Yellowstone Science A quarterly publication devoted to the natural and cultural resources

Clarifying the Park’s Muddy Waters A Grand Fisheries Experiment Grizzly Bears: A Book Review Camping and Forest Structure

Volume 5 Number 1 Going with the Flow

I tend to look for the connections be- ers. Management of backcountry use to charismatic story? It’s good to present tween things, and lean toward establish- minimize effects is a continual challenge, articles featuring the spectrum of scien- ing an underlying theme for each issue of especially since human and wildlife use tific studies on park resources, but we this magazine. In planning this one I is so influenced by the lakes and rivers. must be realistic, we must grab the poten- thought the connection is water: scien- They provide ease of access yet some- tial reader’s attention; we cannot assume tists look into the turbid waters of north- times serve as barriers to movement; they that our audience will be equally drawn ern Yellowstone’s rivers and provide clar- quench the literal thirst for sustenance by stories of sediment and sapling struc- ity on the sources of sediment and how and, for many of us, also provide an ture—albeit worthy research—as they events such as wildfires, high snowpacks, aesthetic backdrop or magnet that draws might by tales of wandering wolves and and floods affect the waters. Concern for us into the to reflect and re- migrating calves. Or can we? Should the water quality and its influence on connect with ourselves and our we give them what they want (or what we fisheries was a major impetus for begin- environment...I can hear the trickle of think they want)? Doubtless every editor, ning the sediment study. So not coinci- Cabin Creek flowing past as I recall my or park interpreter around the campfire dentally, we finish the story, begun in the last backcountry trip there...I can picture program, considers this dilemma of how previous volume, of the history of fisher- the raging, muddy waters of the Yellow- to provide more information yet hold the ies management in the park. Finish, that stone after a late spring ...I remember audience. Still, doesn’t each person in is, telling what we can as history, leaving crossing on the park every audience vary in where they are on entire (and surely quite fascinating) chap- boat, soaking up the views of the Absa- the road to what a teacher of mine once ters yet to be written as humans, fish, and roka Range to the east and watching the called “the eternal quest for knowledge,” the rest of the park’s inhabitants continue depth-finder for deep spots where I imag- so that we cannot worry overmuch about interacting in and around the waters of ined lake lurking beneath the sur- which stories or facts will appeal? Ah Yellowstone. The popularity of the wa- face, threatening turmoil under the ap- well, “saved” by a book review on those ters and their shores draws the park’s parently calm waters...ah, it flows, this ever-charismatic grizzlies; it doesn’t flow highest numbers of backcountry travel- issue, one article to another, it appeals to so well with the theme, but perhaps it will ers and results in some documented alter- my sense of connectivity... assuage the interest of those who thirst ation in forest areas that host those camp- Then someone asked, but where is the for something different than water. SCM Yellowstone Science A quarterly publication devoted to the natural and cultural resources Volume 5 Number 1 Winter 1997 Table of Contents

Suspended Sediment in the Rivers of 2 Northern Yellowstone Fire-related increases in sediment varied greatly by season and watershed, and many other valuable lessons are gained from a pre and postfire database on hydrology and sediment in the Lamar and basins. by Roy Ewing

A Grand Experiment, Continued 8 In the latter half of the twentieth century, fisheries management shifts toward protection of native species and a new era in fisheries responsibil- ity begins for Yellowstone National Park. Part Two of an article by Mary Ann Franke

Editor Leave Only Footprints? 14 Sue Consolo-Murphy Backcountry users influence forest structure around campsites, and Art Director may affect forest survival and regeneration. Renée Evanoff by James Y. Taylor Associate Editor Sarah Broadbent Review 18 Assistant Editor The Grizzly Bears of Yellowstone: Their Ecology in the Mary Ann Franke Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1959-1992, by John Craighead. Printing Reviewed by Mark Boyce Artcraft Inc. Bozeman, News and Notes 21 New Brucella vaccine to be tested on Yellowstone bison • Thomas Moran paintings to be displayed at National Gallery of Art • Summary of progress toward wolf restoration two years into the effort

On the cover: Fishing Bridge in Yellowstone Science is published quarterly, and submissions are welcome from all investigators the 1950s. See Part Two of the conducting formal research in the Yellowstone area. Editorial correspondence should be sent to history of fisheries management the Editor, Yellowstone Science, Yellowstone Center for Resources, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone in Yellowstone on page 3. Photo National Park, WY 82190. The opinions expressed in Yellowstone Science are the authors' and may not reflect either NPS archives. Above: An SCA National Park Service policy or the views of the Yellowstone Center for Resources. volunteer taking water samples Copyright © 1997, the Yellowstone Association for Natural Science, History & Education. from the bridge at Corwin Springs, Montana in May of Support for Yellowstone Science is provided by the Yellowstone Association for Natural Science, History & Education, a non-profit educational organization dedicated to serving the 1991. Photo courtesy Roy Ewing. park and its visitors. For more information about the Yellowstone Association, including membership, write to P.O. Box 117, Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190. Yellowstone Science is printed on recycled paper with a linseed oil-based ink. Suspended Sediment in the Rivers of Northern Yellowstone Assessing Changes from the 1988 Fires by Roy Ewing

“How on earth did I get here? Is this cerns of the Livingston (Montana) chap- Quality Bureau, the Park County (Mon- really worth it? This is crazy.” I remem- ter of . Local anglers and tana) Conservation District, and Trout ber 1 a.m. on a cold night in early June businesses dependent on river activities Unlimited recommended a study to ob- 1986. The was swollen with were concerned about the levels of sus- tain baseline information on suspended water that had melted from the winter pended sediment in these rivers. The sedi- sediment and other properties of the Yel- snowpack and picked up a lot of mud on ment carried by a river can endanger fish lowstone River and several of its tributar- the way down the watershed. My super- populations by smothering spawning beds ies. In addition to identifying major visor, park hydrologist Jana Mohrman, and reducing the supply of aquatic inver- sediment-producing watersheds, sam- and I were suspended over the river in an tebrates on which fish feed. The periodic pling the Yellowstone and Lamar rivers aluminum car that rode over time would estab- on a thick steel cable just lish a benchmark for com- below the canyon down- parison for future studies stream of . to determine whether sus- Through the snow that pended sediment trans- blew intermittently, I port from the park was could see the heavy brass changing. The study was water sampler—also directed by the Fisheries known as the “fish”— as Assistance Office of the it fell toward the roaring U.S. Fish and Wildlife river below. As it Service, which at that plunged into the river, time conducted aquatic the swift current carried monitoring programs for it downstream, jerking Yellowstone National the little cable car down Park. From 1985 to 1992 and tilting everything off researchers could be seen vertical. We steadily sampling the Yellow- winched the fish down stone River from the until it touched the river Corwin Springs bridge bottom and then cranked and the Lamar River near it back up. As we hoisted its confluence with the in the swaying sampler Yellowstone. and retrieved the glass pint bottle, the cable car was freed from debate over the level of ungulate grazing How Rivers Carry Sediment the currents and bounced around wildly. on Yellowstone’s northern range I recall loading another bottle into the prompted concerns about high levels of Generally, rivers carry the most sus- sampler, keeping an eye peeled for float- erosion in the park as a source of this pended sediment when they receive the ing logs coming down the river, and won- sediment. most runoff from their watersheds. In this dering how I got into this situation. An ad-hoc consulting committee that northern Rocky Mountain region, this That late-night river sampling was included representatives from the Mon- occurs during spring when the snowpack part of a study to identify major tana Water Resources Division of the melts, fall, and the rivers flow at the sediment-producing tributary watersheds U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the highest streamflow levels of the year. in the northern portion of Yellowstone Snow Survey branch of the Soil Conser- Depending on the nature of the snowmelt National Park, including the Yellowstone vation Service, the Gallatin National For- season, rivers are turbid or murky from and Lamar rivers (Fig. 1). Our research est, the Montana Department of Fish, suspended sediment from April to July. began in 1985, in response to the con- Wildlife and Parks, the Montana Water From July on, the rivers become clearer 2 Yellowstone Science known as the “suspended load.” It is Yellowstone's Tristate Location sampled using the previously mentioned MONTANA brass sampler operated from a bridge or Yellowstone National Park cableway over the river. Suspended sediment can vary greatly IDAHO in space and time. Several procedures must be followed to obtain representative estimates of the sediment being carried in a river at any given time. Multiple samples Corwin are taken across the width of the river to Springs establish a coefficient or multiplier to Fisher Creek Yellow adjust daily samples taken at a single st White Mill Mammoth o ne N.E. Entrance point. During the spring thaw, snow melts faster as each day warms up; a maximum C Lamar melt rate occurs at about 3 p.m., after Tower which the melt rate declines. This pro-

R B

i

v duces a diurnal surge of water and sedi- e

r L a ment that may take some time to reach the m a r sampling station. Sediment sampling may R Parker i

