accommodate late arrivals: species colonizing selectively welcome some nonnative species, parks today unaided are apparently welcome. 2001] MOUNTAIN GOATS IN GREATER YELLOWSTONE 301

In discussing the possibility of dual moun- ous paragraph’s questions amounted to “milk- tain goat colonizations from both native and ing mice,” that is, dealing with trivially obscure nonnative populations, former YNP Superin- issues. We disagree. If the mountain goat inva- tendent Robert Barbee, a pragmatic and real- sion of YNP ever became a controversial enough istic manager, said that to fight off the species issue to result in a court case, we believe the on one boundary and welcome it along another judge would require the milking of these very did not “pass the red-face test” of real-world mice, and probably quite a few others. Native- management. No matter how closely such an ness is the central issue in this situation, and approach might adhere to policy, it would look the court would certainly recognize that sci- idiotic to the public (R. Barbee personal com- ence can be applied to clarify the origin of the munication). Whether it would actually be idi- goats in question (it seems likely to us, for otic is another question, but it seems safe to example, that if these questions ever did have say that few NPS managers would disagree to be answered in court, DNA analysis would with Barbee’s prediction of a negative public probably be called for, in an attempt to distin- reaction. guish goats from different regions). The issue is not without opportunities for But the current status and source of YNP scientific inquiry. First, could it be established mountain goats is reasonably clear. T. Lemke which population the invaders were from? Or, (personal communication) reported that the are the native goats west of the GYE and the only persistent concentrations of mountain introduced goats in Montana too closely related goats in YNP occur in the northeast and north- for distinctions to be genetically meaningful (if west corners of the park, with occasional meaningful can even be defined in this con- appearances by wanderers in other park loca- text)? tions. According to Lemke, these colonies are Then, if goats from a native population did extensions of known introduced populations in migrate to the park, was their migration facili- the Gallatin and Absaroka Mountain ranges to tated by humans? For example, could predator the north of the park. As of 1999, then, YNP is control either in the home range of these ani- known to have been colonized only by goats mals or along the migration route have made from introduced populations in Montana. The travel easier for them than it would have been suggestion that some or any mountain goats 200 years ago? For another example, it appears could enter the park from native populations that between about 1830 and 1880, bighorn moving from the west appears to be just that: sheep numbers declined dramatically in some a suggestion. parts of the GYE, perhaps in part because of On the other hand, there is some uncertainty introduced livestock diseases (Schullery and about how close native goats have approached Whittlesey 1992); did this emptying of habi- the GYE. In 1990 the Bureau of Land Man- tats have any effect on the hospitality of the agement (BLM), Dillon Resource Area, pre- GYE to colonizing mountain goats since then? pared a draft environmental assessment (EA) Last, the native range of the mountain goat to “reintroduce mountain goats in the Sheep has changed dramatically with the retreating Mountain area adjacent to Red Rock Lakes ice of the last ice age and should not be National Wildlife Refuge” (Lewis 1990; Fig. 1). regarded as having achieved some stable state Sheep Mountain is well within current defini- (Chadwick 1983). Ongoing mountain goat dis- tions of the GYE (Glick et al. 1991). The EA tribution changes independent of human stated that “mountain goats are considered as activities may have been underway at the time being historic residents of this area” (Roscoe of Euro-American arrival in the GYE, and 1990) but provided no documentation on this these could also affect the “nativeness” of goats. point. The author of the EA recently explained It may be necessary to address questions like to us that the introduction process stopped these to fully consider how “natural” a moun- when the BLM was unable to find evidence tain goat colonization of the GYE would be, that goats were native; introducing a nonnative even if it were effected by goats from native species in these circumstances would have populations. been against BLM regulations. “So at that point One somewhat caustic reader of an earlier the project stopped” (J. Roscoe personal com- version of this manuscript said that the previ- munication). 302 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 61

