Big Bend Administrative History

Identifying distinctive animals in the Big Bend area led the ecological survey team to marvel at the many birds and mammals. Dozens of species proliferated in the park, with the "Texas blue-throated hummingbird, dwarf red-shafted flicker, Mexican phainopepla, Colima warbler, and hooded oriole" as new additions "to the known fauna of the United States." In addition, the surveyors found eleven species of birds new to Texas fauna. Taylor then listed over two dozen "common birds" that he believed would interest visitors more than the rare species "which appeal so much to the student of systematic ornithology." The list of mammals unique to Big Bend included the "big free-tailed bat and the mountain cotton rat." In contrast, "mammals which have now gone from the Big Bend Park and the restoration of which has been under discussion are the American antelope and the Texas bighorn." Taylor also remarked at some length about the presence of beaver in the Rio Grande. While he estimated that 100 beaver existed within park boundaries, "most of the beaver are forced by heavy stocking of livestock on the American side to live in burrows on the Mexican side of the river." The surveyors learned that "cattle along the river prefer to feed in the canebrakes, and the resultant trampling and caving-in of their burrows forces the beavers to establish headquarters elsewhere." Compounding this problem, said Taylor, was the fact that "the Mexicans do not hesitate to trap them." Removal of all livestock, and inclusion of the Mexican side of the river in an international park, would improve the habitat of willow, cottonwood, baccharis, and river cane that were "the key plants in the economy of these animals in the Big Bend." [47]

The animal most endangered by human habitation, however, remained the javelina. Lloyd Wade and Ross Maxwell had trapped one on the road between Government Spring and Neville Spring, leading them to conclude that "this seems to be about the center of occurrence of the animals." Wade told Taylor that the drought of the late 1920s had driven the javelina into the Chisos basin areas of Green Gulch, Pine Canyon, and Blue Creek, where they remained for several years. There was some debate about the effectiveness of the Texas law protecting the javelina. Before its passage at the behest of the park service, hide hunters received one dollar per skin, leading to their removal "by the herd." Waddy Burnham told the surveyors that the javelina was no threat to humans, and that "they are especially plentiful on sandy and brushy washes where there is lots of prickly pear." Burnham claimed that "they will eat insects, dead cows, or anything they come to, but their main reliance is prickly pears and similar vegetation." Taylor reported no sightings of javelina south and southwest of the Chisos Mountains, a circumstance for which he had no explanation. "Perhaps the requisite food and cover are lacking," wrote Taylor, "but to the casual observer at least some of the washes seem to be very nearly as favorable as the country where the peccaries are common." [48]

In matters of species restoration, Taylor and his colleagues did not support "any overt action," as they observed "sufficient seedstock of all the plants and animals in the park (except the bighorn sheep and the pronghorned antelope) eventually to populate the area to an optimum degree after the livestock are taken off." With bighorn sheep, no one could explain why they disappeared, or why they had stayed in areas of "ultra dry Edwards limestone types with no springs or other water except in tinajas." Hunters decimated the population, said some local residents, while "possible infection with the diseases of domestic sheep and goats, may have had something to do with it." In 1941, J. Stokely Ligon had written a report for the USFWS noting that "'the policy of the National Park Service, in protecting all native wildlife within park boundaries, is not such as to encourage the introduction of a vanishing species." Instead, Ligon suggested that "immediate efforts to save seed stock of the bighorn sheep might well be confined to the present range of the sheep in the Sierra Diablo Mountains, north of Van Horn, Texas." Taylor and his associates agreed, suggesting that "if proper protection can be given to the Park, and an international park developed on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande, there eventually may be some natural restocking of the Park with bighorns from across the river." [49]

This feature of the proposed international park merited substantial attention from the ecological survey. Taylor wrote that "it is a fact that the river affords no appreciable barrier, in a distributional sense, even to some small rodents." Should the park service identify "a plentiful stock of bighorn sheep, prong-horned antelope, black bear, gray wolves, and other species on the Mexican side, it would only be a matter of time until some individuals would appear on the American side." Taylor claimed that "Mexico is probably the center of abundance of some of the Big Bend mammals." This would include bighorn and antelope, and "birds, many of the mammals, including predators and fur animals, as well as game species, insects, and indeed most forms of wildlife." Taylor again suggested that "if the Mexican park can be set up and protection given to existing stocks on the Mexican side both inside and outside of the proposed park, there is no reason why, over a term of years, restoration cannot proceed across the Rio Grande." [50]