v therefore have to occur at odd hours in e Peak A r order to obtain representative samples of the daily sediment transport. The same is ] true for sediment plumes from summer —the afternoon storm Lake plume may not reach the sampling station for hours or days. To adjust for yearly Park Boundary 0 4 Gaging Station Miles variations in runoff, sediment must be Weather Station Yellowstone sampled during both low and high pre- Lake cipitation years. Variations in precipitation and snow- Figure 1. Study area in northern Yellowstone National Park, the Gallatin National melt from 1985 to 1987 caused the Yel- Forest, and private lands in Montana. Study drainage subareas include: A. Yellow- lowstone River to carry widely varying stone River from Yellowstone Lake to Lamar River; B. Lamar River Basin; and C. the amounts of runoff (volume of water). In Yellowstone River from the Lamar River to Corwin Springs, Montana. 1985, the runoff at Corwin Springs was 78 percent of the long-term average (1961-1988), while the warm spring of and the level or stage of streams continu- tershed. Vegetation intercepts rainfall, 1986 resulted in a large snowmelt runoff ously falls until the next year’s snowmelt. reducing the impact of raindrops on the and overall runoff that was 116 percent of Periodic summer rainstorms cause runoff soil surface, and also binds the soil with the average. In 1987, a near-drought re- that carries sediment to the streams, and root networks. When vegetation is re- sulted in runoff that was just 56 percent of this intense, concentrated precipitation moved, as during construction of build- the average. These variations enabled us on a watershed can erode more sediment ings and roads, erosion of sediment into to sample suspended sediment during than snowmelt waters due to the impact streams is increased; most states require low, moderate, and high flow years and of rain drops or hail. Thus, rivers in this sediment control barriers and procedures obtain a good estimate of the relationship region can get even muddier during sum- to reduce this impact. between streamflow and suspended sedi- mer than in spring, although less sedi- Rivers carry sediment in two ways: as ment. As it happened, the drought of ment is carried because rainstorms don’t bed load and suspended load. If you think 1987 extended through 1988, contribut- contribute as much runoff as does the of the river as a mode of transport, it ing substantially to the record fires expe- snowmelt. carries a load like a truck or train. Heavier rienced throughout the ecosystem. Other factors influence the amount of sand, gravel, pebbles, and cobbles are erosion and sediment transport in a wa- rolled or bounced along the river bottom After the 1988 Fires tershed. The nature of the bedrock and during periods of high flow. This sedi- soils is important, with soft rocks (such as ment, referred to as the “bed load” of the As the smoke from the 1988 fires shales) and unconsolidated sediments river, is difficult to measure. The lighter, cleared, resource managers needed to (such as prehistoric lake sediments) erod- individual mineral grains of sediment that assess the dramatic changes that had taken ing most easily. Bedrock and soil also produce the muddy water we see in rivers place in Yellowstone, including those in influence the vegetation present in a wa- during snowmelt or after rainstorms is aquatic ecosystems. Many studies have Winter 1997 3 found that several factors cause suspended postfire winter and spring averages, sum- Fire-Related Changes in Sediment river sediment to increase in burned wa- mer precipitation was less than the prefire tersheds: raindrop impact on the soil in- average. Although the years after the Because greater precipitation and re- creases because the tree canopy that in- fires had greater average precipitation sultant runoff during the postfire period tercepted raindrops is reduced or gone; than in the prefire period, cooler snow- was likely to have caused higher levels of surface flow increases because of melt periods resulted in lower suspended sediment, two methods were groundcover destruction; and sediment streamflows. The largest postfire snow- used to try to isolate the changes in sus- delivery patterns change. Because in- melt runoff (116 percent of average) and pended sediment due to fire effects. In the creased suspended sediment may harm total April-September runoff (102 per- first method, suggested by USGS hy- fish populations, we decided to continue cent of average) on the Yellowstone River drologist John Lambing, the monthly our studies and estimate changes in sus- at Corwin Springs occurred in 1991 ( see measured load (in tons) was divided by pended sediment output from the Yel- Table 1). In contrast, the greatest the monthly measured runoff (in acre-feet) lowstone River drainage after the wild- streamflow prefire year, 1986, had a snow- to express the suspended sediment load fires. The objectives of the extended study, melt runoff of 126 percent and total as an amount per monthly runoff (tons which lasted from 1989 through 1992, runoff of 116 percent of the long-term per acre-feet). The resulting measures for were to measure postfire streamflow and average. postfire and prefire periods were there- suspended sediment on the Yellowstone Suspended sediment increased in the fore independent of river flow (or pre- and several tributaries at the same places Yellowstone and Lamar rivers following cipitation) and could be compared. Using as in our original study, and to identify the 1988 wildfires. The question that this method, changes in river sediment fire-related changes in river sediment. arose was “How much of this increase could be identified that were most likely Volunteers from the Student Conserva- was due to greater precipitation and run- related to fire effects. tion Association assisted park staff in off (climatic factors) and how much was For the Yellowstone River as mea- sampling rivers and gathering hydrologic due to fire-related effects, such as in- sured at Corwin Springs, postfire increases information. The National Park Service creased erosion?” The postfire average in monthly sediment load- per- unit- runoff (NPS) and USGS used the same tech- total suspended sediment load increased occurred most notably during the snow- niques used in our prefire study to collect 69 percent over the prefire average for the melt months of April, May, and June, water samples, measure streamflow, and Yellowstone River and 34 percent for the when the postfire monthly average analyze the data. Lamar River (see Table 2). The postfire (1989-1992) increased 156, 105, and 42 snowmelt average load was 74 percent percent over the prefire (1985-1987) Postfire Changes in Precipitation, greater than prefire on the Yellowstone monthly average values. Summer postfire Runoff, and Suspended Sediment River but only 23 percent greater on the changes were more variable, with the Lamar River. The Lamar River experi- July postfire average less than prefire (-1 As it happened, average total precipita- enced much greater increases in summer percent), August postfire average 100 tion was greater during the postfire study sediment load (743 percent over prefire) percent greater than prefire, and the Sep- period (1989-1992) than it was from 1985 than did the Yellowstone River (16 per- tember postfire average 20 percent more to 1987. Although this was also true for cent over prefire). than the prefire. The Lamar River, on the Table 1. Prefire 1985-1987 and postfire 1989-1992 monthly and seasonal runoff as a percentage of long-term prefire mean runoff of the Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, Montana. April-Sept Plrefire Aypri Mea Jtun Synowmel Jtul Atugus Srep Summe Total 10985 1718.2 1626.7 673.5 827.0 543.9 762.0 805.4 653.7 77.6 10986 1255.1 1405.5 1932.1 1025.6 994.7 1609.0 1311.9 1301.2 115.8 12987 1740.6 984.1 368.6 633.3 379.4 533.8 526.9 476.0 56.3 Mean 137.97 108.82 78.13 92.04 62.68 78.33 84.78 70.32 83.29 Postfire 18989 1761.0 1036.4 833.9 1105.8 760.1 718.5 737.6 723.5 92.8 16990 2742.2 951.1 886.9 969.8 789.6 844.9 805.5 872.0 92.6 16991 906.5 1038.2 1907.3 1015.9 726.9 883.9 858.2 810.5 101.7 18992 1894.0 1947.4 568.2 965.8 663.3 616.9 755.6 636.2 83.9 Mean 173.49 128.33 84.11 104.39 72.51 78.61 81.76 75.58 92.78

4 Yellowstone Science Table 2. Mean monthly and total suspended sediment load of runoff for the Yellowstone River and the Lamar River for the postfire (1989-1992) period.

April- July- April-June April May June July August September September September Mean Mean Mean

Percent Postfire Change - Yellowstone River

T3ons 245 135 11-7110 1964761

T6ons/Acre-Feet 155 120 41-0100 2970862

Percent Postfire Change - Lamar River

T0ons 68-9361 1947 147 332374

T2ons/Acre-Feet 11-41 131 1918 287 6262 7

other hand, was most influenced by hydrologist Phil Farnes. Instead of group- the predicted sediment load for each day postfire sediment during the summer, ing the data by month, sediment and and then summed these daily values to when the postfire averages were greater streamflow data was divided into two obtain a predicted load for all the postfire than prefire: 114 percent greater for July, seasons: snowmelt, April-June (May-June snowmelt period rising-discharge days. 1,183 percent greater for August, and 279 for the Lamar River) and summer, This would be the total sediment load that percent greater for September. This oc- July-September. These seasons were, in the Yellowstone or Lamar rivers would curred despite the postfire reduction in turn, divided into rising-discharge and be expected to carry during snowmelt precipitation. In contrast, the Lamar snow- falling-discharge days. A rising-discharge (rising-discharge days) if the fires had melt postfire averages for May and June day has the same or higher mean daily not occurred. We then compared this were close to or less than prefire values discharge than the previous day (possibly predicted load to the load actually mea- (+12 percent for May, -11 percent for caused by a snowmelt surge or a rain- sured for all the postfire snowmelt June). The reasons for this seasonal dif- storm); a falling-discharge day has a lower rising-discharge days. If the measured ference are unclear, but may be related to mean discharge than the previous day. load was greater than the predicted load, the cooler postfire snowmelt periods and This method enabled us to analyze snow- a fire-related increase was suggested. higher elevation of the Lamar River ba- melt surge or summer storm days sepa- This procedure was followed for the sin. rately from other days and thus be able to other three datasets: snowmelt Although expressing sediment as load- better compare prefire and postfire storm falling-discharge days, summer per- unit- runoff permits comparison of periods. rising-discharge days, and summer sediment loads between periods with dif- To identify fire-related increases in falling- discharge days. ferent streamflows and examination of sediment not caused by climate changes, Although this “predicted-versus- loads on a month-by-month basis, this we determined regression equations that measured load” method indicated a method may include some sediment that describe the relationship between pattern of fire-related changes similar was climate-controlled rather than streamflow and sediment for the prefire to that shown by the monthly fire-related, because similar amounts of period and used them to calculate the load-per-unit-runoff method, the magni- streamflow may be caused by different predicted sediment loads for the postfire tude of changes in sediment was differ- combinations of precipitation events. For period. If an actual postfire load was ent. The Yellowstone River again ap- example, because of a greater snowmelt greater than the predicted load for a given peared to have major fire-related increases runoff, a prefire July with few rainstorms season, then the increase could be related in suspended sediment in the snowmelt could have a similar streamflow to a to the fire events. For example, we first season, when snowmelt rising- and postfire July that had a lower snowmelt determined equations that related sus- falling-discharge day sediment increased runoff and many rainstorms. In that case, pended sediment to streamflow for all the about 60 percent. Summer increases were the increase in July sediment after 1988 rising-discharge days during the prefire 30 percent for rising-discharge days and would be storm-caused (or (1985-1987) snowmelt periods. Using the 7 percent for falling-discharge days. The climate-caused) rather than fire-related. measured streamflow for each postfire Lamar River, on the other hand, appeared A second method to identify fire-related (1989-1992) snowmelt rising-discharge to have its largest fire-related increases in changes in sediment was suggested by day in the prefire equation, we calculated the summer: 473 percent for Winter 1997 5 rising-discharge days and 390 percent for 900 falling-discharge days. No fire-related snowmelt increases in suspended sedi- 800 ment were evident on the Lamar River using this method (Fig. 2). 700