In this situation the BLM was in a dilemma Meanwhile, the hypothetical dual nature of much like that currently faced by YNP. the mountain goat colonization of YNP has According to the EA, goats were already close somehow risen from the status of an academic and even had been observed nearby in the but very interesting “what if ” question to the Centennial Range: status of a genuine dilemma. Though all moun- tain goats currently in YNP are reasonably No recent observations of mountain goats traced to the introduced Montana populations, have been made in the proposed release area. the possibility of a migration of goats into the A single adult goat was observed on Slide GYE or YNP from native populations farther Mountain on the west side of the Odell Creek west seems to have become, at least in recent drainage by refuge manager Barry Reiswig on October 25, 1983. Several observations of dialogues, almost equal in significance to the mountain goats were made in 1984 and 1985 reality of the known migrations from the north. near Spencer, Idaho, which is approximately The possible immigration of native goats has 25 miles southwest of the project area (Roscoe become, in the words of Wister, highly subli- 1990). mated. Rather like scholarship’s inability to demonstrate absolutely that there were no It was not possible at that time to know the mountain goats in the GYE prior to 1882, source of the goat seen on Slide Mountain, scholarship’s apparent inability to determine which is about 10 miles west of the proposed absolutely the origin of every single mountain introduction site (but still in the GYE). It could goat that has entered or may enter YNP may conceivably have been either from farther west be adding to the current institutional timidity (the direction of the native populations) or over what to do next. Those concerned with from an introduced population in the Madison the mountain goat issue seem stymied by Wis- Range to the northeast (J. Roscoe personal ter’s “vague rumor of the animal.” communication). It is also interesting to note that the proposed source of goats for this pro- CONCLUSION ject was Olympic National Park (ONP). The issue of a potential native mountain In this paper we have reviewed all early goat migration to YNP was perhaps first brought mentions of mountain goats in the GYE that to the attention of the scientific community by we have found. If those early accounts were Laundré (1990) and was picked up by the media read alone, removed from their full documen- about the time his report was published. In tary context, they might give the casual reader his report Laundré said: reason to suspect that at least a few goats were present in the GYE in the mid-1800s. Indeed, Given time, goats might have eventually we recognize that the possibility may have moved back into the Yellowstone Ecosystem, existed for the occasional exploration-minded as they may presently [sic] be doing from his- goat to have entered the GYE from the west. toric range into the Centennial Mountains. There may even have been a possibility that a Currently, all this is speculation and the small, unnoticed population of mountain goats rapid expansion of goat range in the moun- existed in the GYE before 1882. But the his- tains north of Yellowstone Park would tend to contradict this hypothesis (Laundré 1990:40). torical material we have examined so far pro- vides no convincing evidence of either indi- Notice that Laundré said only that goats “may” vidual animals or a population existing in the be migrating into the Centennial Mountains, a GYE before 1882. range west of YNP. He did not suggest that Brandborg (1955), in attempting to make they were on their way to YNP, and he seemed the best use of early travelers’ accounts of uncertain if such a migration was a likelihood. mountain goats in Idaho, has pointed out that As the situation in the Centennial Range de- the absence of references to mountain goats scribed above suggests, by the time that Laun- in early journals is not proof that they did not dré was writing, it was already very difficult to exist in an area. The route of the travelers establish the “identity” of mountain goats mov- along valley bottoms and through open ter- ing through the gap between known native rain during midsummer, when the goats goat habitat farther west and introduced moun- were at high elevations, precluded observa- tain goat habitat in the GYE. tions of them (Brandborg 1955:16). 2001] MOUNTAIN GOATS IN GREATER YELLOWSTONE 303

