Volume 10 Number 3

Yellowstone ScienceA quarterly publication devoted to the natural and cultural resources

An Interview with Richard Leakey

Wildlife Viewing: What Visitors Want

Draper Museum Debut

The Passing of a Matriarch

It was one of those indelible impressions thathas remained with me all my life, althoughat the time, I couldn’t quite grasp how it

would ultimately take me on a path that would leadto Yellowstone. I was a child of maybe twelve,lying on the floor of the family room one evening,watching a PBS nature show with my parents. Backthen, such programs were special television events.My parent’s would let me stay up late on a schoolnight to catch the most recent National Geographicspecial or Jacques Cousteau’s latest undersea adventure to some far off distant place. Of course this was before the advent ofThe Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, and the rest of today’s cable programming that offers endless opportunities to expe-rience nature 24/7.

On this particular night, I was introduced to the Serengeti of Africa and followed with fascination a year in the life of oneof that continent’s most abundant large mammals, the wildebeest. For some unexplained reason, the vastness of that landscapeand the trials and tribulations of these animals resonated deeply with me.

Although I have yet to make it to Africa, life’s journey has lead me to the “American Serengeti” that is Yellowstone. It iswith great interest that we feature an interview with the renowned Kenyan conservationist Richard Leakey, which articulatesthe common challenges and the shared spirit of these two wild places on different continents. This spring, Dr. Leakey joinedthe community of Cody, Wyoming, to commemorate the opening of the Draper Museum of Natural History, the latest addi-tion to the Buffalo Bill Historical Center. The Draper explores the natural and human dimensions that comprise and sometimesstruggle to coexist within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

In a wide-ranging discussion with the YCR’s Paul Schullery and public affairs chief Marsha Karle, Leakey reflects on thesimilarities and contrasts between Yellowstone and the wildlife preserves of Kenya. His observations are quite provocative;challenging old schools of thought and offering lessons from his African experience. I found it interesting that among the staffhere at Yellowstone Science, Leakey’s views ignited a lively debate filled with spirited discussion, some disagreement, andabove all, an expressed passion for Yellowstone and what it represents. I hope it will do the same for our readers. For, whilewe may look back smugly at some of the seemingly naïve or misguided beliefs that previous generations have held about themanagement of natural resources, Dr. Leakey now calls us to question some of our own.

It is no coincidence, then, that the many things Leakey touches on in his interview echo through the other articles in thisissue of Yellowstone Science. With interesting results, Alice Wondrak surveys the attitudes and expectations the public bringsto seeing wildlife in the park. Wolf project leader, Doug Smith offers a tribute to wolf #7 and the contributions she made inher eight years to ensuring the restoration of her kind to the park. And lastly, in News and Notes, the park’s evolving rela-tionship with its affiliated tribes strikes an interesting parallel to Leakey’s views on the Maasai and their centuries old rela-tionship to Africa’s wildlife.

In the end, I find that the lessons from Yellowstone and from Africa, though not always exactly comparable, evoke a com-mon message. When I read Richard Leakey’s words, I am reminded of another African emissary of an earlier generation whosought answers on the world’s second largest continent. Albert Schweitzer, the 1954 Noble Peace prize winner, once observed:

“Slowly we crept upstream on one of the long African errands of mercy. Lost in thought I sat on the deck of thebarge, struggling to find the elementary and universal conception of the ethical which I had not discovered in anyphilosophy. Sheet after sheet I covered with disconnected sentences, merely to keep myself concentrated on the prob -lem. Late on the third day, at the very moment when, at sunset, we were making our way through a herd of hip -popotamuses, there flashed upon my mind, unforeseen and unsought, the phrase, ‘Reverence for Life.’ The iron doorhad yielded: the path in the thicket had become visible…I cannot but have reverence for all that is called life. I can -not avoid compassion for everything that is called life. That is the beginning and foundation of morality.”

RJA

Africa’s Baobab tree.

A LivelyConversation

NPS photo.

