.gif){kind=small}
Fauna Series No. 2
Part II
Fauna of the National Parks
of the United States
PART II
REPORT REGARDING WILDLIFE RESTORATION PLAN
FOR MESA VERDE NATIONAL PARK
Submitted to the Director May 11, 1934
On the morning of March 24, 1934, a conference on wildlife restoration possibilities in Mesa Verde National Park was held by Superintendent Leavitt, Park Naturalist Franke, Ranger Markley, and Thompson, of the Wildlife Division. Every aspect of the problem evident to us at this time was discussed, ideas pooled, and the following suggested program developed for your consideration:
1. Boundary adjustments. — Every phase of wildlife preservation and restoration in Mesa Verde is contingent upon the securing of an adequate biological unit for the park, as outlined in Wildlife Division report of October 24, 1933. Response to the boundary adjustment proposal of this report has come from Mr. D. H. Wattson, superintendent of the Consolidated Ute Agency, under date of December 21, 1933. Superintendent Wattson states:
I expressed to Mr. Finnan my belief that the Indians would raise no serious objection to a transfer to the park of these lands, providing in lieu lands of equal value for grazing were available and that in such an event I would be glad to recommend an exchange, but that an act of Congress prohibits any change in the areas of Indian reservations.
It is the feeling of those at Mesa Verde that the area under consideration is of such vital importance to the integrity of the park that the matter should be further pursued. Therefore, Superintendent Leavitt proposes, as a first step, to ascertain which lands, if any, are open to and suitable for transfer, in the hope that a specific proposition may be worked out to submit to you and to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
As has been stated previously, Mesa Verde National Park must some day include the whole of Mesa Verde north of the Mancos Canyon if its game feature is ever to be anything but a skeleton.
2. Eradication of private holdings within the park. — A second vital contingency of wildlife restoration is the eradication of private holdings within the park. (Refer to memoranda on private holdings, Sept. 15, 1931, of Mrs. Phoebe H. E. Stevens and Mr. Clarence Teague.) The holdings of Mrs. Stevens (160 acres in Morfield Canyon and 320 acres in Prater Canyon) include the territory and water supply most suitable for wild turkeys. The upper valleys of these canyons could provide excellent grass and brush cover suitable to game birds, but because of cattle grazing these areas are kept relatively bare. Cattle must cross a portion of the park to reach this range.
Government funds for the purchase of these private holdings are impounded because they cannot be matched by private funds. These private holdings should be secured and added to the park as soon as possible.
3. Confinement of horses. — The horses belonging to a guide and horse concessioner in the park have grazed along the approach road in the vicinity of Far View junction throughout the winter. This local concentration and the range utilization have been augmented by the present mild winter. Unfortunately, the horses have remained in the locality most preferred by deer. Hereafter, according to Superintendent Leavitt, the horses are to be removed to the mesa between Spruce and Navajo Canyons, and a fence constructed to confine them there. This measure will liberate a local deer range from too heavy utilization.
4. Water supply. — Old surface wells exist in the following canyons: One each in Navajo, Soda, Moccasin, Morfield, White, and School Section; three wells in Prater. It is proposed to develop water for game at various places on the mesa, either by repair and installation of windmills or by construction of surface reservoirs. The windmills probably would provide a more constant supply of fresh water. They would not be visible from the entrance road.
Unfortunately, the most desirable wells are in Morfield and Prater Canyons on private holdings.
5. Ponderosa pine. — Ponderosa pine is considered essential for wild turkeys. This pine is limited to a few groves and isolated trees on the mesa. Young pines have been cut and used in the past for construction of cabins. Pine reproduction m Morfield Canyon has been seriously retarded and impaired by stock grazing. To combat this situation, Park Naturalist Franke suggests an experimental planting of ponderosa pine seedlings in the Morfield-Prater vicinity.
6. Introduction of the Merriam turkey. — Since the wild turkey played such an important role in the life of tine cliff dwellers, it is proposed that wild turkeys be planted in at least two places on the mesa. It is thought that the ponderosa pine grove, near water at the head of Morfield Canyon, is the most favorable spot for turkeys. Superintendent Leavitt and Park Naturalist Franke suggest that a second planting be made near headquarters, where the turkeys may be cared for and seen by the public until they establish themselves in the region.
In this connection the following is quoted from Mr. J. Stokley Ligon's letter of April 14, 1934:
From what you and Mr. Wright told me, I believe the Merriam wild turkey will do well in Mesa Verde Park. It is probable that I will be in northwestern New Mexico before fall, selecting locations for releasing sage hens. If I am, I might be able to spare the time to go to Mesa Verde and look over the proposition. I could then advise more intelligently regarding turkeys. If you have ample evidence that the Merriam turkey formerly occurred there, this should be sufficient proof that it will thrive. If the water supply and timber growth are the same as formerly when turkeys were there, they surely could be restored. You are entirely correct in your opinion that only wild stock should be liberated; these birds could no doubt be secured at some convenient point in New Mexico next winter when we are trapping and moving turkeys. The cost would not be excessive. I would be only too glad to assist in any way that I could in this regard.
7. Introduction of Mexican bighorn. — Since mountain sheep were probably native on the mesa until recent years, it is proposed that they be reintroduced, provided the above-mentioned boundary adjustment is made.
Again quoting Mr. Ligon's letter of April 14, 1934
You mention the matter of mountain sheep for Mesa Verde. The Mexican bighorn from the Big Hatchet Mountains of southwestern New Mexico would probably be best suited for the experiment. While I have not had experience in trapping and transplanting sheep, the past winter I put in a trap in the Big Hatchet Mountains for the game department and prospects are promising for getting some of the animals. We plan to move some to other mountains of the State formerly inhabited by this sheep. Old horns of mountain sheep secured by me near Grants, N. Mex., and from Cuba, southeast of Aztec, by others, have been classified as the Mexican bighorn; and I would assume that Mesa Verde is somewhat of the same semidesert type. I do not believe that sheep from the upper Rocky Mountain area would be suitable, and I doubt if they would stay if released there.
8. Porcupines. — Due to the fact that there is no apparent porcupine damage this winter, it is proposed that porcupine control be discontinued until such time as (and if) it should become necessary.
9. Predatory animal control. — Because of the very small area of the park, no predatory animal control is deemed necessary or desirable.
10. It is understood that the proposals given herewith constitute a restoration program and that no attempt is made to domesticate or semidomesticate any forms of the park's wildlife, or to exhibit them in any artificial manner. The object of this program is to restore the wildlife of Mesa Verde and to maintain it under natural conditions.
NEXT> Guadalupe extension of the Carlsbad Caverns National Park
Top
Last Modified: Tues, Feb 1 2000 07:08:48 pm PDT
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/fauna2/fauna3b6.htm
.gif){kind=small}