As we have explained in some detail above, we simply do not mention goats, we believe that agree that travelers who wrote about their managers are justified in declaring the moun- journeys could neglect to mention wildlife they tain goat a nonnative species in the GYE and saw. In fact, we think many if not most early YNP. travelers in the GYE did just that. It is certain National park managers must often make that virtually none of them kept conscientious decisions based on incomplete information, records of every animal they saw. However, in and they must often acknowledge that com- the case of the GYE and many early accounts plete information is not attainable. Determin- of it that we have analyzed, Brandborg’s 2nd ing the nativeness of a species may be such a statement, about the route traveled, does not situation, and the YNP mountain goat issue is apply. Many of our observers, being trappers, not the first time it has arisen. Attempts to prospectors, hunters, and other adventurous reduce mountain goat numbers in ONP have types, did not confine themselves either to the featured disagreements over whether the ani- valley floors or to the summer season (Schullery mals were truly nonnative. These disagree- and Whittlesey 1992). It is our opinion, based ments focus largely on competing interpreta- on experiences in observing goats in GNP, tions of surprisingly few problematic early his- Mount Rainier National Park, and YNP, that, torical sources (Lyman 1994, 1998, Houston had goats been present in a region as thor- 1995, Houston and Schreiner 1995, Hutchins oughly traveled as was the GYE in the early 1995). Rocky Mountain National Park and historical period, they would have been seen. Grand Teton National Park also face similar It could be argued that with the possible decisions concerning managing goats, as well exception of Dall’s sheep (Ovis dalli), no other as questions over the nativeness of the species North American ungulate species is so per- (Gross et al. 2000). Houston and Schreiner fectly designed by nature to be observed from (1995) review other variations on the native- a great distance. Not only does the mountain nonnative issue in other national parks. goat stand out brightly against the often dark Even in present-day national parks, there are background of its preferred habitat, but also it disagreements over the presence or absence does so at sufficient elevations that it is visible of a species. A persistent issue in the debate from much of the surrounding lower country. over Yellowstone wolf (Canis lupus) recovery We therefore believe that Fischer’s fallacy involved the possibility of a lingering remnant of negative proof, though a valid and essential population of native wolves (U.S. Fish and Wild- guide in the use of historical material relating life Service 1994). Debate over the reintro- to wildlife, needs a kind of corollary. This duction of grizzly bears to the Bitterroot Moun- corollary is that it is possible to accumulate tains on the Idaho-Montana border now fea- such a large volume of negative evidence as to tures disagreements over whether grizzly bears leave very little room for the affirmative alter- are totally absent from the area (Devlin 1999). native. The negative evidence will never abso- When the debate over such an issue achieves lutely establish that no animals of a given its finest resolution—the analysis of limited species existed in a region, but it can accumu- evidence for which there are conflicting inter- late to a volume and depth sufficient to demon- pretations and which at best indicates the strate beyond any reasonable doubt that such presence of a few animals—it is not clear with animals were scarce at best. which party the burden of proof should lie, or On the simplest level, that of reported sight- how such disagreements might be resolved. ings, the great wealth of firsthand observations It is also not clear what managers are to do we have examined makes it clear to us that if even if they are confronted with incontrovert- mountain goats did indeed exist somewhere in ible proof of the existence of a single animal of the GYE in the early historical period, they the species in question. For practical manage- were extraordinarily and uncharacteristically ment purposes, past experience suggests that invisible to virtually all travelers who were the demonstrated presence of a single animal interested enough in wildlife to record their may not be sufficient. In the case of wolf re- observations. Without a single verifiable or covery in the GYE, for