Details of the flora and fauna of Big Bend were accompanied in Taylor's report by suggested interpretive programs, and also "hidden resources" for additional study. "The Big Bend," wrote Taylor, "is a great geological museum, with surface evidences of many of the processes by which the mountains, mesas, plains, washes, and river valleys have been formed." So too were the plant and animal species that were "merely indicators of processes and structures which are not seen." Taylor made note of the four kinds of turtles in Big Bend, the nineteen lizards, 23 snakes, six amphibians, 56 mammals, 241 birds, and 650 species of insects. "For the most part," wrote Taylor, "all the visitor secures is a fleeting glimpse of one or another of these animals." Yet the surveyors concluded that "nature in the Park constitutes a highly complicated mechanism, partly alive (as in the living plants and animals), partly dead (as in the soils and climate)." That was why "modifications by man, particularly through overgrazing by domestic livestock, have disarranged parts of this mechanism." Taylor recommended that visitors not only look for "day-animals" and birds, but also bats and predators. "There are few places in the country," wrote Taylor, "where it is permissible to maintain such species as mountain lion, gray wolf, black bear, bobcat, and coyote." The surveyors agreed that "it is essential to maximum park values in the area that a full complement of these predatory species be maintained in order to avoid surpluses of population among the deer and rodent groups." [51]

Facility planning also received the attention of the ecological survey, as Taylor and his colleagues believed that "the National Park Service can control use of the Park by guiding development." Linking scientific research to land-use patterns would make Big Bend more accessible to visitors, even as it protected the natural resources that had drawn the park service to southern Brewster County a decade earlier. Taylor wrote that "from the wildlife viewpoint there is little danger of injury to Park values from roads or improvements in the lower portions of the Park or along the Rio Grande." This led Taylor to reiterate his call for location of the concessionaire and park headquarters on the river (which he called "ideal"). In the Chisos Basin, the survey team found "some very real problems." These began with the "unsightly shacks" of the CCC camp, which Taylor said "should be eliminated or replaced by appropriately planned structures." The surveyors then focused upon wildlife issues in the Basin, noting that "there is strong argument for making the entire Chisos Mountains a sacred area;" a situation that Taylor concluded "appears to be impractical." No new roads should be built into the basin, although Taylor expressed "no objection to horse or foot trails to points in the lower parts of the Park." A route that made "provision for automobile travel around the mountains, the trip starting and terminating at headquarters on the Rio Grande, and making the complete circuit of the Park," said Taylor, "would likely do less harm to park values than proposed pack trips at the Basin in the Chisos Mountains to Mariscal Mountains and other points on the river." This would occur because "the pack trips at the Basin in the Chisos would tend to expand developments there, where they would likely injure park (wildlife) values." Instead, wrote Taylor, "expansion of roads and auto travel along the River and in the lower portions of the park would do little or no harm and would, at the same time, relieve the Chisos Mountains of the burden of housing, outfitting, guiding, and providing stables and feed for pack and saddle animals for tourists." [52]

The ecological survey report made special mention of the issue of domestic livestock in the park, both the existing herds of local ranchers and the dream of Conrad Wirth for a "longhorn ranch" somewhere in Big Bend. "There is an impression abroad, especially among western people," wrote Taylor, "that the great West is in a relatively unmodified condition." The Texas A&M professor attributed this mythology to the fact that "only limited farming activities have been possible in the West and that when the visitor crosses the Great Plains and semi-arid and desert country farther west, he sees very little of improvements." Instead, travelers would note "only scrubby desert vegetation or grassland which does not seem susceptible of use or modification." Big Bend had become "the source of a great deal of misconception in this regard," Taylor reported, as "enthusiastic statements have been made to the effect that this area is 'untouched' or 'unspoiled' or 'practically in a virgin condition.'" To the contrary, wrote Taylor, "none of the area is untouched and none of it is in an unspoiled virgin condition, except possibly some portions of the Dead Horse Range and some small inaccessible parts of the Chisos Mountains, such as Pulliam Canyon and the top of Flattop Mountain." The surveyors also claimed that "the native vegetation is so severely injured in much of the Big Bend area that it is questioned whether any other national park was initially established in so depleted a condition." [53]