Yellowstone ScienceA quarterly publication devoted to the natural and cultural resources

Volume 10 Number 3 Summer 2002

Editor

Roger J. AndersonRoger_J_Anderson@nps.gov

Assistant Editor and Design

Renée EvanoffAssistant Editors

Tami BlackfordMary Ann FrankeKevin Schneider

Alice K. Wondrak

Printing

Artcraft, Inc. Bozeman, Montana

Table of Contents

Yellowstone Science is published quarterly, and submissions are welcome from all investigatorsconducting formal research in the Yellowstone area. To submit proposals for articles, to subscribe

to Yellowstone Science, or to send a letter to the editor, please write to the following address:Editor, Yellowstone Science, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190.

You may also email: Roger_J_Anderson@nps.gov.Support for Yellowstone Science is provided by the Yellowstone Association, a

non-profit educational organization dedicated to serving the park and its visitors.For more information about the association, including membership, or to donate

to the production of Yellowstone Science, write to:Yellowstone Association, P.O. Box 117, Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190.

The opinions expressed in Yellowstone Science are the authors’and may not reflect eitherNational Park Service policy or the views of the Yellowstone Center for Resources.

Copyright © 2002, the Yellowstone Association for Natural Science, History & Education.Yellowstone Science is printed on recycled paper with a linseed oil-based ink.

Yellowstone Wildlife Watching: A survey of visitor 2attitudes and desiresA closer look at the expectations the public brings to wildlife watching.by Alice K. Wondrak

Science, Sentiment, and Advocacy 8The Kenyan conservationist focuses in on Yellowstone.Interview with Richard Leakey

The Draper Museum of Natural History 12A new museum interprets the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Wolf #7: The Passing of a Matriarch 18Yellowstone’s wolf project leader reflects on the contributions of onealpha female in restoring wolves to the park.by Douglas W. Smith

News and Notes 20Yellowstone’s Land Managers Deliberate the Complexities of Preservation •New Wide-Screen Film for Old Faithful Visitor Center • Ranger AdventureHikes Program Expanded • Wayne Brewster Receives Resource ManagmentAward • New Courthouse Proposed • Brucellosis Symposium Scheduled •New Framework for Winter Use of Parks • Yellowstone Interagency ScienceConference Coming • Fuel Cell Installed • Grizzlies Struck by Vehicles •See a Bear? Don’t Drop that Pack! • New Publications Available

Cover photos: Yellowstone elk, SandraNykerk; Yellowstone bison, and wilde -beest on the Serengeti, William Campbell;African elephant, Kenya, Darren Ireland.Above: Old Faithful bear feedinggrounds, 1920s, courtesy of DavidMonteith.

Yellowstone Science2

Background

For 60 years or so, Yellowstone wasthe place where visitors came to feedthe bears. People got hurt, bears gotkilled, and the National Park Service(NPS) got sued, but still the park’smanagers failed to see how it wouldever be possible, or even desirable, toend the roadside feeding which was atonce so desired and so detrimental.With the 1963 release of the Leopoldand Robbins Reports, however, camenew ideas about what parks were forand how they and their wildliferesources should be managed, whichwere interpreted by Yellowstone’s man-agers as necessitating a naturalizingprocess throughout the park. And thatmeant getting black bears to stop eatingmarshmallows at the roadside and extri-cating grizzlies from the park’s soon-to-be-closed open pit dumps.

To some, it also meant removing thecolored streamers that some of thepark’s grizzlies wore in their ears forresearch purposes, and minimizing theamount of marking (such as ear tagsand radio collars) seen on the park’swildlife in the future. A rg u m e n t sagainst marking were based on the con-tention that it gave the animals an“unnatural” appearance that visitorsdidn’t like, and “unnatural” was unde-sirable at a time when the parks werecharged with creating landscapes thatrepresented “vignettes of primitiveAmerica.” Biologists John and FrankCraighead, who had placed the mark-ings on the park’s grizzlies in thecourse of the groundbreaking studies ofthe animals, maintained that most visi-tors never saw the markings, and thatmany of those who did were more

intrigued than bothered by them (thiswas but one of many things upon whichthe Craigheads and the NPS disagreedover the years).