Climate and Variation in Fire Effects 600

Our research indicated that fire-related 500 increases in suspended sediment occurred 400 on the Yellowstone and Lamar rivers (Thousands) following the 1988 wildfires, but not in Sediment Load (Tons) 300 all seasons, and that the hydrologic be- havior of burned watersheds can vary 200 greatly. Postfire increases in suspended sediment were most evident on the Yel- 100 lowstone at Corwin Springs during spring 1989 1990 1991 1992 snowmelt, while the Lamar did not trans- Yellowstone Est. Lamar Est. port abnormally large sediment loads. Yellowstone Meas. Lamar Meas. On the other hand, summer suspended-sediment loads increased dra- Figure 2. Estimated and measured suspended sediment loads for the Yellowstone matically in the Lamar, but were not River (April-September) and the Lamar River (May-September) for postfire years measured downstream on the Yellow- 1989-1992. stone at Corwin Springs. Evidently the runoff from unburned watersheds or those watersheds in the Yellowstone drainage which would release impounded coarse not receiving summer storms were enough from Yellowstone Lake to Corwin bed-load sediment upon the first to dilute the sediment effects from the Springs. We would naturally expect that high-streamflow storm. Likewise, Grant Lamar River. it would also show the greatest Meyer documented the effects of fluvial, The bulk of suspended sediment in this suspended-load response to the fires. hyper-concentrated, and debris flow region is transported in rivers during the Again, this study attempted to measure events in the Lamar watershed in 1989 spring snowmelt season; even large in- the effects of the fires only upon sus- and 1990 in his study of fire and alluvial creases in summer sediment load are small pended sediment, not total fluvial sedi- change. These observations indicate ma- by comparison to snowmelt loads. Thus, ment, in two of Yellowstone’s major riv- jor changes in the amounts of coarse despite large postfire increases in sum- ers. The portion of total sediment load sediment transported and in mer sediment loads for the Lamar River, carried as bed load (coarser sediment) is sediment-delivery patterns in the steep its mean postfire load (18,253 tons) was often larger as one approaches the moun- mountain stream channels following the less than 10 percent of the mean total load tainous headwaters of rivers. The behav- fires and provide a complementary, if (193,669 tons). ior of coarser sediment in mountainous qualitative, picture of fire-effects on sedi- Postfire climate played an important watersheds following fires may be differ- ment transport. role in influencing the sediment response ent from the suspended or finer sediment of the Yellowstone and Lamar rivers. The portion of the total sediment load in mag- Management Implications first two years following the fires had nitude or timing of its response. Indeed, relatively cool springs and few prolonged there is evidence to suggest that there Findings of the postfire sediment study warm intervals, resulting in modest snow- were substantial coarse sediment and mass useful to resource managers fall into two melt runoffs. Watersheds are most vul- movement responses to the Yellowstone areas: direct information and analytical nerable to accelerated erosion in the years fires. Studies of burned and unburned tools. Establishing the normal ranges of immediately after wildfires, when burned watersheds in the Shoshone National suspended-sediment transport out of Yel- surface vegetation has not had time to Forest indicate that there were major lowstone is direct information that can be regenerate. If there had been high snow- events of coarse sediment transport in the used to compare to future sediment loads melt runoffs in the springs immediately first years after the fires without a corre- associated with specific management following the fires, sediment transport sponding increase in suspended sediment. practices. Our sampling for sediment and could have been much higher. The cooler Forest staff conducted field trips of streamflow before and after the fires pro- postfire snowmelts from 1989 to 1992 fire-affected watersheds scoured and in- vides baseline information on such may have also mitigated the snowmelt cised by high-volume coarse sediment streams as , which could sediment response of the higher eleva- flow during summer storms. Field trips in have been affected by recent develop- tion Lamar basin, which was burned over the Lamar River basin found numerous ments outside the park. a greater area than many of the other instances of burnt-out woody debris jams This study indicates that managers can 6 Yellowstone Science expect climate to exert the primary influ- transport levels on the Yellowstone and REFERENCES ence upon the amounts of suspended sedi- Lamar Rivers without further sampling. ment sent into and carried out by streams Based on values of mean daily streamflow, Bevinger, G. 1989, 1990, 1991. Interim Reports, Silvertip Watershed Monitoring Project. Shoshone after wildfires. The spring snowmelt run- values of suspended sediment can be as- Nat. Forest, Cody, Wyo. off carries most of the year’s suspended signed to each day using the proper prefire sediment in streams, and the character of rising- or falling-discharge rating equa- Ewing, Roy 1995. Suspended Sediment in the postfire snowmelts are critical to sedi- tion. Yellowstone National Park Area Following the 1988 Wildfires. Yellowstone Center for Re- ment responses. The scenario for A less expensive tool to monitor sedi- sources, Nat. Park Serv., Yellowstone Nat.Park, least-transported sediment is one where ment transport levels on the rivers can be Wyo. the spring is cool with few prolonged developed from suspended sediment- warm periods, an average or low winter turbidity data we collected. Turbidity can Ewing, Roy 1996. Postfire Suspended Sediment from Yellowstone National Park, Wyo. Water snowpack, and little spring precipitation. be measured more easily and cheaply Resources Bulletin 32(3):605-627. The scenario for a large post-disturbance than suspended sediment and estimates sediment response has a warmer spring, of contained suspended sediment can be Meyer, Grant A., S.G. Wells, R.C. Balling, and with at least one period of several con- made using our sediment-turbidity data A.J. Jull 1992. Response of Alluvial Systems to Fire and Climate Change in Yellowstone Na- secutive days of warm temperatures, an and equations. These would be particu- tional Park. Letters to Nature, Nature 357:147-150. average to large winter snowpack, and a larly useful during summer, when lot of spring precipitation. streamflow-sediment rating equations are are left to study in the . It Summer suspended-sediment transport not as accurate as those for was fortuitous that three years of sam- in the badly burned steep mountain drain- turbidity-suspended sediment. pling and measurement had been com- ages of the Lamar River basin increased Relationships between precipitation at pleted before the 1988 fires, for without dramatically after the fires and yet the park weather stations and runoff at the it, we could not have measured the effects effects downstream were evidently miti- Corwin Springs gaging station were re- of the fires upon suspended sediment gated by runoff from unburned water- vised after the wildfires. These multiple loads. Resource managers now have a sheds or those unaffected by storms. regression equations describe the suspended sediment database that can be Changes in coarse sediment delivery may precipitation-runoff relationship and were used as a yardstick in the future. For have been as great or greater as these used with historical flood data to produce instance, comparison of 1992 data to the watersheds released sediment stored be- equations that can predict the date of peak prefire average indicated that the Yel- hind burned woody debris dams and ex- snowmelt runoff on the Yellowstone lowstone River had not yet returned to perienced mass movement, debris, and River for a given season. This informa- prefire levels of sediment transport. How high fluvial streamflows immediately tion can be of value in planning for clos- long did the effects of the 1988 fires last? following the fires. The mountain water- ing areas due to high water, predicting Are the effects, in fact, over? Is the Yel- sheds have been readjusting coarse sedi- earliest dates for fording rivers, or other lowstone River getting muddier due to ment delivery ever since the 1988 fires activities that require knowledge of the wildlife overgrazing, as anglers suspected and are storing released sediment behind date of peak river flow. Finally, informa- in the days of the sediment study? Is uplift new woody debris jams. Comparison of tion on suspended sediment levels and of parts of the Yellowstone plateau by predicted to measured suspended sedi- hydrological patterns can be useful to underlying magma causing increasing ment in the Lamar River in 1992 suggests fisheries and aquatic ecology studies. sediment transport? These questions can- a return to prefire levels and may indicate not be addressed, much less answered, that readjustment of sediment delivery The Importance of Baseline Data without a historic database of natural patterns has been accomplished. resource information. Both linear and non-linear regression As the United States becomes more In retrospect, driving many miles each equations relating suspended sediment to developed, we need to measure the physi- week, hiking up burned-out mountain streamflow for prefire and postfire peri- cal and ecological processes in wildland streams, sampling in the rain and snow, ods are among the useful analytical tools areas so that we can judge possible ef- and hanging out over rivers late at night, we developed. If direct suspended- fects of natural or anthropogenic distur- proved to be only slightly crazy and well sediment sampling is conducted in the bances. If we do not know the hydrologic worth the effort. future, these equations can be used to and sediment behavior in unmanipulated compare predicted loads to measured landscapes, we cannot know how far Roy Ewing studied northern loads. Estimations can be made as to watersheds will deviate from normal when Yellowstone’s watersheds from 1985 to whether the Yellowstone River drainage modified by construction, agriculture, or 1994, seeking to shed some clarity on the has returned to prefire levels of sediment natural disturbances such as fires. Put murky issue of muddy waters. He has a transport or whether the river is becom- another way, how can we judge if a stream master’s degree in geology from the Uni- ing muddier due to wildlife grazing or is acting “naturally” without comparing versity of Tennessee. While with the other factors. For the spring snowmelt it to streams in wild, unmodified land- Peace Corps in India he worked on a season, streamflow-sediment rating equa- scapes? Few undammed or undiverted water drilling project . He currently lives tions can be used to estimate sediment watersheds such as the Yellowstone River in his home state of Tennessee. Winter 1997 7 A Grand Experiment The Tide Turns in the 1950s: Part II

