Chapter 6
Science and the Struggle for Bureaucratic
Power: The Leopold Era, 19631981 (continued)
Exotic Species
In addressing the question of naturalness posed by the Leopold
Report, the Service reinvigorated its efforts to eliminateor at
least reduce populations of nonnative species from the parks.
Although some exotics barely survived or were a benign presence, other
highly adaptable species, such as wild goats, burros, hogs, and the
prolific kudzu vine, greatly expanded their territory, altering park
habitat and threatening the existence of native flora and fauna. A 1967
report listed thirty parks with active programs to eradicate or control
exotic plant species, and nine parks with exotic mammal control
programs. The Service's new policies briefly mentioned exotics,
declaring that nonnative plants and animals would be "eliminated where
it is possible to do so by approved methods" (a reflection of policies
recommended in Fauna No. 1). [147]
More than with exotic plants, attempts to eradicate exotic mammals
sometimes precipitated difficult political problems for the Park
Service. Strenuous objection to killing nonnative
mammalsintensified by political pressure and by media
coveragecame mainly from two sources. Animalrights activists
sought to protect appealing species such as burros, which seriously
damaged native vegetation and caused erosion of topsoil in Bandelier
National Monument and Grand Canyon National Park. Hunters opposed
efforts by rangers to eradicate animals like the European wild boar in
Great Smoky Mountains, where the voracious animal caused extensive
damage to native vegetation. Hunting organizations in Tennessee and
North Carolina wanted to maintain viable populations to ensure good
hunting outside park boundaries, and some also demanded participation in
any killings that took place within the park.
Such interest groups, often politically well connected, put the Park
Service on the defensive; and the threat of litigation stimulated
research to document habitat destruction by nonnative species. In the
mid-1970s a reduction program was initiated at Bandelier National
Monument. As recalled by biologist Milford Fletcher, the Service
believed that, of the parks affected by burros, Bandelier had gathered
the most scientific data on damage to soils and vegetation and could
thus make the best legal case for eliminating burros. The program was
promptly contested in court by the Fund for Animals. The court ruled
that the Service had a legal mandate to remove such destructive exotic
animals. Following an agreement to allow the Fund to attempt live
removalan effort that proved unsuccessfulthe park completed
eradication of the burro population. By contrast, passionate
denunciation of the proposed shooting of burros in Grand Canyon led to a
successful removal program of live trapping and transplanting, again
largely undertaken by the Fund for Animals. This effort was supplemented
by limited shooting (supported by the court decision at Bandelier) and
by fencing off areas where burros might reenter the park.
Similarly, managers at Great Smoky Mountains initiated research on
the wild boar population and the boar's effects on park habitats. In
this instance, however, belligerent opposition by North Carolinians to
rangers shooting wild boars in the park prompted the Service to devise a
split policy. Under pressure, it discontinued killing the animals in the
North Carolina part of the park, relying mainly on trapping and removal
of the wild boars (aided in some instances by private individuals
supervised by park staff ) and on fencing. Rangers continued to shoot
boars on the Tennessee side of the park. [148]
Faced with angry, outspoken opposition to the control of certain
exotic mammals, yet aware of the damage the animals were inflicting on
natural resources, the Park Service at times seemed caught in a no-win
situation. Efforts to reach an acceptable compromise sometimes seemed
awkward at best, as illustrated not only in Great Smoky Mountains, but
especially in the attempt to control feral goats in Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park in the 1970s. Despite decades of reduction (more than
seventy thousand goats had been killed since the park was established in
1916), the goats maintained a high population, about fifteen thousand in
1970. [149] By the early 1970s, local
pressure prompted the Park Service to allow hunters to participate in
the reduction. To some, this highly unusual agreement to allow public
hunting seemed justified because the animals being killed were exotics.
(Contrary to the situation in Great Smoky Mountains and Hawaii
Volcanoes, the public hunting issues in Yellowstone and Grand Teton
involved both native animals and a federal law specifically allowing
public hunting in Grand Teton as a means of population control.)
