wildlife management IN THE NATIONAL PARKS wildlife management IN IHE NATIONAL PARKS 1969 REPRINT FROM ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES FOR NATURAL AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR • NATIONAL PARK SERVICE For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 15 cents WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN THE NATIONAL PARKS ADVISORY BOARD ON WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, APPOINTED BY SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR UDALL A. S. Leopold (Chairman), S. A. Cain, C. M. Cottam, I. N. Gabrielson, T. L. Kimball March 4, 1963 Historical In the Congressional Act of 1916 which created the National Park Service, preservation of native animal' life was clearly specified as one of the pur­ poses of the parks. A frequently quoted passage of the Act states "... which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoy­ ment of future generations." In implementing this Act, the newly formed Park Service developed a philosophy of wildlife protection, which in that era was indeed the most obvious and immediate need in wildlife conservation. Thus the parks were established as refuges, the animal populations were protected from wildfire. For a time predators were controlled to protect the "good" ani­ mals from the "bad" ones, but this endeavor mercifully ceased in the 1930's. On the whole, there was little major change in the Park Service practice of wildlife management during the first 40 years of its existence. During the same era, the concept of wildlife management evolved rapidly among other agencies and groups concerned with the production of wildlife for recreational hunting. It is now an accepted truism that maintenance of suitable habitat is the key to sustaining animal populations, and that pro­ tection, though it is important, is not of itself a substitute for habitat. More­ over, habitat is not a fixed or stable entity that can be set aside and pre- I served behind a fence, like a cliff dwelling or a petrified tree. Biotic communities change through natural stages of succession. They can be changed deliberately through manipulation of plant and animal populations. In recent years the National Park Service has broadened its concept of wildlife conservation to provide for purposeful management of plant and animal communities as an essential step in preserving wildlife resources ". unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." In a few parks active manipulation of habitat is being tested, as for example in the Everglades where controlled burning is now used experimentally to maintain the open glades and piney woods with their interesting animal and plant life. Excess populations of grazing ungulates are being controlled in a number of parks to preserve the forage plants on which the animals depend. The question already has been posed—how far should the National Park Service go in utilizing the tools of management to maintain wildlife populations? The Concept of Park Management The present report proposes to discuss wildlife management in the national parks in terms of three questions which shift emphasis progressively from the general to the specific: 1) What should be the goals of wildlife management in the national parks? 2) What general policies of management are best adapted to achieve the pre-determined goals? 3) What are some of the methods suitable for on-the-ground implemen­ tation of policies? It is acknowledged that this Advisory Board was requested by the Secre­ tary of the Interior to consider particularly one of the methods of manage­ ment, namely, the procedure of removing excess ungulates from some of the parks: We feel that this specific question can only be viewed objec­ tively in the light of goals and operational policies, and our report is framed accordingly. In speaking of national parks we refer to the whole system of parks and monuments; national recreation areas are discussed briefly near the end of the report. As a prelude to presenting our thoughts on the goals, policies, and methods of managing wildlife in the parks of the United States we wish to quote in full a brief report on "Management of National Parks and Equivalent Areas" which was formulated by a committee of the First World Conference on National Parks that convened in Seattle in July, 1962. The committee consisted of 15 members of the Conference, representing eight nations; the chairman was Francois Bourliere of France. In our judgment this report suggests a firm basis for park management. The statement of the committee follows: "1. Management is defined as any activity directed toward achieving or maintaining a given condition in plant and or animal populations and/or habitats in accordance with the conservation plan for the area. 2 A prior definition of the purposes and objectives of each park is assumed. "Management may involve active manipulation of the plant and animal communities, or protection from modification or external influences. "2. Few of the world's parks are large enough to be in fact self-regulatory ecological units; rather, most are ecological islands subject to direct or indirect modification by activities and conditions in the surrounding areas. These influences may involve such factors as immigration and/or emigra­ tion of animal and plant life, changes in the fire regime, and alterations in the surface or subsurface water. "3. There is no need for active modification to maintain large examples of the relatively stable 'climax' communities which under protection per­ petuate themselves indefinitely. Examples of such communities include large tracts of undisturbed rain-forests, tropical mountain paramos, and arctic tundra. "4. However, most biotic communities are in a constant state of change due to natural or man-caused processes of ecolgical succession. In these 'successional' communities it is necessary to manage the habitat to achieve or stabilize it at a desired stage. For example, fire is an essential manage­ ment tool to maintain East African open savanna or American prairie. "5. Where animal populations get out of balance with their habitat and threaten the continued existence of a desired environment, population con­ trol becomes essential. This principal applies, for example, in situations where ungulate populations have exceeded the carrying capacity of their habitat through loss of predators, immigration from surrounding areas, or com­ pression of normal migratory patterns. Specific examples include excess populations of elephants in some African parks and of ungulates in some mountain parks. "6. The need for management, the feasibility of management methods, and evaluation of results must be based upon current and continuing sci­ entific research. Both the research and management itself should be under­ taken only by qualified personnel. Research, management, planning, and execution must take into account, and if necessary regulate, the human uses for which the park is intended. "7. Management based on scientific research is, therefore, not only de­ sirable but often essential to maintain some biotic communities in accord­ ance with the conservation plan of a national park or equivalent area." The Goal of Park Management in the United States Item 1 in the report just quoted specifies that "a prior definition of the purposes and objectives of each park is assumed." In other words, the goal must first be defined. As a primary goal, we would recommend that the biotic associations within each park be maintained, or where necessary recreated, as nearly as possible in the condition that prevailed when the area was first visited by the white man. A national park should represent a vignette of primitive America. 3 The implications of this seemingly simple aspiration are stupendous. Many of our national parks—in fact most of them—went through periods of indiscriminate logging, burning, livestock grazing, hunting and predator control. Then they entered the park system and shifted abruptly to a regime of equally unnatural protection from lightning fires, from insect out­ breaks, absence of natural controls of ungulates, and in some areas elimina­ tion of normal fluctuations in water levels. Exotic vertibrates, insects, plants, and plant diseases have inadvertently been introduced. And of course lastly there is the factor of human use—of roads and trampling and camp grounds and pack stock. The resultant biotic associations in many of our parks are artifacts, pure and simple. They represent a complex ecologic history but they do not necessarily represent primitive America. Restoring the primitive scene is not done easily nor can it be done completely. Some species are extinct. Given time, an eastern hardwood forest can be regrown to maturity but the chestnut will be missing and so will the roar of pigeon wings. The colorful drapanid finches are not to be heard again in the lowland forests of Hawaii, nor will the jack-hammer of the ivory-bill ring in southern swamps. The wolf and grizzly bear can­ not readily be reintroduced into ranching communities, and the factor of human use of the parks is subject only to regulation, not elimination. Exotic plants, animals, and diseases are here to stay. All these limitations we fully realize. Yet, if the goal cannot be fully achieved it can be ap­ proached. A reasonable illusion of primitive America could be recreated, using the utmost in skill, judgment, and ecologic sensitivity. This in our opinion should be the objective of every national park and monument. To illustrate the goal more specifically, let us cite some cases. A visitor entering Grand Teton National Park from the south drives across Antelope Flats. But there are no antelope. No one seems to be asking the ques­ tion—why aren't there? If the mountain men who gathered here in rendez­ vous fed their squaws an antelope, a 20th century tourist at least should be able to see a band of these animals.