Taylor's survey team expressed particular displeasure with the destruction of the landscape by goats, "seemingly more rapidly than ever." They then cited the case of the Homer Wilson ranch, headquartered at Oak Spring and on Blue Creek. This acreage "appears to be the most abused area in the entire Park project," wrote Taylor, "at least as far as recent and present operations are concerned." The surveyors noted grazing by cattle, horses, sheep, and goats, with "the goats and sheep in such numbers that they are rapidly destroying the most valuable vegetation." Taylor found this to be "true all over the ranch from Burro Mesa and lower Blue Creek to the Laguna and the South Rim of the Chisos Mountains." The surveyors found "an extraordinarily large number of goat droppings" along the South Rim, "and the area looked like (and smelled like!) a goat paddock." For these reasons, Taylor could only reiterate the plea of so many NPS scientists: "The most important single management item which can be accomplished under National Park administration will be the removal of all domestic animals from the Park area." Taylor realized that "this will entail the fencing of practically the entire boundary of the Park," as "even the broad buffer constituted by the Dead Horse Mountains is not a sufficient protection without proper fencing." The surveyors had found goat droppings also at Sue Peak, "indicating that on occasion goats are grazed to the highest portions of these mountains, ordinarily the most arid area of the Park." [54]

Beyond the presence of goats, Taylor and his associates identified issues of exotic animals at Big Bend, such as "the numerous wild burros, mules, and horses now within its boundaries." The surveyors reported that "grazing conditions in many portions of the Park favored horses and their relatives and many estrayed animals have become feral in character." Taylor argued that "some have doubtless been wild for several generations," but felt that "these animals should be eliminated as soon and as completely as possible." The gravity of this situation led Taylor to claim that "all other management suggestions but the one for removal of domestic livestock could be forgotten if only the livestock could be removed." The surveyors could not emphasize more clearly that "the Big Bend National Park is far more valuable to the public as a natural area free from all grazing than it would be as the temporary source of food for wartime armies or the civilian population." Taylor believed that "the amount of production involved is so small as to be negligible in the national total." This he correlated to the fact that "only a few American ranchmen have been able to survive in the region, while the number of Mexicans who have existed on the basis of small herds of goats is likewise very small." Taylor stated that "the superior values of this and similar park areas under natural conditions are some of the things that the boys are fighting for in Europe, Asia, and the Pacific Islands today." The NPS needed to remember that "those of us who have some responsibility would be false to our trust if we permitted the high values of national park establishment and maintenance to be undermined by the lesser values of temporary production of livestock," which Taylor noted "can certainly be produced more economically in other parts of the United States." [55]

Taylor's recommendations about stock removal led to a detailed description of the fencing needs at Big Bend "to exclude effectively livestock which is now grazed in areas adjoining the Park." The most critical area lay on the west and northwest sides, and a small area in the extreme eastern portion near Stillwell Crossing, "which is regularly grazed and will require immediate fencing." The boundary fences inside the new park should be removed as soon as possible, wrote Taylor, "and the wire conserved for the purpose of fencing the outside boundary." There were "many miles of good woven wire fence on some of the ranches, most notably on the Wilson Ranch in the Blue Creek-Oak Creek area." Then Taylor reported on the need to correct the boundaries as drawn by the park service, with the most critical area "the placement of the present boundary line on the northeastern side of the Park in the Dead Horse Mountains, where for a considerable distance the boundary follows the topmost ridge of the mountain range." Taylor believed that "from an ecological point of view this is an unfortunate line because it cuts a conspicuous habitat in two." In addition, "fencing the present boundary over the highest point in the Dead Horse would be so expensive as to be very impracticable." Taylor then reminded NPS planners that "on the west the Park is bordered largely by open country, which is overrun by burros, horses, cattle, and goats." [56]

Yet another section of the park boundary of concern to Taylor and the survey team was the Rio Grande. "Without a fence along the river," warned Taylor, "it will be impossible during times of low water (which are apparently increasingly more frequent) to keep livestock from trespassing into the Park from Mexico." This would be an issue of resource management for decades at Big Bend, and Taylor noted that "this consideration emphasizes the desirability of encouraging Mexico to set up a park upon her side of the Rio Grande and to eliminate the domestic livestock therefrom." Fencing, meanwhile, would hinder the "free ingress of such game animals as peccary, antelope, bighorn, mule deer, and white-tailed deer, as well as some of the predatory animals, including the mountain lion, the wolf, and the bear." Taylor wanted these animals to be "encouraged to enter the Park area," and for that reason he hoped that "all existing fences within the boundaries of the Park should be removed as soon as practicable [because] these fences interfere with the free movements of native animals, and are contrary to Park Service policy." [57]