by Mary Ann Franke

As the years passed, it mental restoration of rare native species. benefit of the extensive dam construction became evident that if By the 1950s, Yellowstone’s native fish taking place throughout the west in the Yellowstone were to were facing problems of angler pressure 1950s and 1960s. With its Yellowstone be preserved as an that could not be relieved simply by halt- fishery researchers needed elsewhere, the example of wild ing egg collection and fish stocking. De- USFWS replaced them in 1961 with a America, all of its spite the large size and seemingly inex- team of managers whose mission was to pieces and pro- haustible trout population in Yellowstone apply the research findings. This included cesses must be Lake, humans have had a significant ef- the concept of “maximum sustained yield” preserved. In 1949 fect on its ecosystem. The very character- (MSY), which had become accepted by the National Park istics that made the cutthroat so popular fishery biologists throughout the world. Service (NPS) asked as a sportfish—its abundance and vul- According to MSY theory, the number of the U.S. Fish and nerability to angling—may also have im- fish that can be harvested annually with- Wildlife Service periled it. By the 1980s, cutthroat be- out causing the fishery to collapse (the (USFWS) to deter- tween Yellowstone Lake and Sulphur “harvestable surplus”) is considered both mine the impact of Caldron on the Yellowstone River were a goal and a restraint. As the MSY is egg collection on the caught an estimated average of 9.7 times approached each year, the catch per hour ecology of Yellow- during the 108-day catch-and-release sea- starts to decline and anglers catch fewer stone Lake. This son, many of them two or three times in large fish and presumably stop fishing. If launched a 12-year a single day. no more than the MSY is removed, the study of the lake’s trout The decline of the Yellowstone fishery fishery can be sustained indefinitely, but population, including continued to be managed with more re- exceeding the MSY results in recruit- the size of spawning strictions on anglers rather than on fish. ment failure and the population will plum- runs; the extent of egg, Starting in 1950, only was met. fry, and spawner mortality; and the role permitted on the Madison and Firehole Embedded within this complex equa- of tributary streams. The researchers con- rivers, and in 1954 the daily creel limit tion is the old idea that all forms of cluded that the hatchery program posed a was reduced from five to three fish. The wildlife go forth and multiply to produce serious threat to the lake’s primary goal of these regulations was to a surplus of animals, leaving the human population. Although some fry were re- compensate for swelling angling pres- species with the duty to harvest them. At turned to the lake, the eggs were sure, not to protect the park’s natural Yellowstone, this meant it was thought scrambled, mixing together distinctive aquatic ecology. Although by now the beneficial to occasionally cull the elk and genotypes. In addition, the reduced es- implications of the park’s dual mandate bison herds, ship “extra” bears to zoos, cape of spawners had combined with to both protect the resource and provide and harvest fish for their own good. It was fishing pressure to cause the virtual col- for enjoyment were more clearly defined, simply a scientific matter of determining lapse of spawning migrations in some fishery managers still hoped that “enjoy- how many animals could or should be streams. ment” could mean ever-increasing num- removed. In 1963, the MSY for Yellow- The last substantial collection of eggs bers of anglers removing a great many stone Lake was estimated to be 325,000 from Yellowstone fish occurred in 1953 fish from park waters. cutthroat trout a year. (The Yellowstone and the hatcheries officially closed in Lake harvest had peaked at about 390,000 1957. The USFWS turned over most of In Hope of Maximum Sustained Yield fish in 1959.) However accurate MSY its fish culture buildings to the park; may have been in theory, the fishery today some of them are part of a historic At the same time that Yellowstone fish managers found it unworkable in prac- district at Yellowstone Lake. The last fish culture operations were expiring, the tice. Random fluctuations in the environ- stocking for the benefit of anglers oc- USFWS was shifting its stocking efforts ment upset the balance of recruitment curred in 1955; since then, sanctioned from natural bodies of water to the new and harvest—high spring waters might fish planting has been limited to experi- reservoirs that were a ballyhooed fringe increase spawning mortality, or fine sum- 8 Yellowstone Science mer weather could increase angler days— recommend that the biotic associations “I fully realize how humanly chest- making the MSY goal infeasible. The within each park be maintained, or where expanding it is to empty a full creel fishery managers didn’t know what the necessary recreated, as nearly as possible before an admiring circle of friends. annual harvest target would be each year in the condition that prevailed when the But there is a great kick in the other until it was too late to do anything about area was first visited by the white man.” point of view if only you can once it; its “accuracy” was meaningful only in As the report prophetically recognized, acquire it. There is a great kick in a historical context. “The implications of this seemingly taking a fine trout who has fought When a “Fishing for Fun” program simple aspiration are stupendous.” you well, gently removing the hook, began in 1962, instead of being required holding him firmly behind the pec- to keep and count all fish toward their A New Form of Angler Pride toral fins, and placing him a few daily limit, anglers were encouraged to seconds in the water whilst he re- return fish to the water. But this first step With the impetus of the Leopold Re- covers his breath, then watching life toward catch-and-release fishing in- port and the threat of resource damage come back, his tail begin to wag as creased exploitation in popular fishing from increasing visitation, Yellowstone though in gratitude, and finally see- areas because anglers no longer had to began to move toward more “natural” ing him glide away happily into the stop after three fish: they could keep ecosystem regulation when Jack Ander- element from which you took him... going until they’d landed three big ones. son became Superintendent in 1967. You will not be saving just one This reduced the spawning stock and, Although the transition initiated a period trout; you will be sponsoring a new with the use of bait still permitted, hook- of great controversy in elk, bison, bear, form of pride amongst anglers which ing mortality for released fish was esti- and fire management, changes to the fish- in time, I hope, will replace the pride mated to be 18 percent. And even with ery program received wide-spread sup- in the long string of dead fish.” — catch-and-release encouraged, many fish port. The perspective of the USFWS and Howard Back, The Waters of were deliberately wasted. “Investigations of anglers themselves was shifting; many Yellowstone With Rod and Fly, 1938. have shown that in the Fishing Bridge realized that without tighter controls on area in a single month, 7,500 fish were the number of harvested fish, their fish- discarded in garbage receptacles,” ac- ing days would be numbered. cording to the Superintendent’s Annual To bolster its fish populations, Yellow- inch minimum was set. Report for 1966. By then, the USFWS stone adopted stricter angling regulations To improve the age structure and fur- had recommended that “Fishing for Fun” that varied by species and location. In ther reduce the annual harvest, the size be suspended. To better distribute an- 1969 bait fishing was prohibited to foster limit was changed to a 13-inch maximum glers by encouraging use of remote lake catch-and-release fishing and to prevent in 1975. Three years later, however, the areas, they recommended permitting the planting of non-native species caused prospects for Yellowstone Lake cutthroat larger boats on the lake and increasing the by bait dumping. Starting in 1970, cut- were still in doubt. According to the Fish- daily limit to five fish in certain areas. throat trout from Yellowstone Lake had ery Management Program report for 1977: They even proposed building a road to be at least 14 inches long to be kept. In “The total annual kill on Yellowstone around the lake to “equalize fishing pres- 1973, the daily creel limit for most park Lake may still be too large to achieve sure.” The park did not regard such mea- waters was dropped to two fish and many compatibility under current use trends. sures as the solution to increasing angling streams were designated catch-and-re- Either increased effort and/or improved pressure and declined to adopt them. lease only. Some waters, including the catch-per-unit-effort will significantly Even if the 1963 MSY estimate of Yellowstone River at Fishing Bridge and increase the total kill over current levels. 325,000 cutthroat trout was accurate, prior in , were closed entirely to Providing optimum sport fishing requires years of excessive harvest, especially of fishing to protect spawning runs, for aes- that the trout stock is at a population spawning age trout, produced dire re- thetic reasons, or to allow waterfowl and density well above the MSY level to sults. During the period from 1963 to wildlife to use the shoreline waters undis- insure sufficient density, competition, and 1969, the catch rate fell from 0.71 to 0.45 turbed. voraciousness to provide said sport. From trout per hour, the lowest on record. And With the new size and creel limits, by our experience on other no-kill cutthroat two years after the estimated number of 1974 the cutthroat harvest from Yellow- fisheries in the park, catch-and-release anglers on Yellowstone Lake reached its stone Lake had dropped to an annual only fishing on Yellowstone Lake is defi- all-time high of 242,000 in 1967, the average of about 100,000 trout, while the nitely indicated.” annual harvest dropped to 175,000 trout. landing rate had risen to almost one trout The fishery managers were more pes- While fisheries managers were still an hour. Despite signs of population re- simistic than appears warranted, at least trying to apply MSY theory, the Interior surgence, the 14-inch minimum size limit so far. Although the landing rate has Secretary’s Advisory Board on Wildlife had the unfortunate effect of removing remained high during the last 20 years, Management set forth a far more momen- the older and larger cutthroat trout. By the proportion of older and larger cut- tous idea in 1963. Known as the Leopold 1974 data showed that the average size of throat trout in both angler catch and in Report, for chairman A. Starker Leopold, cutthroat prespawners had begun to de- spawning streams has increased. Because it advised: “As a primary goal, we would crease to levels observed before the 14- the fish have become larger, fewer have Winter 1997 9 Angler-Caused Cutthroat Mortality at Yellowstone Lake

160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 Angler-caused mortality = total cutthroat creeled + 10% of released cutthroat

