The problem of restoring and maintaining wildlife in our national parks is not as simple as one might suppose. The mere creation of a preserve or area within which all wild animals are protected has proved non-sufficient. While it is true that these areas offer excellent opportunity for preserving a wonderful variety of primitive wildlife stock in its native habitat for future generations, it is equally true that the very laws establishing the National Park Service in 1916 have almost defeated their original intentions. The law emphasizes that the fundamental purpose of the Park Service shall be to conserve the scenery of Park areas and the wildlife therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such a way as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. Roads, camp and picnic grounds, trails, and dwelling conveniences represent efforts by the Service to provide for the enjoyment of Park scenery and wildlife. However, each new road, trail, and “tourist convenience” removes wildlife food and cover from the Park and causes timid animals to retreat from these zones of human use. Moreover, it destroys the natural area which is supposed to be left “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” Furthermore, many animals lack the flexibility to adapt themselves to new habitats, once the ancestral areas are invaded or destroyed by man. With increasing numbers of visitors using the Parks, how can this tremendous conflict between man and wildlife be reconciled without the impairment of primitive wildlife or the restriction of human occupancy? It probably cannot be, and each ideal will have to sacrifice a portion of the original grand intentions. In every decision of human or wildlife use, the Park Service makes a strenuous effort to establish a happy medium and still conform to the basic purpose of the national parks.

The U. S. Forest Service which administers most of the mountain lands surrounding the National Park, considers wildlife as a crop to be cultivated and harvested by hunting under Colorado state game laws. National forest wildlife judgments are dove-tailed with other important forest policies such as timber growing, watershed protection, and domestic stock grazing.

The invasion of man into these now semi-wild areas has created changed, even severe, conditions for the existing wildlife. The efforts by man to counterbalance certain unfavorable conditions for the animals and therefore to conserve and administer them satisfactorily, constitute what is now called wildlife management. Some of the problems that have existed and now exist in this area should be mentioned briefly to help us understand their scope and character.

ELK-RANGE PROBLEM

It is the normal habit of the elk in the region to spend the nine winter months in the lower mountain valleys and the summer months foraging on the fresh and succulent meadow grasses of the subalpine forest and alpine tundra country above 10,000 feet. Because of man-made restrictions in their winter territory, the elk congregate principally in Moraine Park, Beaver Meadows, and Horseshoe Park at this time. The past years of protection and adequate vegetation so increased their numbers that early in the 1940’s there were some signs of large herds “grazing off” most of their natural winter food available in these valleys. To alleviate this overgrazing in the Park, the state of Colorado authorized elk hunting on adjacent national forest lands in 1941 in order to remove excess elk migrating out of the Park. However, this effort did not remove sufficient numbers from the Park herds. Instead of allowing this potentially serious condition to continue and the eventuality of either watching the elk starve or else feeding the animals year after year, a harvest of surplus numbers by hunting was conducted in the winter of 1944-1945. In this way a possible catastrophe of starving and dying off of the entire elk herd was halted. The present reduced elk herd of about 800 animals is considered more nearly within the winter range carrying capacity. The fact that there are no longer grizzly bear and sufficient cougar to take a normal number of these animals as food was an aiding factor to the rapid increase of elk. Concentrated numbers of elk seeking refuge in the aspen groves during heavy winters in the lower valleys have heavily damaged the aspen trunks by stripping bark for food. It is believed that pregnant cow elk, in particular, are able to obtain vitamin A from the aspen bark for their welfare at that time. This stripping or opening of the aspen trunk allows penetration of fatal tree fungi, which may damage many aspen groves. Fortunately, the prolific aspen grows rapidly and soon should reappear satisfactorily.

DEER-RANGE PROBLEM

Essentially the same problem has existed for mule deer as for elk, with the exception that deer, which do not congregate so readily into herds, browse principally on low shrubs or bush plants rather than on grass. They do not strip bark from aspen trees. This habit permits both elk and deer to range fairly compatibly within the Park area. Nevertheless, the deer population was also considered to be excessively large for the amount of winter food available. Therefore, a smaller proportion of their number was also “removed” in the winter of 1944-1945, resulting in a present population of a little under 1,000 deer. For reasons unknown, however, the deer population has recently and gradually been declining within the Park. There is a possibility that the large number of coyotes now in the vicinity has assisted in keeping the deer herds from increasing.