However, even with hunting, reduction in Hawaii Volcanoes was not
significantly diminishing the goat population, and an unfunded fencing
program did not promise a solution in the near future. Thus, some park
staff viewed the agreement to allow public hunting in the park as
ensuring perpetual, "sustained-yield recreation" for the hunters, as
thenpark ranger Donald W. Reeser later stated. [150]
Moreover, in October 1970, to quell the hunters' apprehension that
an ambitious proposed fencing program would jeopardize their opportunity
to hunt in the park, Director Hartzog made a public promise that he had
"no intention of exterminating goats from Hawaii Volcanoes National
Park." The Service adopted the position that it wanted to "control
goats, not to eliminate them." Reeser recalled that after Hartzog's
pronouncement a perpetual "goat ranching operation loomed on the horizon
as [the park's] new goal." Submitting to local pressure, the Park
Service had strayed far afield from its official policy of eliminating
nonnative species "where it is possible to do so." [151]
The strategy of reducing but not eliminating the goats was a clear
instance of disregard of policy in an effort to achieve a political
solution. The Service got into even greater difficulty when its new goat
policy drew criticism from conservation groups, angry that Hawaii's
native resources were being sacrificed to the goats and to the hunters'
lobby. [152] Park Service leadership then
resorted to the argument that "it is conceivable" that the goats
benefited the park by keeping some exotic plants from spreading. In June
1971 Hartzog wrote to Anthony Wayne Smith, head of the National Parks
and Conservation Association, that "some of [the exotic plants] may be
held in a state of equilibrium by the pressure of the exotic goat." [153]
Yet the director did not even have the support of his own on-site
scientific staff. Hawaii Volcanoes biologist Ken Baker characterized as
"poor thinking" the idea to "perpetuate goats as biological controls on
exotic plants." Baker saw this as an attempt to "evade the issues and .
. . not really tell it like it is." He feared that the situation
actually amounted to public hunting "in perpetuity," and that "a rose by
any other name is still a rose. What we have is nothing more than public
hunting." So long as there are goats in the park, he declared, "we are
only kidding ourselves about 'restoring and maintaining natural
ecosystems.' " In line with Baker's thoughts, the park superintendent,
Gene J. Balaz, wrote to the National Parks and Conservation Association
in early May 1971 (six months after Hartzog had disavowed any intention
of eliminating the goats) that "the aim of this program is to reduce the
number of goatsany goats." In June, with Balaz's determination to
remove the goats at odds with Hartzog's statements, the director
abruptly removed Balaz from the Hawaii Volcanoes superintendency. [154]
Only when the park moved determinedly ahead (at first on its own)
with a fencing and killing program aimed at eliminating the goat
population was the Service able to correct its course and stay in line
with official policy. In late 1971 newly arrived park superintendent G.
Bryan Harry stubbornly pushed forward a major fencing program, drawing
heavily from the park's annual maintenance funds, until the Washington
office finally agreed to provide special funding to construct the
fences. Indeed, given the goats' reproductive capacity, almost certainly
the only long-range solution lay in fencing important habitats, coupled
with killing the goats in and near the areas being fenced. A
three-thousand-acre tract enclosed by July 1972 became, Donald Reeser
recalled, the "first area of goat range that had been made lastingly
free of goats" since the park's establishment. A dramatic recovery of
vegetation after exclusion of the goats provided substantial reason for
continuing the program. By 1980, goats in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
were, in Reeser's words, "virtually gone." A few remain today in remote,
unfenced areas. [155]
With greater understanding of nonnative species in the parks came
realization of the magnitude and persistence of the exotics issue.
Certain exotics can be successfully contained in some parks but,
overall, the problem will never go away and will continue to create
management quandaries. In 1981 Olympic National Park managers initiated
a program to rid the park of appealing but habitat-destructive mountain
goats, on the grounds (hotly disputed by opponents of the program) that
the goats are not native to the park, although they occur naturally very
close by. Even at Isle Royale National Park, where efforts have been
made to preserve wolf populations, managers have had to confront the
question of whether wolves (as well as moose, their chief prey) are
truly native to the park. [156]
|