Data source: Fishery Management Program annual reports been small enough to be kept and more goal of the fisheries program is no longer that maintain natural conditions. have remained in the lake to spawn. Both to achieve it. In the same way that elk, While the growing number of wildlife the fish and the angler have benefitted in bear, and bison populations are now per- viewers provided much of the stimulus certain ways from the shift to less con- mitted, insofar as possible, to control for bans in national parks, fish sumptive angling. Since catch-and-re- their size through natural regulation, the have always been regarded differently lease fishing was established on the Yel- decline of angling pressure on than other wildlife and lacked such de- lowstone River between Yellowstone Yellowstone’s lake and streams will per- fenders. For most people, wildlife appre- Lake and the Grand Canyon, the percent- mit fish populations to be controlled to a ciation entails direct observation of ani- age of anglers who land at least one trout larger extent by other factors. As a result, mals whose family relationships and be- there has almost doubled, to 62 percent. fish populations have been restored to a havior can be more easily viewed and According to visitor surveys, catching at level more closely resembling their primi- anthropomorphized than those of fish. least one fish is the most important com- tive state and are functioning more natu- However, anglers can help in the defense ponent in providing anglers with a satis- rally as part of the park’s nutrient chain. of the cutthroat trout in Yellowstone Lake, fying experience. according to John Varley, Director of the The “improvement” cannot be mea- Why is Fishing Permitted in Yellowstone Center for Resources and sured simply in numbers. What many Yellowstone? former staff member of Yellowstone’s anglers want from their fishing experi- Fisheries Assistance Office (FAO). ence has changed. In the 1930s, some While fishing is provided for by law in “We’re absolutely going to need the an- anglers objected to stocking “catchable” some national parks, it exists by tradition gler to help us with lake trout control. We size trout rather than eggs and finger- in others like Yellowstone. As park man- can’t afford to replace their 250,000 hours lings; they preferred catching “stream- agers have learned how to best provide an of effort a year in removing that non- grown” fish, which they considered “wild enjoyable fishing experience while pre- native predator.” trout fishing.” Today, quality angling in serving the fish resource, they must still Yellowstone is officially defined as “the address the question: “Why isn’t fishing Still Angling After All These Years opportunity to fish for wild trout in a wild prohibited as hunting is?” setting,” with less emphasis on numbers Of the many possible answers—tradi- To help determine the effect of angling or sizes of fish caught and more on the tion, the dependence of the local economy limits and monitor fisheries trends, the total experience. A total experience in an on fishing, the greater popularity of an- FAO established the Volunteer Angler undisturbed environment means that fish gling compared to hunting, the lack of Report (VAR) in 1973. Using a combina- are primarily available to other animals danger posed to other park visitors and tion of park exit surveys and postage- as food. wildlife posed by fishing compared to paid return cards given to anglers with Although there may be a computable hunting—none will satisfy the purist. their licenses, the VAR system keeps “harvestable surplus” of fish that can be Angling is an anomaly in a park whose records on angling pressure, harvest, land- removed from Yellowstone each year primary purpose is to preserve natural ing rate, mean length of fish, and compli- without damaging its native species, the environments and native species in ways ance with fishing regulations. 10 Yellowstone Science popular fishing water, has held Estimated Park-Wide Angling 1977 1993 1995 steady with about 12 percent of (no fee) (no fee) (no fee) the angler days. The remaining days are simply spread out over more lakes and streams. While Total anglers 154,600 141,100 85,400 the shift may be due to the increased angling restrictions on Percent park visitors who fished 6.2 4.8 2.7 Yellowstone Lake, it may also Total hours angled 725,300 1,026,100 681,300 reflect the different kind of fish- ing experience that today’s an- Total fish landed 485,400 942,600 580,800 glers seek. Interpreting angling trends is Fish landed per hour 0.98 0.92 0.85 tricky because many factors may affect fish abundance and Mean length 13.4 in. 13.5 in. 13.3 in. angling pressure in a given year, including snow pack runoff, sur- Until 1993, as annual park visitation go back to 1950, but because different vival rate of fish hatched four years ear- rose to almost 3 million, the number of census methods were used before 1975, lier, weekend weather, and the price of anglers fluctuated between 117,000 and comparison with VAR numbers is only gasoline, to name just a few. Although it 161,000 (5-6 percent of all park visitors) approximate. However, some overall may seem obvious that greater fishing with no apparent trend. Since 1994, when trends can be discerned. Although the pressure will lead to lower landing rates, the park began charging $10 for a 7-day landing rate has improved significantly, the reverse can also be true: poor landing fishing permit, the estimated number of the number of fish removed from the lake rates can result in fewer anglers in subse- anglers has fallen by more than a third, is less than one-tenth of what it was 30 quent years. It’s also difficult to deter- and their portion of total park visitation years ago. This has resulted from the mine the extent to which a decline in has dropped to 2.7 percent. Even though combined effects of the declining num- angling such as occurred from 1965 to a smaller number of anglers are landing bers of anglers and changing fishing re- 1970 may result from poor landing rates more fish, the catch-per-hour has re- strictions. or new fishing restrictions. The number mained about the same because the an- Although Yellowstone Lake remains of anglers on Yellowstone Lake fell be- gling effort park-wide (the total number the park’s most popular fishing spot, with tween 1977 and 1993 even though the of hours that anglers spend fishing) has about a third of all angler days spent landing rate remained stable and no increased to an average of eight hours per there, it no longer dominates park fishing changes were made in fishing regula- angler, more than three hours longer than as it did twenty years ago, when it ac- tions. in 1977. counted for more than half of angler days. While the sudden drop in the total Angling records for Yellowstone Lake The Yellowstone River, the second most number of park anglers after 1993 is

1977 Yellowstone Lake 1965 1969 1970 1993 1995 (2 fish, Angling Trends (3 fish) (no bait) (14-inch min) (no change) ($10 fee) 13-inch max)

T9otal anglers 2241,18 2405,56 1577,33 743,77 443,55 28,58

Percent of total NA/A NA/ N3/ 55333 park angler days

Fish landed per 05.68 06.4 00.6 04.9 05.9 1.0 hour

T4otal fish landed 3446,04 1074,92 2051,44 3536,20 3733,89 262,48

T4otal fish removed 3446,04 1074,92 1006,57 925,40 343,59 31,49

Winter 1997 11 easily attributed to the new permit fee, it § Testing for whirling disease, which also seems reasonable to expect that, as has not yet been found in the park, but total park visitation has grown and be- which fisheries biologists believe is a come more diverse, the percent of visi- major cause of trout declines in the Madi- tors who come to Yellowstone primarily son River outside the park. or partly to fish would decline. Mean- § Collecting brood stock from the while, the park has also been tracking the Yellowstone River to help restore cut- extent of “non-consumptive” use of fish throat trout in its range outside the park resources, by which is meant the enjoy- (in cooperation with the Montana and ment of fish without benefit of rod and Wyoming game and fish departments). reel. In 1994, there were an estimated However, as a result of its own budget 176,400 observers at LeHardy Rapids on constraints and priorities shifting toward Fisheries Assistance Office personnel the Yellowstone River, where spawning restoration and management of imperiled during grayling egg-taking opera- cutthroat can be seen jumping the rapids, species, the USFWS closed its Fisheries tions (above) at Grebe Lake in June and 167,000 at Fishing Bridge, where Assistance Office in September 1996. 1976, and transporting grayling via hundreds of trout can be seen feeding, “Because our role in Yellowstone was helicopter bucket to Canyon Creek fighting, and mating in the water below. one of technical advice rather than man- (below) in September of the same year. However, these numbers also dropped agement responsibility, it became a luxury after 1993, suggesting that many of the item the Fish and Wildlife Service could spectators are also sport fishermen. no longer afford,” explained Lynn Kaeding, former project leader for the A Transition Period for Fishery USFWS Fishery and Aquatic Manage- Management ment Program in Yellowstone. But Kaeding looks back with some For decades the park’s fisheries pro- satisfaction on the progress made in cre- gram was guided by an interagency agree- ating a better balance between angling ment whereby the NPS helped to fund the pressure and natural regulation of fish fishery monitoring and management ac- populations. Fish populations that were tivities carried out by USFWS staff work- long depleted have been restored to a ing in the FAO. While the NPS has been level more closely resembling their primi- ies in the Northern Rockies. Another responsible for policy guidance and set- tive state, and are functioning more natu- USFWS staff member has chosen to re- ting and enforcing the park’s fishing regu- rally as part of the park’s nutrient chains. main in Yellowstone and transfer to the lations, it has been USFWS staff who “Although they came in before my time, NPS. Dr. Jack McIntyre, a retired fisher- have gathered and analyzed the data on I’d have to say that the regulation changes ies biologist with extensive experience in fish populations and angler use needed to made in the 1970s were a high-water the university and federal domains, has come up with appropriate restrictions for mark for this office. Part of their success been volunteering as interim head of the each species and body of water. Along is due to the fact that Yellowstone has park’s fisheries program since July 1996. with its more dubious legacies, the long exclusive jurisdiction over its waters and Although the park expects to add more history of fishery management in Yel- can implement the kind of restrictions permanent aquatic or fisheries biologists lowstone has established a long-term that would be difficult or impossible else- to its staff during the next few years, Stu database on the park’s fish species that where. There is only one Yellowstone Coleman, chief of the Natural Resources exceeds that for any other park animal. and only one fishery resource like this.” Branch at Yellowstone, looks forward to For example, FAO activities included: “The Fish and Wildlife cooperative continuing cooperative efforts with the § Backcountry stream and lake sur- agreement with the park has been a good USFWS. “We think that it is essential veys for baseline chemical, physical, and thing,” agreed Dan Reinhart, resource that this long-standing partnership be biological characteristics; preparation of management coordinator for the Lake maintained for the benefit of the aquatic watershed maps, and evaluation of the District, “and we are going to miss them resources of the park and surrounding habitat’s ability to support fish. dearly, especially now that we have the greater Yellowstone area,” he said. “Cur- § Spawning surveys related to grizzly lake trout crisis to deal with.” rently the park and the Bozeman unit are bear predation on fish. Lynn Kaeding and one of the other drafting a Memorandum of Understand- § Monitoring the effects of fire activ- FAO fishery staff members have been ing to outline areas of mutual concern and ity and fire retardants on fish populations. reassigned to the USFWS office in support.” § Removal of non-native brook trout Bozeman, Montana, which is involved in from Arnica Creek to prevent invasion of interagency efforts to restore river popu- The Limits of Restoration Yellowstone Lake and other tributaries. lations of Arctic grayling, bull trout, and § Gill-netting of non-native lake trout westslope cutthroat trout, and to address Although taking on full responsibility in Yellowstone Lake. the whirling disease threat to trout fisher- for running the Yellowstone’s fisheries 12 Yellowstone Science Yellowstone waters generally received ling. Attempts at stocking various densi- “Restoring the primitive scene is not only one or two plantings a long while ties and age classes during 1993-1996 done easily nor can it be done com- ago and have remained relatively undis- have not been encouraging. “The fluvial pletely... Exotic plants, animals, and turbed since then, the park’s populations grayling don’t seem to be very fond of diseases are here to stay. All these of both native and exotic species have Cougar Creek,” John Varley observed. limitations we fully realize. Yet, if become valuable as a gene pool. “They’re a big river fish. But we’ll prob- the goal cannot be fully achieved it “We believe we have very pure strains ably get them back in the park someday.” can be approached.” — A. S. Leopold of both Loch Levan and Von Behr brown As part of its fundraising effort for the et al., Wildlife Management in the trout,” said John Varley. “And we may next year, the Yellowstone Foundation National Parks, 1963 have unique strains of that has pledged to raise $30,000 to restore could become important in addressing westslope cutthroat to their native range program will present a financial chal- the problem of whirling disease.” For the in Canyon Creek. After Canyon Creek lenge at a time when budgets are already last decade, lake trout eggs from Lewis has been chemically “reclaimed” using a strained, John Varley does not see the Lake, which were stocked from Lake more sophisticated technique than was departure of the USFWS staff as result- Michigan a hundred years ago, have been available in 1976, pure westslope cut- ing in any significant changes of direc- used to reestablish “genetically pure” lake throat brood stock from the headwater tion. “Our three major objectives will trout in Lake Michigan, where they had areas in Montana, will be planted in the remain the same: to manage aquatic re- been extirpated by commercial fishing, creek. sources as an integral part of the ecosys- parasitism by non-native sea lamprey, tem; to preserve and, where feasible, re- and pollution. Into the 21st Century store native fishes and their habitats; and Efforts to restore fluvial grayling in the to provide high-quality fishing opportu- park have been hampered by the lack of Although its geographical remoteness nities that are consistent with the first two suitable sites; much of their former habi- and status as a national park did not objectives.” More specifically, the pri- tat is now occupied by non-native species prevent some apparently irreversible mis- orities during the coming years will be to: with which they cannot compete. In takes, Yellowstone still contains one of § Assess the magnitude of the pos- 1976, the brown and rainbow trout were the most significant and unimpaired sible impacts of lake trout on the Yellow- poisoned in Canyon Creek and a barrier aquatic ecosystems in the United States. stone cutthroat trout population and moni- waterfall was constructed to prevent up- Through the blessings of politics and tor the effects. stream recontamination, but neither the geology, it contains the headwaters of § Control lake trout abundance to the poisoning nor the transplant endured as most of its watersheds, minimizing the extent necessary to prevent decline of the the grayling slipped downstream. More possibility of receiving downstream pol- cutthroat trout to no more than 10 percent recently Cougar Creek, which is in the lution from developed areas. Despite the of 1985-1995 population levels. grayling’s native range, was chosen for changes that have taken place in the park’s § Reestablish westslope cutthroat and experimental planting because it contains original aquatic species composition and fluvial grayling in park waters where only hybridized westslope cutthroat trout distribution, over the long run NPS poli- appropriate. and mottled sculpin, species that have cies have prevented or at least reduced § Eliminate exotic fish and snails historically been sympatric with the gray- habitat degradation from dam and road from park waters where feasible and construction, mineral extraction, silting desirable. from deforestation, water diversion for § Maintain fishing regulations and , and livestock grazing. opportunities that are consistent with So the grand Yellowstone experiment quality angling, fish populations, and will continue into the 21st century. What other wildlife goals at each location. has changed since Captain Boutelle re- If Yellowstone could bring the wolf quested the first planting of rainbow trout back, shouldn’t it remove the rainbow, in 1889 is that we no longer expect we can brook, and lake trout? Some environ- improve upon the assemblage and pro- mentalists regard the question of return- Fish populations and fisheries man- cesses that this particular portion of the ing waters like Lewis and Shoshone lakes agement in Yellowstone have a pro- earth arrived at without human assis- to fishlessness as a measure of found effect on the species of birds and tance. Nor, having seen the results of Yellowstone’s commitment to restoring mammals that feed on them. human influence, can we simply retreat the ecosystem to its primitive state. For and “let nature take its course.” Instead, the immediate future, the discussion re- with Yellowstone’s fish, as with all its mains largely philosophic because there wildlife, we hope that by reaching a deeper is no feasible means to entirely extirpate understanding of how natural processes non-native fish without damaging native work without our interference we can resources—bombing the lakes to save better manage the wildlands and waters them, as it were. Furthermore, because that are left to us to preserve. ❧ Winter 1997 13 Leave Only Footprints? How Backcountry Campsite Use Affects Forest Structure