BIGHORN SHEEP POPULATION DECLINE

This country provides an extensive summer sheep range in the high rolling tundra and rugged peaks above timberline, in addition to a large wintering area in the lower timber and valleys. Strong winds in the winter sweep snow from the scant tundra vegetation and often make it possible for sheep to feed at these high altitudes even during the winter months. Even with these adequate topographic conditions, wild sheep in the National Park since 1922 have shown a slow, steady decrease in numbers until 1941, when there were about 300 sheep present. Since this date there has been a leveling off of sheep numbers, no decided increases or decreases being evident. All the related factors probably contributing to the decline of bighorn population or their present stability at low level are not known. One substantial reason advanced has been the deficiency of mineral in sheep diet in the higher mountains, as indicated on previous pages, with a resultant weakening of sheep stock and a consequent susceptibility to parasitism and diseases found prevalent among sickened and dead sheep over a period of years. Another possibility for the decline may be present in the great increase of elk and subsequent competition for similar grass foods. The Park Service has placed salt and mineral blocks at known bighorn concentration places in an attempt to improve the physical condition of the sheep and thereby increase the sturdiness of their offspring. The results of this experiment are difficult to measure, but it is believed to have met with varying success.

BEAVER PROBLEM

The beaver, being a versatile and adaptable animal, is able to establish himself wherever there are small, permanent streams and sufficient aspen to provide him with logs and twigs for dams and houses and to provide food for his family. Consequently, any of the valleys in the Park which supply these requirements now contain numerous beaver. They represent more of a nuisance factor than a real game management problem. Occasionally they will inundate and drown aspen stands and associated vegetation. Also, their dams will cause flooding of roads or other man-made improvements. Infrequently their dams are dynamited to release these waters and the beaver are live-trapped and transported to “wilder” areas in the state. Beavers were so numerous in the Park in 1941 that 106 were live-trapped and taken by state conservation officials to other Colorado areas. The fact that beavers work chiefly at night and have no serious predation worries has helped their normal increase.

These wildlife management problems are but samples of similar situations occurring throughout the country, but in varying degree and with different animals. These are types of conditions which wildlife managers must face. It is evident in the National Park that suitable study and research on such factors as animal-mineral requirements, parasites and diseases, bighorn-elk competition for food, rodent and big game food competition, condition and availability of winter foods, and predator relationships are vital to properly reconcile the use of the same area by man and various wildlife.

Animal populations are rarely in an “ideal condition of balance” in the same area. Rather, the normal condition is a series of population waves or fluctuations either increasing or decreasing the total numbers of a kind of animal. While some exhibit a kind of regularity, they do not always occur with definite rhythm or in exact cycles. This was probably true in nature before the arrival of white man and will likely exist in wilder areas with little modification by man.

Another condition which must be considered normal among animals is the practice of predation, or killing of one kind of animal by another. The predator should be given the same opportunity to live its normal life as are the greatly favored species.

More often than not the predator takes the weakened or diseased animals of an area and thus aids in preventing the diseased animals from roaming among their fellows and spreading the ailment. Nature’s sustaining law requires only the survival of the fittest and the predator fits admirably into this scene, unless he becomes too abundant.

The fear of wild carnivores or the “unknown” at night in the mountains is still somewhat prevalent. A comparatively brief knowledge of animal habits will soon force the less intrepid to concede that “wild animals” rarely attack a human in the wilderness, unless unduly provoked.

Finally, we should contemplate the wildlife of this country from another than the hunter or commercial aspect. The range limits of some of the more superb animals in America today are shrinking into closely confined areas where the few spots of virgin wilderness remain. Man should direct his efforts toward assisting these grand animals to at least hold their own.

The thrill of close observation of a wild animal in natural surroundings, without the artificiality of bars or fences, is one of the outstanding satisfactions still available to man in this country. This inspiration and enjoyment, provided by the study and practice of wildlife preservation in the national parks, is of great importance as an intangible, but powerful influence on personal and national well-being.