example, the U.S. Fish even reliable sighting to prove goat presence, and Wildlife Service recognized that individ- with a few reports that state that goats were ual wolves seemed to exist in the GYE in the not present, and with many more sources that early 1990s (prior to the reintroduction of new 304 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 61 wolves), but regarded these rare animals as It is also difficult to interpret policy guide- not constituting a “population” of animals that lines relating to whether or not these moun- had any likelihood of sustaining itself over time tain goats pose a threat to the native ecosys- (these animals’ “quality” as evidence was also tem and should be removed. Ecological evalu- suspect because they may have been escaped ation is beyond the scope of this paper, but pets, clandestinely released animals, or, as was because the issue is social as well as scientific, established in one case, recent immigrants from we should at least mention it. N. Varley (per- other wolf populations beyond the GYE). At sonal communication) has reported that so far that point in the deliberations of the U.S. Fish he can find no evidence of significant ecologi- and Wildlife Service, it became a matter of cal effects of goats in YNP. But the invasion is defining a population, which was done in terms young, and recent literature on ungulate graz- of a certain number of successfully breeding ing systems (e.g., McNaughton et al. 1989) pairs over a certain period of time (U.S. Fish suggests to us it is risky to assume that an and Wildlife Service 1994). It was regarded as ungulate population will not affect ecosystem proven that wolves inhabiting the GYE prior processes and plant communities to some to the arrival of the introduced wolves in 1995 extent, and current knowledge of potential did not meet this definition. goat habitat in YNP may not be capable of Current NPS policy and guidelines do not measuring such effects as they happen. As provide much constructive guidance for man- important, the discussion that followed the agers facing uncertainties of this sort. There panel session at which our paper was given are no prescriptions for what qualities and made it clear that other participants in the dia- quantities of evidence are the minimum accept- logue hold to a traditional principle of “purity,” able amount to establish that a species was or by which the goats must be regarded as inap- is present or absent. Likewise, there are no propriate simply because they are nonnative, prescriptions for establishing what numbers or regardless of any measured ecological effects population characteristics are necessary for a they may have. Following this line of reason- small number of animals to constitute a native ing, even if mountain goats are ecologically presence as a population. benign, they are inappropriate. That is to say Thus, it appears there are no indisputable that aside from any ecological problems they criteria by which modern YNP managers can pose, they compromise the experience the judge the appropriateness of the present moun- park is supposed to provide. tain goat colonization even if it were estab- The social issue may be the more important lished that at least one goat did inhabit the one in the future of goat management in YNP. GYE prior to the park’s establishment. If it It is our opinion, based on the experience of were shown that a single sighting of single managers in ONP and on our own observations mountain goat did occur—if, for example, of visitors enjoying mountain goats in YNP Vaughn’s 1864 sighting were somehow con- and GNP, that people who espouse the princi- firmed—how can that information be applied ple of ecological purity as a justification for to the current situation? Does that single sight- removing mountain goats from YNP will not ing justify or at least make tolerable the cur- stand a chance against a pro-goat constituency rent goat colonization of YNP from multiple for whom the animal’s romantic image and artificial introductions north of the park? Put beauty make it an exciting addition to their yet another way, even if there were a reliable recreational experience. These recreationists sighting of a single goat in the GYE in 1864, have a demonstrated, even willful, lack of inter- does tolerating the current goat colonization of est in any effects that the mountain goat’s YNP equate with assuming that the single goat presence may have on those who come to YNP was the vanguard of a much larger natural col- to experience native wild nature. If the state of onization on the scale of the one that is now Montana (which is, after