Photo James Taylor

by James Y. Taylor

Decades ago, Aldo Leopold stated that My hypotheses were that: for Wilderness Research, Intermountain it would not be logging, , or roads • The density of tree saplings up to Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, that would threaten the wilderness, but 140 cm (4.6 ft) height would increase as also provided financial and technical sup- the people who came to visit these areas. distance from the campsite increased. port which proved invaluable. Although many camping-induced impacts • The forest structure around camp- may initially be subtle, campsites receive sites would be measurably different de- Previous Research the greatest impact of any backcountry pending on user type, i.e., sites used by areas and land managers are concerned backpackers compared to those used by Research within mountainous environ- that cumulative and accelerated changes campers arriving by canoes and motor- ments (Cole 1982, 1989) has shown that may be occurring. If management strate- boats. forest tree species and other woody veg- gies and practices to conserve wilderness • More annual campsite users would etation are more susceptible to damage environments are to be developed, mea- correlate with a larger area of impact. by trampling than are forbs. In the Eagle surements of the impacts and environ- This research was conducted as part of Cap Wilderness (Cole 1986) and the Bob mental changes are essential. One such a master’s degree program within the Marshall Wilderness (Cole 1983), sap- impact that had not been researched was Department of Earth Science at Montana lings were found to be more susceptible that of camping-related activities on the State University in cooperation with Tom to trampling than were mature trees, and forest structure surrounding backcountry Olliff of the Backcountry Office in Yel- almost all saplings within campsite areas campsites. lowstone, with funding provided by the were eliminated because of trampling. To determine if such changes are mea- Yellowstone Center for Mountain Envi- The forest regeneration that did occur surable, I studied 30 campsites in Yel- ronments (now the Mountain Research took place within isolated pockets of lowstone National Park (YNP) during Center) at Montana State University. campsites where young trees were pro- 1993 and 1994. David Cole, of the Aldo Leopold Center tected by mature trees. 14 Yellowstone Science Increasing campsite use has been posi- were exclusively motorboat sites, 13 were tively correlated with increased impacts. exclusively canoe sites, and 5 were ex- TRANSECT AND QUADRAT PLACEMENT It has been found that even with low use, clusively backpacking sites. (There are Transect Placement campsite degradation, reductions in tree no stock sites on Yellowstone or Shoshone 5 density, and changes in the percent of lakes.) The average annual number of understory vegetation have occurred users at each of the 30 campsites ranged 4 6 within mountain environments of the from 37 to 756. To maintain an even rate . Studies of human of regeneration potential, sites in older use and campsite impacts have shown forests and those recovering from recent that the most influential factors of recre- fires were not used. Three control sites, 50 m (164 ft) 7 m 3 1 2 3 456 7 8910 7 ational impact included user behavior which showed no signs of prior use, were and mode of travel. measured in the same way as the camp- sites so that as many natural factors as Sampling Method possible would remain constant. These non-camping control sites were randomly 2 8 We chose YNP for this study because located 1 km along the shoreline from it has data available on the annual num- every tenth campsite studied. 1 bers of backcountry users and types of Sampling techniques were based on Lake Shore use for each campsite. This type of data is two pilot studies and previous literature. Quadrat Placement (Along each Transect) Eight 57-m transects radiated outward 7-12m 13-17m 18-22m 23-27m 28-32m 33-37m 38-42m 43-47m 48-52m 53-57m rare, and has been lacking in many previ- 1 2 3 4 5 678910 ous impact studies. Topographic maps, from the center of each campsite. The 5m (16.4 ft) Each 5m aerial photographs, backcountry user data, first transect was placed perpendicular Quadrat surficial geology maps, habitat maps, from the campsite center to the lake shore, cover type maps, and previous campsite and the other seven transects were placed inventories were used to select at 45o angles apart from each other. Along cover. Trees were classified into three backcountry campsites on both each transect, 10 consecutively placed classes up to sapling height of 140 cm. Yellowstone Lake and , quadrats 5 x 5-m were sampled, for a total For taller trees, trunk diameter at breast which had multiple user types and an of 2,000 m2 or 20 percent of the forest height (dbh) measurement allowed clas- abundance of campsites at similar eleva- surrounding each site. This sampling sification into two classes of 0-15 and tions with similar microclimatic condi- structure made it possible to collect data 15+cm. Canopy density was measured tions. on the direction, the intensity, and the by placing a spherical densiometer in the This study included 30 campsites within spatial extent of camping impacts. center of each quadrat. Understory veg- the lodgepole cover types (LP1 and LP2 The biotic components sampled in- etation was sampled by type (moss, grass, as used by Don Despain of the National cluded tree size and species, understory sedge, forb, shrub) and percent cover. Biological Service in Yellowstone): 12 vegetation cover, and percent canopy

CAMPSITES STUDIED Around Yellowstone Lake Around Shoshone Lake

Fishing Bridge To Fishing d Lake Bridge Campsite Old Faithful Control site Paved Road Bridge Bay To West Entrance Yellowstone West Lake d To East Thumb To Old d d Entrance Faithful d Grant d d Village West Thumb d d e d d e Lak on d Grant d h d d d d d Sho s d ] Village d d d d d d d d d Y e d llow st Lewis on e

Lewis Lake d R Lake

i

v e

r To South 0 510km Entrance (6.21 miles) 05km (3.10 miles) To South Entrance

Winter 1997 15 Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat, Comparison of Type of Use (Motorboat, Canoe, and Backpackers) (P = .008) Canoe Motorboat Backpack Control 14

12

10

8

6

4

2 Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat Average 0 7-12 13-17 18-22 23-27 24-32 33-37 38-42 43-47 48-52 53-57 Distance from Site Center (meters)