Visitor access and points of interest then received mention in Taylor's report, with a lengthy list prepared of natural and cultural resource sites. Among these were a "small cemetery at Chilicotal Spring," "Indian writings on the The Chimneys," "old candelilla factories at La Noria and Glenn Spring, and "sites of old ranch headquarters in the Park (McKinney's, Boquillas, Hot Springs, San Vicente, Johnson Ranch, Glenn Spring, Dugout, [and] Grapevine Spring)." Taylor stated that "the whole Big Bend National Park, to a considerable extent, is an area of especial interest because of its unique combination of high and low plant-animal communities." Special notice should be given to "the portion of Mexico in the Mexican states of Chihuahua and Coahuila," as "it is characterized by wild wastes of desert and mountain country with some possibilities for the increase in game and other wildlife." Taylor remarked that "there are probably few locations in North America which are more primitive in character than these lands across the Rio Grande." This led the surveyors to the conclusion that "there is no question but that, as time goes on, more and more persons will cross the Rio Grande and enjoy themselves in this rugged mountainous and desert country." [58]

Those conditions of aridity and isolation were on the minds of Taylor and his colleagues when they offered recommendations for "protection from fire" at Big Bend. "No elaborate fire-fighting organization should be needed," they thought, yet "every possible effort should be made to prevent man-made fires about the Park headquarters and the administrative areas wherever they may be." Taylor conceded that "there is always some danger of fire in the upper part of the Chisos Mountains where the only forest area is found." He believed that "here, in the woodland and forest, fires might be highly detrimental to Park values." This area told "much of the relationship of the Big Bend to the Rocky Mountains to the north and the Chihuahua and Coahuila highlands to the south." To that end, wrote Taylor, "it is highly desirable to protect these by artificial means." He agreed that "this may be somewhat difficult under the proposed developmental plan according to which trails will be built or maintained to all the principal parts of the higher parts of the Chisos." The NPS should prohibit smoking on the trails, and prepare "a system of fire protection . . . as nearly foolproof as possible." In the case of lightning-cause fires, Taylor viewed these as "natural," and conceded that "when they occur in remote parts of the Park, such as the Dead Horse Mountains or the Mesa de Anguila, they are not necessarily destructive of park values." Instead, "they have been going on from time immemorial in many of these areas and have a legitimate part to play in the natural growth, development, and maintenance of the plant-animal communities of the park." [59]

Fire suppression needed to be part of this strategy, wrote Taylor, as "no woodcutting whatever should be permitted within the National Park area." He wanted "fallen trees, shrubs, or parts thereof, and accumulating brush and litter . . . left in place, except as clearly needed for a limited number of camp fires in pack trips." Taylor claimed that "such debris affords home and shelter to numerous small animals, such as fur animals, rodents, insects, birds, and game." From this came mulch that would "protect the soil from erosion," while "litter and brush are often of the utmost help in the rehabilitation of grasses and other plants, protecting them from grazing and browsing animals during their critical period." Taylor had heard that "cutting of timber has been carefully regulated on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande," with "a permit required from the local forest officer" to cut trees. "On the American side," wrote Taylor, "this has not been the case." As a result, "it is said that native Mexicans have crossed into the United States and removed timber from the American side of the line." In addition, "trees growing along the river have also been used freely by Americans who, up to this time, have occupied ranch and farm land along the river." Such woodcutting "must necessarily be eliminated so that the natural vegetation can restore itself." The surveyors had discovered that "much of the mesquite along the river is second growth," but Taylor hoped that "in 50 or 100 years Park visitors may be able to see what a well-developed mesquite forest (a beautiful woods by the way) looks like." [60]

Related to forest maintenance was the issue of erosion. Taylor and his surveyors had questions "as to what part of the erosion, which is so obvious on every hand in the Big Bend area, is normal erosion and what part is accelerated." The survey team believed that erosion observed along Tornillo Creek and Tobosa Flat was "of the accelerated character." In these areas, soil depletion "has proceeded so far that the originally grassy vegetation (mostly tobosa grass) has been largely eliminated and brush has been increasing in amount." Taylor blamed this situation on "gullying following the removal of the tobosa grass and the consequent lowering of the water table to such an extent that the grasses, on which, for example, the prong-horned antelope fed, cannot reestablish themselves." The only plants that could survive were "deep-rooted bushes like the creosote bush." Prohibition of grazing would "encourage the healing process," wrote Taylor, "but whether the gullying has already gone too far to be cured even by complete removal of livestock is a question." In this instance, "some sort of erosion control (spreader dams? artificial planting) might be justified." At a minimum, Taylor recommended that park staff "ascertain in which way the condition is trending, that is, whether toward more serious erosion, deeper gullies, and further elimination of grassy vegetation, or a healing of the gullies with a tendency for the grass to return." [61]

