  Since the establishment of the National Park Service in 1916, it has become increasingly obvious that the occupation of the national parks by man and wildlife must inevitably result in wildlife problems. The act creating the National Park Service is specific in its language; it says that the Service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the areas by such means and measures necessary “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” The apparent inconsistency presents itself immediately. Natural features must be conserved and protected, they must not be impaired, yet provision must be made for their enjoyment by the millions of visitors who come to the national parks each year. The course that must be followed, then, is one of permitting modification of the natural scene only to the degree required to provide for perpetual enjoyment of “the scenery, the natural and historic objects and the wildlife.” The relations between man and the wildlife of the national parks are complex. Both occupy the parks, with equal rights to that occupancy. It can scarcely be argued that man is not a part of the natural scene; certainly there is nothing essentially unnatural in the progress of our civilization from the dawn of history to the present. In the national parks, however, the unimpaired values to be preserved are those of the primitive natural scene. Man can strive to maintain these values, unimpaired, because he has the power of reason. Through that power he can recognize the effect of his conflict with nature, and so prevent the destruction of the primitive natural scene by a proper regulation of his acts. Specifically, the wildlife problems now readily recognized in Mount Rainier National Park are those which have developed because of relations between man and mammals. The deer, bear, and raccoon are outstanding examples. In the developed areas of the park many of these animals have become so accustomed to the proximity of man that they no longer exhibit timidity in his presence. They are essentially “wild” animals, yet because of close association with man for several wildlife generations, they may be practically considered as “semi-domestic” animals. This “semi-domesticity” is a problem in itself. First, it is not in keeping with the primitive natural scene. The true wildlife picture is not one of a deer eating from a visitor’s hand; that is scarcely more natural than seeing the animal within the fenced enclosure of a zoo. The artificial feeding of any form of wildlife is objectionable for several other reasons. Such feeding encourages an unnatural concentration of the animals in restricted localities, thus increasing the danger of the spread of any contagious disease or infection. In the case of deer, feeding affects, often disastrously, the normal habit of migration to lower elevations in winter. Deer encouraged by feeding to remain at Longmire, for example, encounter difficult times during the winter months. Natural forage is buried beneath the snow, migratory routes to the lowlands are blocked, and starvation is not unusual. In every instance, experience has shown that when animals are hand-fed, petted, and tamed, the results have been detrimental to both the animals and to man. The “tamed” animals are often dangerous, or may become so. Even the harmless appearing deer may, and do, inflict severe injuries by striking with the fore feet or hooking with the antlers, and bears often strike or bite, once they have lost their instinctive fear of man. When any animal becomes dangerous, the only solutions are to eliminate the danger by killing the animal, or to live-trap and remove it to a more isolated section of the park. The latter is often a temporary expedient because the animal is likely to return almost at once to its original home. “Semi-domestic” bears may become unruly. Such animals must be live-trapped and removed to isolated sections of the park. A wary bruin is often suspicious of the trap. That many park visitors are entirely unaware of the concept of presenting wildlife in its natural setting is exemplified by the man who dashed excitedly into the Chief Ranger’s office and breathlessly exclaimed, “Hey, one of your bears is loose!” Park animals are not “zoo animals.” They have simply adapted themselves to man’s presence, and although their habits have been materially changed in many instances, they retain the wild instinct to fight when cornered, to strike back against a real or fancied danger, to quarrel with anything which seeks to rob them of food. It seems hardly necessary to emphasize the futility of attempting to argue the right to possession of a choice morsel with a three-hundred-pound bear. Bears are often condemned as nuisances because they rob the camper’s food cache, even to the extent of forcing open locked cupboards or entering automobiles. Raccoons may make a shambles of food stores, if the larder is left unprotected. That these things are nuisances is true, but had the animals not been encouraged to expect food, it is unlikely that they would go to such lengths to obtain it. The original approach was undoubtedly made by man, not by the animal, and man has little reason It appears then, that these wildlife problems, which have developed through man’s influence upon the animals, have been brought about by man’s failure to employ his power of reason, his failure to recognize the effect he may have upon the natural scene. Indeed, it would seem, in many instances, that man is the problem, not the animals. They have adapted themselves to a condition at variance with their nature; man has failed to do so. These problems, and others which are similar, are not impossible of solution. Of the many phases of wildlife management that are a part of the adjustments to be made in our relations with the animals of the parks, these of living together must be approached by our recognition of the need for such adjustment. The late George M. Wright has well expressed the goal to be attained:
|
|