Effects on Sapling Occurrence saplings at the three types of campsites shows the different effect each user type 5 The campsites had an average of 5.22 had on forest structure. Campsites used 100 meters conifer saplings per quadrat; the control by canoe and backpack groups had an 4 80 6 sites had an average of 11.96 saplings per average of 6.9 and 6.4 saplings per quad- 60 quadrat. This difference in density was rat, respectively, while sites used by those 40 significant (P = 0.00002), and an impor- traveling by motorboat had an average of 20 tant impact that we investigated further. 2.9 saplings. 3 0 7 The intercept point where the average Spatial extent. At all campsite types, number of saplings per quadrat at the sapling density increased with distance campsites equalled the average density at away from the center of the site; the the control sites was graphed. This pro- positive correlations between density and 8 vides a visual assessment of the change in increasing distance for canoe, motorboat, 2 sapling density showing the spatial ex- and backpacking use were 0.96, 0.92, and 1 Lake tent and possible impact of backcountry 0.77 respectively. The difference in the use at the campsites. average density of saplings at the three Canoe (n =13) Backpack (n = 5) Density of saplings. The spatial im- campsite types was significant (P = Motorboat (n = 12) pact and density of saplings around the 0.00000002). A radar graph compares campsites are best understood by looking their spatial impact, i.e., the distance from at each transect separately. All transects the center of each campsite type where Spatial representation of the distances within the campsites were significantly the average density of saplings equaled from the center of campsites in which different from those in the control sites. the average density at the control sites. tree saplings are affected by canoe, Within the campsites, the average den- The motorboat sites had the largest spa- backpacking, and motorboat users. sity increased from 1.09 saplings in quad- tial impact, with an average intercept rat 1 to 8.35 saplings in quadrat 10 (far- point that was 82 m from the campsite substantial correlation (r = 0.16) between thest from the campsite center), indicat- center. the number canoe users and saplings in- ing a strong positive correlation (r = 0.97) Number of users. The negative corre- dicates uniform density of saplings even between distance from the center of the lation (r = -0.70) between the number of as canoe site users increase. site and the density of saplings. The aver- backpackers and the number of saplings age number of saplings per quadrat in- shows that as use increases, the density of Other Effects on Forest Structure creased outward along all campsite saplings around the campsite decreases. transects except in the transect from the The number of motorboat users and the Forest Canopy. The percent canopy center of the site to the lakeshore. number of saplings also had a negative cover in the campsites is an important A comparison of the average density of correlation (r = -0.40). The lack of any component of forest structure because 16 Yellowstone Science Photo Renee Evanoff My finding that the density of saplings increases as distance from the campsite center increases implies that campsite-related activities have an im- pact on the regeneration and survival of forest saplings. A better understanding of the attributes of this important relation- ship is needed in order for managers to develop management strategies and con- servation practices to preserve the for- ested ecosystem. Campsite use could re- sult in the near elimination of forest re- generation, which in turn could lead to reductions in tree density and the un- wanted creation or expansion of nonforested areas. A young couple canoeing from their campsite on Peale Island, Yellowstone Lake. Implications for Wilderness canopy influences microclimates. A de- the percent of bare area and the occur- Management crease in canopy cover may result in rence of trees, the changes are focused increased amounts of precipitation reach- near the center of the campsites but also There has been rapid growth during the ing the forest floor, stronger local forest extend into the periphery forest. This is last century in recreational uses of wild winds, and increased radiation, which similar to the effects seen in other popular lands. These are the lands that have been can affect tree survival. According to my backcountry areas (Cole 1983, 1986). protected by agencies such as the NPS, research, this aspect of forest structure In measuring the spatial extent of and laws such as the of has also been affected by campsite use. change, we found that the average num- 1964, which states that we are to manage The average percent forest canopy cover ber of saplings per quadrat at the camp- designated wilderness areas so that “natu- differed significantly (P = 0.00003) be- sites did not equal that at the control sites ral conditions are preserved and the im- tween the campsites and the control sites. until a distance of 45 m from the center of print of man’s work remains substan- A positive correlation (r = 0.31) between the campsite was reached. This means tially unnoticeable.” But Leopold ap- distance and canopy cover at all campsite that average affected area was 6,362 m2 pears to have been correct when he stated types showed that percent canopy cover per campsite, or a total affected area of that people have a substantial impact on increased as distance from the campsite 190,860 m2 for the 30 backcountry camp- the wilderness areas they visit. The use of centers increased. sites studied. Extrapolating to all 302 backcountry areas for camping is not Bare Area. The percent bare area also backcountry campsites that existed in entirely benign and has a spatial attribute differed significantly (P = 0.0005) be- YNP in 1994, that could equal a potential that should be better understood if a man- tween the campsites and the control sites. impact of 1,921,324 m2 . agement goal for YNP is to balance sus- There was a negative correlation tainable recreational use while maintain- (r = -0.95) between the distance from the REFERENCES ing environmental integrity. It is impor- center of a campsite and the percent bare Cole, D.N. 1982. Wilderness campsite im- tant that we understand that a continual area: as one might expect, the percent pacts: Effect of amount of use. USDA Forest increase in recreational use might lead to bare area decreased as distance from the Service Research Paper INT-284. 34pp. greater effects on the forests. Educating campsite increased. recreational users in backcountry ethics Cole, D.N. 1983. Campsite conditions in the Understory Vegetation. For this study Bob Marshall Wilderness, Montana. USDA to reduce trampling, group size, and so- we measured moss, grasses, sedges, forbs, Forest Service Research Paper INT-312. 18pp. cial trails, and encouraging use of canoes and shrubs. The average percent under- or backpacking over motorboat use may story vegetation differed significantly Cole, D.N. 1986. Ecological changes on reduce the impact to conifer saplings sur- campsites in the Eagle Cap Wilderness, 1974 (P = 0.01) between the campsites and the to 1984. USDA Forest Service Research Paper rounding backcountry campsites in YNP. control sites for all understory compo- INT-368. 15pp. nents except forbs. James Y. Taylor is the science specialist Cole, D.N. 1989. Wilderness campsite moni- at Carden Memorial School, Salt Lake toring methods: A sourcebook. USDA Total Potential Effect Forest Service Research Paper INT-259. 57pp. City, Utah. He also conducts extended field courses to promote greater under- As expected, the forest structure sur- Despain, D.G. 1990. Yellowstone vegetation: standing of the natural world. He re- rounding the campsites at Yellowstone Consequences of environment and ceived a B.S. in biogeography from the history in a natural setting. Roberts Rinehart Lake and Shoshone Lake has been af- Publishers: Boulder. 239pp. University of Utah, and a M.S. in Earth fected by campsite use. As measured by Sciences from Montana State University. Winter 1997 17 Review Essay The Grizzly Bears of Yellowstone Their Ecology in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1959-1992 by Mark S. Boyce

The Grizzly Bears of Yellowstone: Their Ecology in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1959-1992 by John J. Craighead,, Jay S. Sumner, and John A. Mitchell. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1995, 535 pages. $100.

One evening in 1992 during a visit to Nagarahole National Park in southern India, I joined other park visitors after a day looking for tiger, leopard, gaur, el- ephant, chital, sambar, and sloth bear to watch a wildlife movie. Imagine my sur- prise, halfway around the world from my home in Wyoming, when we were treated to a 25-year-old flick featuring John and Frank Craighead and families in Yellow- stone. The film illustrated pioneering applications of radiotelemetry for the study of movements and behavior, but mostly characterized the exciting lives of the Craigheads. The Craighead brothers have been among the world’s most celebrated wild- life biologists during the second half of the 20th century, and for good reason. Their studies have pioneered a number of wildlife techniques that have revealed important facts of behavior, movements, and ecology of many raptors and several species of large mammals, especially elk and grizzly bears. The broad scope of their contributions to natural history is exemplified by their authorship of doz- ens of scientific papers on grizzly bears and elk as well as A Field Guide to Rocky Mountain Wildflowers in the Peterson glossy coated paper and an abundance of rizing their joint Yellowstone field stud- Guide Series. Their lives dedicated to color plates. Throughout, the book is well ies of 1959-1970 entitled The Track of the nature study have been emulated by a written and produced with few typo- Grizzly (Craighead 1979). In contrast, generation of aspiring field biologists. graphical errors. At $100 I expect few The Grizzly Bears of Yellowstone is more The Grizzly Bears of Yellowstone is the people to buy the book, but given the a research monograph with more techni- capstone contribution by John Craighead, wealth of data and the quality of produc- cal detail than in Frank’s story. The Griz- who turned 80 this year. The volume is a tion, the price seems reasonable. zly Bears of Yellowstone summarizes 35 fitting tribute. Island Press has done a In 1979, John’s brother, Frank years of grizzly bear studies in the Greater spectacular job producing the book with Craighead, wrote his own book summa- Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) with prin- 18 Yellowstone Science cipal focus on the 1959-1970 period. The Craigheads and the National Park Ser- A major focus of this monograph is to book is divided into two major sections: vice is a classic story in biopolitics. The examine the phenomenon of “ecocenters,” “The study (1959-1970)” totaling 345 conflict became so polarized that the i.e., garbage dumps or other concentra- pages of text that details investigations National Academy of Sciences formed a tions of food, and their consequence to by the Craigheads, and “Population com- committee to review appropriate courses the ecology and behavior of grizzly bears. parisons (1974-1992): the era of decreed for management of Yellowstone’s griz- Despite the conclusions in the National research” which spans 133 pages review- zlies. In this book we again read the Academy of Sciences review of the ing the work of the Interagency Grizzly Craighead view that seems to have Craighead analysis that there existed some Bear Study Team (IGBST), principally changed little in 25 years. Anyone inter- backcountry bears that did not use the Richard Knight and Bonnie Blanchard, ested in an alternative account of the dumps, Craighead et al. insist that during subsequent to the Craighead investiga- history should consult Schullery’s (1992) the 1959-1970 period all bears were feed- tions. book on The Bears of Yellowstone. I will ing at the dumps, at least part of the time. The purpose of the book was to de- not reiterate the details here, preferring to In support of this view they present radio- scribe the structure of the population of focus on biological issues. telemetry locations for a number of bears grizzly bears in the GYE (p. 91). Al- Craighead et al. present detailed demo- showing how their home ranges typically though the scope of the book is vast, graphic data for the grizzly bear popula- included the dumps. The authors con- including discussions of genetics, popu- tion during 1959-1970 and include valu- clude that ecocenters result in subpopula- lation biology, behavior, physiology, able discussion of the sampling problems tions of bears “whose members moved parasitology, and management, most of associated with these data. In particular, routinely between the ecocentered aggre- the book summarizes population studies I found the treatment of reproduction to gation . . . and the backcountry.” Clearly and behavior observations. Given the be useful for reducing biases involved the dumps substantially altered the social nature of the beast, this research is neces- with estimates of reproductive rates. Even and demographic environment for the sarily descriptive natural history rather though much of the data from the bears of the GYE. Remarkably, Craighead than experimental science. The behav- Craighead studies is available elsewhere, et al. believe that we should have kept the ioral sections of the book include few this book provides insight into the inter- dumps. functional analyses of mechanisms un- pretation of these data that is not previ- Of course some natural bear popula- derlying the behaviors. Instead the au- ously published. tions are focused on ecocenters, e.g., thors report detailed descriptions of be- Chapter 9 of the book is devoted to a brown bears feeding on salmon in . havior of bears in aggregations, such as controversial discussion of density de- But this was not largely the system of the those associated with major food sources, pendence. Several authors have criticized and, to my mind, the and include considerable detail about earlier work of the Craigheads that ig- Craighead argument that we should be dominance hierarchies. nored the role of density-dependent sur- maintaining ecocenters to sustain large When the Craigheads began their field vival and reproduction as stabilizing populations of grizzly bears certainly flies studies in Yellowstone in 1959, the Na- forces in population dynamics. These criti- in the face of ecological-process man- tional Park Service was still allowing cisms are dealt with rather firmly in Chap- agement for national parks, i.e., trying to bears to feed at several garbage dumps ter 9, but an alternative analysis explain- maintain natural ecological processes with distributed throughout the park. For a ing where density dependence occurs in minimal human intervention. Supplemen- variety of reasons, Park Service officials the population is not provided. No men- tal provisioning can sustain a larger griz- decided that such feeding was inappro- tion is made of the studies by Mark Shaffer zly population in an area, but at the heavy priate in a national park and decided to (1983) showing that reproductive rates cost of completely altering the social and close the dumps and truck the garbage are density dependent in the Craighead’s demographic environment of the bears, outside the park. The Craighead brothers data. In fact, they claim that no evidence not to mention the consequences to other argued vigorously that to close the dumps exists for reproductive compensation. I ecosystem components that are influenced meant death to enormous numbers of have recently reanalyzed much of the by a large bear population. Conservation bears that had grown accustomed to feed- IGBST data to discover that should involve considerations beyond the ing at the dumps. They were right! Mor- density-dependent survival prevails dur- necessary preservation of populations and tality of grizzly bears was very high in the ing the period 1975-1995. Perhaps gene pools. Somehow there must be value years following the closure of the dumps density-dependent survival operates due in preserving places like Yellowstone during the period of adjustment to natural to density-dependent food limitation un- with minimal human influence, and al- food sources. All evidence suggested that der current management whereas loss of lowing natural ecological processes to the bear population continued to decline cubs to males was more of a factor during prevail. during the period 1970-1983 at which the Craighead era when bears were con- The National Park Service took a big time the Interagency Grizzly Bear Com- centrated for feeding at the dumps. Alter- risk in 1970 when they decided to quit mittee (IGBC) promulgated strict rules natively, perhaps mortality of bears dur- feeding bears in Yellowstone. The high for management of public lands designed ing the Craighead era was lower because mortality associated with the dump clo- to reduce mortality on grizzly bears. movements out of the park were less sures subjected the grizzly bear popula- The disagreement between the necessary (p. 301). tion to great risk of extinction. The Winter 1997 19 Craigheads believe that this might have The records of marked been alleviated had the dumps been grizzly bears illustrating phased out, but we have no evidence that the natural movement pat- this is true. Regardless, the government terns from the Trout Creek has achieved a magnificent recovery since ecocenter to localities of 1983 when the IGBC was formed with its death outside the park aggressive programs to target and elimi- from 1959 to 1974. (Fig. nate sources of mortality for grizzly bears. 5.10 from Craighead et According to Craighead et al., the hey- al. 1996). day for grizzlies in the GYE was when supplemental food was available at ecocenters (dumps). To ensure recovery of grizzly bears in the GYE they advise restoring ecocenters. A number of possi- bilities are reviewed including a carcass dump to provide bears with access to roadkills and winter-killed animals. Al- ternatively, large quantities of surplus grain or commercial food pellets could be deposited to create bear ecocenters. But seemingly most attractive to Craighead et al. is the reinstatement of garbage dumps. After all, “Garbage has proven nutritional qualities, is essentially the same objectives of increasing the bear LITERATURE CITED cost-free, and its transport, placement, population without the undesirable rami- Craighead, F.C., Jr. 1979. Track of the Grizzly. and site management are relatively simple, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, Calif. fications of reopening Yellowstone’s gar- 261pp. well-understood processes in operation bage dumps. every day.” Few people will read this massive tome Shaffer, M. 1983. Determining minimum Given that such ecocenter structure from cover to cover as I did—it’s just too viable population sizes for the grizzly bear. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:133-139. will create bizarre social and demographic big. The book will be required reading for circumstances for the bears, the only jus- serious biologists and students of the Schullery, P. 1992. The Bears of Yellowstone. tification can be to increase the number of controversy, but I cannot recommend the High Plains Publ. Co., Worland, Wyoming. bears. As Craighead et al. point out, a book for the uninitiated or those looking 318pp. larger bear population is expected to have for a balanced story about the Yellow- lower probability of extinction due to stone grizzlies of today. Although the artificially feeding to increase the num- demographic and environmental book contains a number of invaluable ber of bears seems to violate everything stochasticity, or genetic malfunctions. But insights, to my mind the most significant that Yellowstone is all about. I prefer their suggestion that we should appears at the end of the Preface: “The Because grizzly bears have such large have a larger bear population dispersed major conclusion of our study is that area requirements and are so incompat- over a larger area because this could resource management agencies must fo- ible with humans, the bear is touted as an allow the maintenance of a relatively cus on the broad problem of preserving “umbrella” species implying that manag- natural bear population. This is certainly and managing habitat in a resource ex- ing for grizzly bears entails ecosystem practical, but will require elevating the ploitative society where politics and eco- management. Recent data demonstrating protection status of potential habitats (e.g., nomic policies thwart sustainable resource how the grizzly bear population has in- the Range in Wyoming) from management.” But the habitat chapter on creased subsequent to the strict manage- Situation 5 [in which consideration for Yellowstone grizzly bears has yet to be ment protocols implemented by the IGBC grizzly bears and their habitat is not written. in 1983 give me confidence that allowing directed—ed.] to something more toler- With this book, I had hoped that natural ecological processes to prevail on ant of bears. Sadly, none of the four Craighead et al. would finally bring to the landscape can be compatible with grizzly bears that showed up in the Wind closure the long and sometimes bitter preserving viable populations of grizzly Rivers during the summer of 1996 near controversy over management of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosys- Pinedale, Wyoming, were allowed to stay bears in Yellowstone. Instead they add tem. and were either killed or relocated to the fuel to the fire. Although I cannot accept core of the GYE. Expanding grizzly bear the intensive feeding prescriptions for Mark S. Boyce recovery zones south of their current bears that they outline in this book, I College of Natural Resources boundaries and removing conflicts such understand and respect their desire to University of Wisconsin as sheep grazing allotments could achieve increase the grizzly bear population. But Stevens Point, WI 54481 20 Yellowstone Science NEWS notes