all, the source of the occurring? Or, to place a broader interpreta- “problem” because it introduced the goats into tion on the policy, does the existence of a sin- nonnative ranges north of the park and has not gle native goat in 1864 endow managers with attempted to halt their spread) and the NPS authorization such that they can disregard these choose to continue to accommodate the colo- questions and simply declare the current pop- nization of the park by mountain goats, the ulation of goats “native enough”? constituency of goat enthusiasts will grow at 2001] MOUNTAIN GOATS IN GREATER YELLOWSTONE 305 least as fast as the goat population does and son, M. Pavesic, and J. Schoen provided insights will no doubt be as strong willed and outspo- about rock art images in the GYE. We also ken as it has been in ONP. thank Aubrey Haines for historical advice; Management of YNP natural resources has Aubrey’s death in September 2000 deprived all evolved greatly since the park’s creation. Such students of Yellowstone history of a treasured evolution has most often occurred as a matter friend and an irreplaceable advisor. of necessity, when an issue became politically or even ecologically pressing enough to require LITERATURE CITED reconsideration. The invasion of Yellowstone BLACKBURN, C.F. 1879. The wilderness at the head of the Lake by nonnative lake trout, mentioned above, Missouri, Columbia, and Colorado rivers. Scientific is an example of an issue that was immediately American Supplement 8:2903–2904. pressing, both because of its threat to native BOZEMAN AVANT COURIER. 1874. Returned to the moun- elements of the ecosystem and because of its tains. May 29, p. 3. potential impacts on regional recreational eco- ______. 1875a. The case of the territory against George Rea. March 2, p. 3. nomics. The goats currently occupying the GYE ______. 1875b. Sentenced. March 12, p. 3. and YNP have for some years threatened to BRANDBORG, S.M. 1955. Life history and management of become pressing enough as an issue, but only the mountain goat in Idaho. State of Idaho Depart- time will tell if they force an advancement in ment of Fish and Game, Boise. 142 pp. CALFEE, H.B. 1896. Calfee’s adventures—he and his com- the complex wildlife policies of this region. Our panion’s blood curdling trip to the park over a quar- reading of past Yellowstone history suggests ter of a century ago. Manuscript assembled from that as long as no compelling ecological issue newspaper clippings. Yellowstone National Park surfaces, the mountain goat colonization of YNP Research Library, Yellowstone Park, WY. CANNON, K.P. 1992. A review of archeological and paleon- will probably never achieve adequate signifi- tological evidence for the prehistoric presence of cance in the eyes of managers or other con- wolf and related prey species in the northern and cerned constituencies to force the decision- central Rockies physiographic provinces. Pages 1-175– making process into action. That is to say that 1-265 in J.D. Varley and W.G. Brewster, editors, Wolves for Yellowstone? A report to the United States so long as the goats seem benign, management Congress. Volume 4, Research and analysis. NPS, reaction to them will likewise be benign, and Yellowstone National Park, WY. colonization will proceed as the goats and their CHADWICK, D.H. 1983. A beast the color of winter: the new environment allow. mountain goat observed. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, CA. 208 pp. DEVLIN, S. 1999. Grizzly bears—real or imagined? Billings ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Gazette, November 3. DOODY, D. 1907. Letter to the superintendent, incoming This work is part of the authors’ ongoing correspondence, document 8665. Yellowstone National Park Service study of early Yellow- Archives, Yellowstone National Park, WY. FISCHER, D.H. 1970. Historian’s fallacies, toward a logic stone wildlife history. We thank the organizers of historical thought. Harper & Row, Publishers, of the Fifth Biennial Scientific Conference on New York. 338 pp. the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, and espe- FOREST AND STREAM. 1885. The Vest Bill. Forest and cially B. Smith, organizer of the mountain goat Stream 25(23):446–447. GARFIELD, J. 1907. Letter to the acting superintendent, session at which these findings were presented, incoming correspondence, document 8079. Yellow- for providing such a stimulating forum. The stone Archives, Yellowstone National Park, WY. manuscript was read by S. Consolo Murphy, GLICK, D., M. CARR, AND B. HARTING. 