In 1968, Ye l l ow s t o n e ’s rangersfinally started enforcing the no-feedingregulations that had existed in the parksince 1902, and roadside feeding wasended within a couple of years. By1971 or so it was uncommon to see aroadside bear, and unhappy visitorswere demanding to know where theyhad all gone. The park generally pro-vided a prescriptive response to thesequeries, informing visitors that seeingfewer bears leading natural lives was apreferable experience to seeing manybears being denigrated by begging. Didvisitors believe it? Some did, somedidn’t; the process of convincing visi-tors to “think like an ecosystem” in thewake of the vast policy changes of thepast 35 years has been a long one, andthe goal of this work was to gauge howfar we’ve come, and catch a glimpse ofhow far we might have to go.

On the whole, park staff will tellyou that although marmots, bighornsheep, and elk are fed by visitors morefrequently than bears are these days, thedesire to feed Yellowstone’s bears stillexists in the hearts of some. That maycome as a shock to those of us naïveenough to believe that 30 years ofactive law enforcement, NPS educa-tional efforts, PBS nature show s ,Grizzly!-type horror films, and wilder-ness ideology should have been enoughto quell anyone’s desire to hand-feedthese massive, wild omnivores. But it isso, and what it demonstrates is thestrength and lasting power of thoseimages and attitudes that started todevelop the very first time people gath-

ered to watch bears eat garbage outbehind the Fountain Hotel back in the1890s. The question that drives thisarticle is, just how strong and wide-spread is the desire to feed: how wellhave visitors received the park’s anti-feeding messages over the years—is itjust the fear of getting caught that keepsthem from feeding? Or have visitorslearned over the years, whether frompark literature or outside sources, of thedangers that feeding brings to bothhumans and bears, and accepted thatknowledge and incorporated it as theirown?

The Survey

Over the course of 13 days in May–August 2001, I administered a 15-ques-tion survey to a random sample of 150visitors in the Old Faithful geyser view-ing area. The survey assessed attitudesand desires in regard to a number ofissues related to wildlife watching inYellowstone. The initial questions ofmy survey were designed to get visitorswarmed up and thinking about theirexpectations for their Yellowstone ex-perience, and to measure their level ofp r evious experience with the park.Archival research seems to show thatfear of punishment was the primaryfactor in finally ending bear feeding ascommon practice in the park. Thus, in akey survey question (about whether vis-itors wanted to feed bears, and why orwhy not), punishment was hypotheti-cally eliminated as a potential deterrentto feeding in order to determinewhether or not fear of punitive conse-quences was the reason that today’s vis-itors generally don’t feed the bears. Theother major question surveyed people’s

Yellowstone Wildlife WatchingA survey of visitor attitudes and desires

by Alice K. Wondrak

Summer 2002 3

attitudes toward seeing collared wild-life, which remains controve r s i a lamong researchers and managerstoday.

Results

Demographics: Ninety-nine percentof all visitors interviewed were white.Fifty-five percent were female, while45% were male. Twenty-eight percentwere aged 18–29, 27% were 30–45,22% were between 46 and 55, and 23%were 56 or older. Respondent house-hold income ranged from less than$10,000 per annum to over $100,000.S i x t y - s even percent described them-selves as married, 24% as single, and9% as other (divorced, widowed, or in along-term relationship). Ten percent ofall respondents lived in foreign coun-tries. Fifty-four percent of American re-spondents were from states west of theMississippi River, 46% from east of it.

Expectations

Background: To get them thinkingabout their desires and expectations fortheir visit, respondents were asked toname three things that they hoped tosee while in Yellowstone. Because myresearch is wildlife-related, visitorswho answered simply, “wildlife,” or“ a n i m a l s ,” were prompted as towhether there were any specific kindsof wildlife they were particularly inter-ested in seeing. No specific specieswere suggested; however, respondentswere never asked if they were interest-ed in seeing bears, for example, orwolves. The specific animals named byrespondents came strictly from them.Interviewees were not prompted whengiving other general answers, such as“scenery” or “thermal features.”

Question: What do you most hope tosee while in Yellowstone? If you could,name three things.