News & Notes & turing 36 bison calves (18 each year) Research Proposed on New during trapping operations conducted by Brucellosis Vaccine the Montana Department of Livestock as bison migrate from the park. The calves A new research project proposed in the will be card-tested for the presence of park will provide an Evaluation of Bru- brucella antibodies; calves testing nega- cella Abortus Vaccine Strain RB51 in tive would be transported to the Wyo- Bison Calves. As part of a commitment ming Game and Fish Department’s toward identifying new brucellosis vac- Sybille Wildlife Research Unit near cines for possible use in wildlife, the Wheatland, Wyoming. The proposed re- National Park Service is proposing to search will evaluate the physiologic and work cooperatively with the Wyoming pathologic effects of administering RB51 Game and Fish Department (WGFD) to to bison calves and will determine if live evaluate the effects of a new vaccine on bacteria resulting from the vaccinations bison calves. are shed into the environment. The pro- The bacteria Brucella abortus, which posal indicates that since opportunities to causes bovine brucellosis, was likely in- sample wild bison are infrequent, each troduced to North American wildlife animal will also be tested for the exist- through importation of infected livestock ence of a genetic marker indicative of from Europe. Brucellosis in domestic resistance to brucellosis. cattle has been drastically reduced through and airborne pollutants. Photographers a nationwide program to eradicate it. Al- Moran Paintings in National Display will photograph each painting, each page though vaccines do not insure 100 per- of the sketchbooks, and each of the nearly cent immunity in cattle, they substan- The Thomas Moran paintings that 200 photographs contained in the four tially reduce the frequency of abortions helped persuade Congress to create the Jackson albums. The park will receive in adult animals. Brucella abortus was world’s first national park will be part of high-quality negatives and prints; digi- first detected in Yellowstone in 1917, and the first-ever retrospective exhibition of tized images; and same-size, exhibitable concern exists regarding the potential the artist’s work to be seen in 1997 at the reproductions of the Moran paintings that transmission of the bacteria from wild National Gallery of Art. Twenty-one can be displayed in the Albright Visitor bison to domestic livestock outside the watercolors by Moran and two of his Center while the originals are on loan. park. Vaccination of bison in Yellowstone sketchbooks featuring pencil and water- Digitized images will be used to improve has been advocated periodically, but clini- color sketches of park features are among researcher access to these materials. cal evaluation of vaccination has not been the items from the park’s museum collec- conducted on free-ranging bison. tion approved for loan to the National Wolf Project Proceeds Well in First The effectiveness of a vaccination pro- Gallery. Most of the watercolors and one Two Years gram is strongly related to the efficacy of of the sketchbooks were produced by the vaccine, which may vary by age and Moran during the 1871 Hayden Survey, The 14 wolves released in Yellow- sex of the animal vaccinated. Strain 19 which he accompanied, and are consid- stone in 1995 bore two litters totalling vaccine has been used on domestic cattle ered to be among the finest and most nine pups. In 1996, 17 more wolves were for several decades; the efficacy of this important works of art held by the Na- released, and had four litters totalling 14 strain varies from 65 to 75 percent in tional Park Service. Four volumes of rare pups. Eleven wolves have died—three individual animals. It also often confounds photos by , pho- were illegally shot, three killed by ve- serological testing because antibody re- tographer of the Hayden Survey, are also hicle collisions, two were killed by other sponse to the vaccine is difficult to differ- included in the loan and will be incorpo- wolves, one was removed due to depre- entiate from field strain infections. Dos- rated into the part of the show focusing on dation on livestock, one was burned fa- ages of strain 19 suitable for cattle im- Yellowstone. tally in a hot spring, and one pup died of parted little or no immunity in female In recognition of the importance, value, unknown causes. Another pup was acci- bison calves and caused abortions in preg- and fragility of the Moran paintings and dentally injured and subsequently sent to nant adult bison cows. Jackson photos—and as a way of thank- live in a captive facility. Ten pups were The study will last two years, and focus ing the park for making the works avail- brought to Yellowstone in the summer of on testing strain RB51, a newly devel- able for the show—the National Gallery 1996 from northern Montana and have oped vaccine approved for use on domes- will re-mat and re-frame each watercolor yet to be released. The goal to restore tic cattle calves. In cattle, RB51 imparts using the latest museum-quality conser- wolves to Yellowstone and begin delist- about the same level of immunity as strain vation materials, then hermetically seal ing them by approximately 2002 appears 19 but does not confound the serological each work within its new frame to ex- to be within reach, perhaps even ahead of tests. The research proposal calls for cap- clude gases from park thermal features schedule and under budget. ❆ Winter 1997 21 Yellowstone Science BULK RATE Yellowstone Center for Resources U.S. POSTAGE P. O. Box 168 PAID Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190-0168 Permit No. G-83 News &Notes The GrizzlyBearsof Yellowstone Leave OnlyFootprints? A GrandExperiment SuspendedSedimentintheRiversof 23 20 16 10 4 Northern Yellowstone