1991. An environ- D. Houston, A. Johnson, B. Smith, J. Varley, G. mental profile of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosys- Wright, and 3 anonymous reviewers. B. Barbee, tem. Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Bozeman, MT. GRAYSON, D.K. 1981. A critical view of the use of archaeo- K. Cannon, S. Consolo Murphy, E. Hadly, A. logical vertebrates in paleoenvironmental reconstruc- Johnson, K. Jope, T. Lemke, T. McEneaney, G. tion. Journal of Ethnobiology 1:28–38. Plumb, J. Roscoe, E. Schreiner, F. Singer, J. GREER, M., AND J. GREER. 1998. Southwestern Montana Varley, and N. Varley helped with answers to a rock art. Archeology in Montana 39:55–64. GRINNELL, G.B. 1885. Through Two-Ocean Pass. Forest variety of questions on policy history, taxonomy, and Stream (January 29, 1885) 24:3–4. and literature sources. J. Francis, E. Hadly, C. GRINNELL, J., AND T.I. STORER. 1916. Animal life as an asset Hill, A. Johnson, and J. Schoen shared infor- of national parks. Science 44(1133):375–380. mation about the absence of mountain goats in GROSS, J.E., M.C. KNEELAND, D.M. SWIFT, AND B.A. WUN- DER. 2000. Scientific assessment of the potential archeological and paleontological sites in the effects of mountain goats on the ecosystems of Rocky GYE. S. Conner, J. Francis, M. Greer, A. John- Mountain National Park. Final report to the National 306 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 61

Park Service, Contract 1443PX15099062. Rocky Interior. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washing- Mountain National Park, Estes Park, CO. 141 pp. ton, DC. 22 pp. HAINES, A.L. 1977. The Yellowstone story. 2 volumes. Col- PRITCHARD, J. 1999. Preserving Yellowstone’s natural con- orado Associated University Press and the Yellow- ditions, science and the perception of nature. Uni- stone Library and Museum Association, Boulder, CO. versity of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 370 pp. HOUSTON, D.B. 1995. Response to “Inaccurate data and RIDEOUT, C.B. 1978. Mountain goat. Pages 148–159 in J.L. the Olympic National Park mountain goat contro- Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert, editors, Big game of versy.” Northwest Science 69:238–239. North America: ecology and management. Stackpole HOUSTON, D.B., AND E.G. SCHREINER. 1995. Alien species Books, Harrisburg, PA. in national parks: drawing the lines in space and time. ROOSEVELT, T. 1951. The letters of Theodore Roosevelt, Conservation Biology 9:204–209. E.E. Morison, editor. Volume 3. Harvard University HUTCHINS, M. 1995. Olympic mountain goat controversy Press, Cambridge, MA. 718 pp. continues. Conservation Biology 9:1324–1326. ROSCOE, J. 1990. Draft environmental assessment, Cen- KAY, C.E. 1994. Aboriginal overkill: the role of Native tennial Mountains goat reintroduction. Bureau of Americans in structuring western ecosystems. Human Land Management, Dillon Resource Area, Dillon, Nature 5:359–398. MT. 3 pp. LAUNDRÉ, J.W. 1990. The status, distribution, and man- SCHULLERY, P. 1984. A history of native elk in Mount agement of mountain goats in the Greater Yellow- Rainier National Park. Final report to the National stone Ecosystem. Final research report, NPS Order Park Service, Mount Rainier National Park, WA. 110 #PX 1200-8-0828. 58 pp. Copy on file, Yellowstone pp. Research Library and park files, Yellowstone National ______. 1997. Searching for Yellowstone: ecology and Park, WY. wonder in the last wilderness. Houghton Mifflin, LEWIS, J. 1990. Memo to interested parties. Cover letter for Boston, MA. 338 pp. environmental assessment on mountain goat intro- SCHULLERY, P., AND L.H. WHITTLESEY. 1992. The documen- duction to the Centennial Valley, Montana. Bureau tary record of wolves and related wildlife species in of Land Management, Dillon Resource Area, MT. the Yellowstone National Park area prior to 1882. 1 pp. Pages 1.3–1.173 in J.D. Varley and W.G. Brewster, LEWIS, M., AND W. C LARK. 1987. The journals of the Lewis editors, Wolves for Yellowstone? A report to the and Clark expedition, G. Moulton, editor. Volume 4. United States Congress. Volume 4, Research and Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebras- analysis. National Park Service, Yellowstone National ka Press, Lincoln. 464 pp. Park, WY. LOVE, C.M. 1972. An archeological survey of the Jackson ______. 1995. A summary of the documentary record of Hole region, Wyoming. The Wyoming Archaeologist wolves and other wildlife species in the Yellowstone 18:1–95. National Park area prior to 1882. Pages 63–76 in LYMAN, R.L. 1994. The Olympic mountain goat contro- L.N. Carbyn, S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip, editors, versy: a different perspective. Conservation Biology Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing 8:898–901. world. Canadian Circumpolar Institute Occasional ______. 