Results: There were a fairly widerange of desired sights, but most couldbe categorized in terms of eitherwildlife, thermal features, or naturalscenic features. Figure 1 show sresponses that occurred at least 10% ofthe time, demonstrating that among

those interviewed for this project,Yellowstone’s most desired sights wereOld Faithful, bears, wildlife, thermalfeatures, bison, moose, scenery, elk,grizzly bears, waterfalls, and wolves,respectively.i

Old Faithful and bears appear toremain the park’s most popular sightsby far, with a little more than half of allrespondents naming them as one of thethree things they most wanted to seewhile in the park.

These answers, of course, should beconsidered within their context. WhileOld Faithful was the feature mentionedmost often (53% of the time), it shouldbe remembered that visitors were inter-viewed while sitting in front of OldFaithful, waiting for it to erupt, and sowere probably likely to remember tomention that the geyser was one of thethings they most wanted to see inYellowstone. Similarly, animals such asbison and elk, although popular in theirown right, are also frequently visiblealong the roads which approach the OldFaithful area from the park’s most pop-ular entrance (the West Entrance), andso some visitors may have been simplynaming sights that they had alreadyseen. When asked, several did just that.Musing, “well, we saw a bison on theway in, we wanted to see that, and Ithink a deer…” was not atypical.

The frequency with which visitorsmentioned wanting to see a bear, how-

ever, (52% of the time) is less likelyexplained in this way. Bears are notcommonly visible along the roadbetween the West Entrance and OldFaithful, and many visitors, when stat-ing that they would like to see a bear,specifically added that they had not yetseen one or did not really expect to seeone. Therefore, it seems certain thatthese visitors associated bears withYellowstone by reputation, rather thanbecause of recent experience or visualconvenience, i.e., because they werelooking at them.

Question: On a scale of 1–5, with 1being not very important and 5 beingvery important, how important is it toyou to see a bear during your visit?

Results: Interestingly, in spite of thefact that an impressive one-half of thevisitors interviewed had stated,unprompted, that a bear was one of thethree sights they most wanted to see, itwas not crucial to most people that theysee one. When asked to measure, on ascale of 1–5, how important it was tothem to see a bear during their visit, theoverall average answer was 3.29—somewhere in the middle (this includeda “minus 5” from a man traveling bymotorcycle who was clearly less thaninterested in encountering a bear duringhis visit). Many people added that theywould like to see one, “but it wouldn’truin the trip if I don’t,” “but I won’t

Yellowstone Science4

commit suicide if it doesn’t happen,” or“but I know they’re hard to see.”

C o n c l u s i o n s : O verall, it appearsthat visitors come to Yellowstone todayto see the things they have always cometo see; extraordinary thermal features,wildlife—bears in particular—andbeautiful scenery. The only ave r a g eimportance of seeing a bear to the over-all quality of one’s trip would seem toindicate that although visitors still com-monly associate bears and Yellowstone,seeing a bear is no longer a driving rea-son for making the trip, in spite of thefact that they still appear to be one ofthe park’s main attractions in the visitormind.

Collared Wildlife

B a ck g ro u n d : The debate ove rwhether wild animals living in nationalparks and wilderness areas should becollared for scientific monitoring pur-poses has raged almost since theCraighead brothers pioneered the tech-nique in Yellowstone during the 1960s.Collars and other markers have gottensmaller and less conspicuous over theyears, and in order to further minimizetheir visibility, today’s managers evenfrequently wrap collars in dark-coloredtape. Nevertheless, there are those whostill hold the line established bySuperintendent Jack Anderson (1967–1975), maintaining that any visiblemarking is deleterious to the viewingexperience and makes the marked ani-mal seem “less than wild” because it isan indication of interaction with

humanity. In this way, collaring shakesthe façade of untouched nature thatmany people attribute to national parksand wilderness areas.

Other critics point out that collaringrequires that animals be drugged andhandled, which has in the past provento be potentially dangerous for bothwildlife and managers. A d vances indrug technology have greatly decreasedthe potential for hazard in recent years,but the possibility of injury or deathduring capture, immobilization, or (inextremely rare instances) afterwa r dcontinues to exist. Still others complainthat the collars look uncomfortable andthat we should simply “leave wildlifealone” and “stop studying them todeath;” a rather common expressionwhich originated in the days when ani-mal deaths caused by immobilizingdrugs were more common than they aretoday.