Should the NPS eliminate the source of erosion through the elaborate means suggested by Taylor, the surveyors hoped that the park service would not introduce "work stock" to the Chisos Mountains. Animals owned by a concessionaire "should not be pastured anywhere in the Park," wrote Taylor. He recognized that "possibly a limited number of Park-owned horses could be pastured on some areas of chino grass remote from the Chisos Mountains for a limited period without appreciable harm to park values." Yet "all work stock," said Taylor, "whether Park-owned or concessioner-owned, should be fed hauled feed or raised feed only." He did note that "it would be entirely possible, if deemed desirable, to devote some of the alluvial area on one or more of the ranches already established along the Rio Grande to growing feed for Park-owned horses." [62]

The last issue of resource management that Taylor addressed was the controversial longhorn ranch, which the surveyors opposed strongly. "Unquestionably the longhorn cattle would compete," wrote Taylor, "with the mule deer which are regarded by some as the most important game animals within the Park." Beyond this ecological challenge, Taylor and his colleagues considered it "practically impossible to establish a longhorn ranch which would really picture the ranching business in the early days." They claimed that "the roughest sort of headquarters and a corral were often all the equipment the pioneer ranchman possessed." Should the NPS install "a high-class establishment with a superintendent and a mess hall and all the other improvements that go with a modern ranch," it could not "reflect conditions in the old longhorn period." Yet a third obstacle would be the fact that "the term longhorn is a loose one [that] has actually been applied to almost any kind of semi-wild cattle occurring in Texas from the dawn of history." More accurate would be reference to the longhorn country between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande in southeastern Texas. Taylor noted the presence of a longhorn herd on federal land in the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge in southwestern Oklahoma, and few of these animals had the long horns "which are the popular mark of the 'breed.'" Managing any herd within Big Bend would pose logistical challenges, and would be in violation of NPS policy released in February 1944 by acting director Tolson that "'any exotic species which has already become established in a park shall be either eliminated or held to a minimum provided complete eradication is not feasible.'" Tolson ordered that "'presentation of the animal life of the parks to the public shall be a wholly natural one,'" while "'no animal shall be encouraged to become dependent upon man for its support.'" [65]

At the conclusion of the Taylor report, the surveyors devoted several paragraphs to recommendations on the "international aspects" of Big Bend's future. "Every assistance and encouragement should be given the Government of the United States of Mexico to set up a great Mexican national park across from the Big Bend National Park," wrote Taylor. He admitted that "our own Big Bend Park cannot be effective as an ideal wildlife area until this is done." Taylor wanted protection for "the natural plant and animal life in a broad belt on the Mexican side of the line." He reminded NPS officials that "the Mexican area ultimately should function as a restoration area from which some of the most interesting animals in the Southwest would be fed into our own Big Bend National Park." Then Taylor addressed the issue of "the removal of the small Mexican population from the American side of the land." In so doing, the NPS "will make a trip into old Mexico of greater interest than ever." Taylor suggested that "accessible from the Rio Grande in this vicinity should be a number of settlements in Mexico, notably San Carlos, directly across from Lajitas." The surveyors believed that "the setting apart of the Mexican national park, along with the Big Bend National Park," would "greatly enhance the interest to all, both citizens of Mexico and the United States." Such "a truly international enterprise should go far to promote more friendly relations between the two countries." Beyond this diplomatic initiative, said Taylor, "the value and interest of our own park project would be at least doubled and perhaps tripled if there were an international setup in the region." [66]

