Home
Letter
Historical
Concept
Goal
Policies
Methods
Control
Nat'l Rec. Areas
New Nat'l Parks
Summary
|
Wildlife Management in the National Parks
Policies of park management
The major policy change which we would recommend to the National
Park Service is that it recognize the enormous complexity of ecologic
communities and the diversity of management procedures required to
preserve them. The traditional, simple formula of protection may be
exactly what is needed to maintain such climax associations as
arctic-alpine heath, the rain forests of Olympic peninsula, or the
Joshua trees and saguaros of southwestern deserts. On the other hand,
grasslands, savannas, aspen, and other successional shrub and tree
associations may call for very different treatment. Reluctance to
undertake biotic management can never lead to a realistic presentation
of primitive America, much of which supported successional communities
that were maintained by fires, floods, hurricanes, and other natural
forces.
A second statement of policy that we would reiterate -- and this one
conforms with present Park Service standards -- is that management be
limited to native plants and animals. Exotics have intruded into nearly
all of the parks but they need not be encouraged, even those that have
interest or ecologic values of their own. Restoration of antelope in
Jackson Hole, for example, should be done by managing native forage
plants, not by planting crested wheat grass or plots of irrigated
alfalfa. Gambel quail in a desert wash should be observed in the shade
of a mesquite, not a tamarisk. A visitor who climbs a volcano in Hawaii
ought to see mamane trees and silver-swords, not goats.
Carrying this point further, observable artificiality in any form
must be minimized and obscured in every possible way. Wildlife should
not be displayed in fenced enclosures; this is the function of a zoo,
not a national park. In the same category is artificial feeding of
wildlife. Fed bears become bums, and dangerous, Fed elk deplete natural
ranges. Forage relationships in wild animals should be natural.
Management may at times call for the use of the tractor, chain-saw,
rifle, or flamethrower but the signs and sounds of such activity should
be hidden from visitors insofar as possible. In this regard, perhaps the
most dangerous tool of all is the roadgrader. Although the American
public demands automotive access to the parks, road systems must be
rigidly prescribed as to extent and design. Roadless wilderness areas
should be permanently zoned. The goal, we repeat, is to maintain or
create the mood of wild America. We are speaking here of restoring
wildlife to enhance this mood, but the whole effect can be lost if the
parks are overdeveloped for motorized travel. If too many tourists crowd
the roadways, then we should ration the tourists rather than expand the
roadways.
Additionally in this connection, it seems incongruous that there
should exist in the national parks mass recreation facilities such as
golf courses, ski lifts, motorboat marinas, and other extraneous
developments which completely contradict the management goal. We urge
the National Park Service to reverse its policy of permitting these
nonconforming uses, and to liquidate them as expeditiously as possible
(painful as this will be to concessionaires). Above all other policies,
the maintenance of naturalness should prevail.
Another major policy matter concerns the research which must form
the basis for all management programs. The agency best fitted to study
park management problems is the National Park Service itself. Much help
and guidance can be obtained from ecologic research conducted by other
agencies, but the objectives of park management are so different from
those of state fish and game departments, the Forest Service, etc., as
to demand highly skilled studies of a very specialized nature.
Management without knowledge would be a dangerous policy indeed. Most of
the research now conducted by the National Park Service is oriented
largely to interpretive functions rather than to management. We urge
the expansion of the research activity in the Service to prepare for
future management and restoration programs. As models of the type of
investigation that should be greatly accelerated we cite some of the
recent studies of elk in Yellowstone and of bighorn sheep in Death
Valley. Additionally, however, there are needed equally critical
appraisals of ecologic relationships in various plant associations and
of many lesser organisms such as azaleas, lupines, chipmunks, towhees,
and other non-economic species.
In consonance with the above policy statements, it follows logically
that every phase of management itself be under the full jurisdiction of
biologically trained personnel of the Park Service. This applies not
only to habitat manipulation but to all facets of regulating animal
populations. Reducing the numbers of elk in Yellowstone or of goats on
Haleakala Crater is part of an overall scheme to preserve or restore a
natural biotic scene. The purpose is single-minded. We cannot endorse
the view that responsibility for removing excess game animals be shared
with state fish and game departments whose primary interest would be to
capitalize on the recreational value of the public hunting that could
thus be supplied. Such a proposal imputes a multiple use concept of park
management which was never intended, which is not legally permitted, nor
for which can we find any impelling justification today.
Purely from the standpoint of how best to achieve the goal of park
management, as here defined, unilateral administration directed to a
single objective is obviously superior to divided responsibility in
which secondary goals, such as recreational hunting, are introduced.
Additionally, uncontrolled public hunting might well operate in
opposition to the goal, by removing roadside animals and frightening the
survivors, to the end that public viewing of wildlife would be
materially impaired. In one national park, namely Grand Teton, public
hunting was specified by Congress as the method to be used in
controlling elk. Extended trial suggests this to be an awkward
administrative tool at best.
Since this whole matter is of particular current interest it will be
elaborated in a subsequent section on methods.
|