Proponents of collaring maintainthat the amount and quality of knowl-edge which can be obtained from mon-itoring certain members of an animalpopulation far outweighs the negativevisual effects and small potential fordanger. Innovations in GPS technologyhave greatly increased the scope of thatk n owledge in recent years. A m o n gother things, researchers can now learnthe extent of an animal’s range, meas-ure its lifespan, discover what sorts offood sources might hold it in a certainplace for extended periods of time,track its reproductive history, and findout how it uses land throughout the dayand night—all of which is valuableinformation for managers charged withmaking land use decisions within theGreater Ye l l owstone Ecosystem andprotecting endangered species such asthe grizzly. It is important to note thatthis number of collared animals in thepark changes as studies are introducedand concluded.

Question: a) Have you seen any parkanimals wearing radio collars or eartags?

Results: Roughly 23% of the visi-tors interviewed believed that they hadseen an animal wearing a radio collar oran ear tag.ii Elk were most frequentlynoted as having been marked, and as

was earlier stated, are a fairly commonsight along the road between OldFaithful and the park’s most popular(West) entrance.

Question: b) If yes (or “if you did seethat”), did that affect (or “do you thinkthat it would affect”) your experienceof viewing that animal, one way or theother? Make it better or worse?

Results: “No impact/positive im-pact.” Of those 23% (35 people) whobelieved that they had seen an animalwearing a radio collar or an ear tag,77% (27 people) said that seeing themarking had had no adverse impact ontheir experience of viewing that animal.Visitors who had not seen any animalswearing radio collars or ear tags wereasked to imagine their reaction to see-ing such an animal. Of those, 86% (97people) believed that seeing an animalwearing a collar or a tag would have noimpact on their experience of viewingthat animal. Although those who saidthat seeing a collared animal would notdepreciate their experience were notgenerally prompted to explain why not,

Radio-collared elk, YellowstoneNational Park. Author photo.

Figure 2. Have you seen any park ani -mals wearing radio collars or ear tags?

Figure 3. Did/would seeing a collaredanimal in Yellowstone affect your expe -rience of viewing that animal?

Summer 2002 5

21 of them (17%) volunteered that theywo u l d n ’t be bothered because theyk n ew why collaring was done andbelieved it to be a positive thing. Oneman went so far as to say that seeing acollar would actually enhance his view-ing experience for that reason.

“ N egative impact.” Tw e n t y - t h r e epercent (8 people) of visitors who hadseen a marked animal said that seeingthe marking had adversely impactedtheir experience of viewing that animal.These respondents were prompted toexplain why such had been the case.Three said that the collar had made theanimal seem less natural. One personeach said that the collar had lookeduncomfortable for the animal, thatwildlife should be “left alone,” and thatwildlife should be “allowed to be free.”Two people were ambiguous as to theirreasons, with one saying that “it wouldbe better to see one without one but Iunderstand why they do it,” and theother not specifying a reason.

Of those visitors who had not seen amarked animal but were asked to imag-ine their reaction, 14% (16 people) saidthey thought that their viewing experi-ence would be adversely impacted bythe marking. These respondents werealso asked to explain why this would bethe case, with the overall result that 12of the 24 people total who said that theyhad been or would be bothered by see-ing collared wildlife said that it wasbecause it seemed “unnatural,” withone adding that collared wildlife wereunsuitable for wildlife photography forthis reason. Three people said that theythought the collar would be uncomfort-able for the animal to wear, and twoeach said that “wildlife should be leftalone” and that “animals should befree.” Two people said that they wouldbe bothered by seeing traces that theanimal had interacted with humans, andtwo people said that they would bebothered because they wouldn’t knowwhy the animal was wearing a collar.

Lack of knowledge seemed to be abit of a problem in regard to collaring.Although they were not asked abouttheir knowledge, a total of 4% of allrespondents stated that they did notknow why collaring was done, with onerespondent initially stating that she

would be bothered by seeing a collaredanimal because “it would make me sadthat [the animal] had to wear a collarbecause [it] had been fed by people”(she changed her mind after her hus-band explained what the collars weretypically used for). Five people wereambivalent about collaring, stating thatthey knew and appreciated the reasonswhy it is done, but still didn’t like see-ing it.