1998. White goats white lies, the misuse of sci- Publication 35. ence in Olympic National Park. University of Utah ______. 1999a. Early wildlife hstory of the Greater Yel- Press, Salt Lake City. 278 pp. lowstone Ecosystem: an interim research report pre- MCNAUGHTON, S.J., M. OESTERHELD, D.A. FRANK, AND sented to National Research Council, National Acad- K.J. WILLIAMS. 1989. Ecosystem-level patterns of emy of Sciences, Committee on Ungulate Manage- primary productivity and herbivory in terrestrial ment in Yellowstone National Park, July 1999. Copies habitats. Nature 341(14):142–144. available from the NRC or from the Yellowstone NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. 1970. Compilation of the admin- Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, istrative policies for the national parks and national WY. monuments of scientific significance (natural area ______. 1999b. Greater Yellowstone carnivores: a history category). U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash- of changing attitudes. Pages 10–49 in T.P. Clark, P. ington, DC. 147 pp. Curlee Griffin, S. Minta, and P. Kareiva, editors, ______. 1988a. Management policies, U.S. Department of Carnivores in ecosystems: the Yellowstone experi- the Interior, National Park Service. U.S. Government ence. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Printing Office, Washington, DC. SKINNER, M.P. 1926. Mountain goat (Oreamnos montanus ______. 1988b. NPS-77. Natural resources management missoulae) not found in Wyoming. Journal of Mam- guidelines. National Park Service, Washington, DC. malogy 7:334–335. NORRIS, P.W. 1881. Annual report of the superintendent of STUART, R. 1935. Pages 1–186 in P.A. Rollins, editor, The the Yellowstone National Park to the Secretary of the discovery of the Oregon Trail. Charles Scribner’s Interior for the year 1880. U.S. Government Printing Sons, New York. Office, Washington, DC. 81 pp. TELLER, H.M. 1883. Letter to the superintendent, incom- NOWAK, R.M. 1991. Walker’s mammals of the world. 5th ing correspondence, document 162. Yellowstone edition, volume 2. Johns Hopkins University Press, Archives, Yellowstone National Park, WY. Baltimore, MD. 1629 pp. TREFETHEN, J.B, 1961. Crusade for wildlife, highlights in PECK, S.V. 1972. The ecology of the Rocky Mountain goat conservation progress. Stackpole Company and the in the Spanish Peaks area of southwestern Montana. Boone and Crockett Club, Harrisburg, PA. 377 pp. Master’s thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1994. Final environ- 54 pp. mental impact statement, the reintroduction of gray PITCHER, J. 1902. Report of the acting superintendent of wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central the Yellowstone National Park to the Secretary of the Idaho. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, MT. 2001] MOUNTAIN GOATS IN GREATER YELLOWSTONE 307

VARLEY, J.D., AND P. S CHULLERY. 1998. Yellowstone fishes: Musk-ox, bison, sheep and goat. The Macmillan Com- ecology, history, and angling in the park. Stackpole pany, London. Books, Harrisburg, PA. 154 pp. WRIGHT, G.M., J.S. DIXON, AND B.H. THOMPSON. 1933. VAUGHN, R. 1900. Then and now; or thirty-six years in the Fauna of the national parks of the United States. U.S. Rockies. Tribune Printing Company, Minneapolis, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 157 MN. pp. WHITTLESEY, L.H. 1992. A history of large animals in Yel- WRIGHT, R.G. 1992. Wildlife research and management in lowstone National Park before 1882. In-house re- the national parks. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. search report available in Yellowstone National Park 224 pp. Research Library, Yellowstone National Park, WY, YOUNG, S.B.M. 1907a. Annual report of the superinten- 186 pp. dent of the Yellowstone National Park to the Secre- ______. 1994. A pre-1905 history of large mammals in tary of the Interior. U.S. Government Printing Office, Pierre’s Hole, Idaho; Jackson Hole, Wyoming; and Washington, DC. 27 pp. the Bechler region of southwestern Yellowstone. In- ______. 1907b. Letter to L.J. Lownds, June 27, 1907; let- house draft report, 2 August 1994. National Park ters sent, 1907. Yellowstone Archives, Yellowstone Service, Yellowstone National Park, WY. 58 pp. National Park, WY. WILKINSON, T. 1990. Yellowstone tackles goat troubles. The Denver Post, August 26, C1. Received 14 March 2000 WISTER, O. 1904. The white goat and his ways. Pages Accepted 22 January 2001 227–289 in C. Whitney, G.B. Grinnell, and O. Wister,