Appended to the Taylor report was a separate document prepared by Thomas K. Chamberlain, an aquatic biologist with the USFWS at Texas A&M College. Chamberlain addressed the issue of fishing in Big Bend, building upon the research conducted in 1940 by Carl L. Hubbs. At that time, Hubbs discussed "'the opportunity of protecting and preserving here certain fish species which might otherwise become exterminated, at least in the limits of the United States.'" Hubbs contended that "'when the Park is established, the policy should be formed, and adhered to, of not introducing any exotic species, such as bass and sunfish, for they might readily consume the peculiar native fishes.'" Hubbs also believed that "'there is not enough water in the region to support any considerable amount of sport fishing, even if sport fishing should be ranked above preservation in Park policy.'" Then Chamberlain quoted from James O. Stevenson's recommendations of 1943. "'The spring and marsh area at Boquillas,'" wrote Stevenson, "'the only known habitat of the top-minnow Gambusia gaigei, should be designated a sacred area.'" Chamberlain asked that "the ideas expressed above be made the basis of the policy governing all questions relating to fish and fishing within the Park area." He agreed that "there is still a very important place for fishing in the Park program," and offered three rules. "All fishing in the Park area, including the taking of bait fish," wrote Chamberlain, "shall be confined to the Rio Grande and to those old channels of the river that from time to time become a part of the main stream during high water." The NPS also should prohibit the importation of live bait, and "no aquatic fauna or flora, native or foreign, shall be placed in, or removed from, any of the springs or other natural bodies of water in the Park area." [67]

Chamberlain then detailed his findings on the aquatic life of the park. "To call the Rio Grande fishing 'sport fishing' requires a broad interpretation of the term," said the aquatic biologist. "Yet people come daily," he reported, "every month of the year, some from great distances, expressly to fish these waters." Chamberlain remarked that "this fishing has a high recreational value," despite the fact that "there is little or no sport fishing as that term is usually understood." No regulations existed for Rio Grande use, and "there has been as tendency for a few individuals to monopolize the fishing." Chamberlain found the river to be "a rich catfish stream," with that species constituting 95 percent of the anglers' catches. Visitors and local fishermen alike reported that "the average size of these fish runs large, probably exceeding six pounds." It was not uncommon for fishermen to bring in 30-pound yellow catfish, and some had caught fish weighing 100 pounds. "The general opinion," wrote Chamberlain, "is that when the catfish are in the mood to feed nearly anything will serve as bait." Thus fishermen used minnows, goldfish, and "at such times a piece of soap will serve as well as any meat." The proliferation of catfish also permitted most anglers to set lines in the river overnight, and return in the morning for their catch. [68]

Chamberlain found this latter practice most disturbing, as it contributed to "commercial exploitation and excessive fishing." With no rules, "undoubtedly many pounds of fish go to waste because fishermen make larger catches than they can utilize." Chamberlain recalled "a typical case" where "two men, their wives, and two older children put out 125 set lines, each with a number of hooks." In order to string bait for so many lines, the party shot several rabbits on park grounds. Another fishing party slaughtered a goat "to bait some long trot lines containing hundreds of hooks each." Chamberlain heard of a party "catching, the year before, an average of 500 pounds of catfish per night for 10 nights." The average weight of these fish was fourteen pounds, with several ranging from 30 to 60 pounds. Still another angler boasted of catching a catfish "'over six feet long.'" When asked what he did with it, Chamberlain reported that "it was too big for him to handle or to use, but as it had swallowed the hook, he killed the huge fish to get his hook back and then threw the fish away." [69]

To halt this abuse of the river, Chamberlain called upon the NPS to devise regulations "aimed at rationing those fish by enforcing reasonable limitations on fishing." He predicted that "fishermen are sure to enter the Park in increasing numbers in the years to come." He also spoke out against allowing "one small party of fishermen to put out so large a number of set lines as to tie up one or more miles of fishing channel." Chamberlain had learned from Mr. and Mrs. A.R. Davis, of Marathon, that "the use by fishermen of any kind of boats, but particularly power boats, to set their trot lines, is the most serious threat to catfishing on the river." Chamberlain believed that "it is reported to be a violation of national law to use boats on the river." Yet "this is continually being done," and "the use of power boats permits anglers to run their trot lines through canyon waters that otherwise would be natural spawning refuges, such as the Boquillas Canyon, Mariscal Canyon, and the Grand Canyon of the Santa Elena." His research indicated that "the large species of catfish favor spawning in depressions and various sheltered places in river banks and cliffs which abound in these canyons." Chamberlain noted that "the precipitous canyon walls would preclude fishing in these waters were it not for the use of boats." Thus the Fish and Wildlife consultant recommended limiting visitors to the use of poles and hand-lines. "No wild land animal occurring within the Park may be used for fish bait, even when found dead," said Chamberlain, who would make an exception for turtles caught in the river. Boats would be prohibited on the Rio Grande, bag limits would be 20 pounds, and "a record shall be turned in to the Park officials of all food fish taken in the Park area." [70]