Conclusions: Overall, this researchshows that more than 4 out of 5 visitorssurveyed said that seeing an animalmarked for scientific purposes eitherhad had or would have had no impacton their experience of viewing that ani-mal. In fact, in some instances, thelong-held contention by some scientiststhat far from being a bad thing, visitors’seeing marked animals was a positivebyproduct of research because it gener-ated public interest in science andwildlife conservation proved to be true.The percentage of people who hadactually seen a marked animal and beenbothered by it, however, was higherthan the percentage of people who hadnot seen a marked animal but thoughtthey would be bothered by it, remind-ing us that there is a gap between howpeople imagine their reactions and whatthey actually turn out to be. But evenamong those who had seen a collaredanimal, more than 3 out of 4 said thatthe marking had had no impact on theirv i ewing experience, indicating thatmost visitors may not cling as tightly toan ideal of “pure, untouched” Yellow-stone as we may have thought they did,or as they actually did at times in thepast.

Awareness of Bear Feeding

B a ck g ro u n d : This question wa sdesigned as a contextual precursor toasking visitors whether they wo u l dwant to feed the bears today.

Question: Are you aware that severaldecades ago, it was common for peopleto see many bears along Yellowstone’sroadsides, begging for food?

Results: About three-quarters of vis-itors surveyed (76%) answered that yes,they were aware that people used to

feed bears at the roadsides. The 24%who did not know that such was com-mon practice in the past were informedthat the activity had always beenagainst the rules but that those ruleswere not enforced until the late 1960s,and that a visitor in the 1950s mighthave expected to see between 40 and 50bears a day along Yellowstone’s roads.

Overall, 37% of those who were notaware of roadside feeding were 18–29(this age group comprised 28% of thetotal sample), 28% were 30–45 (27% ofthe total sample), 19% were 46–55(22% of the total sample), 5% were56–65, and none were over 65 (com-bined, 23% of the total sample).

Conclusions: Though they haven’tbeen seen for three decades, the reputa-tion of Yellowstone’s begging bears stillprecedes the bears of today. Visitors’k n owledge of this past activ i t yappeared to be correlative to age, withawareness increasing with visitor age.Awareness was low among those fromoutside the U.S., especially among theyounger age groups.

Would You Want to Feed a Bear inYellowstone?

B a ck g ro u n d : Because enforcementappears to have been the driving forcebehind ending bear feeding in Yellow-stone, and I was interested in findingout whether visitors still had any desireto feed the bears, I asked them whetherthey would want to feed a Yellowstonebear if they did not have to fear beingcaught or punished for doing so.iii

Question: Today, the rules againstfeeding bears are strictly enforced. Butduring the years of the roadside bearsthat I just mentioned, they weren’t. Ifwe existed in a kind of vacuum heretoday, and you could feed bears inYellowstone today without being afraidof getting caught or punished, do youthink that’s something you would wantto do?

R e s u l t s: Although there are, ofcourse, gaps between what people willsay they might do when queried out ofcontext and what they might actually dowhen placed in the midst of a situation,the results were overwhelming; 95% of

Yellowstone Science6

visitors surveyed said that no, theywould not want to feed Yellowstone’sbears, even if they would suffer no legalconsequences for doing so. Eight peo-ple (5%) stated that yes, if they coulddo it without fear of reprisal, theywould want to feed a bear inYellowstone.

Question: Why not?Results: “That’s unsafe.”A s k i n g

these people “why not” frequentlyearned me incredulous looks.iv In sum,43% of all those who answered “no”cited safety reasons (Figure 4). Notableresponses falling into this categ o r yincluded, “a bear can attack me,” “itmight kill me or scratch my car,” “youdon’t mess with bears,” “I’m chicken,”and “you can’t have people goingaround getting themselves killed.” Itseems clear that 21st century visitors toYellowstone are fairly well aware of therisks associated with bear feeding. Tenpercent of all people interviewed saidthat they would not want to feed thebears for safety reasons alone. Eighty-nine percent of people who said theywould not want to feed a bear providedmore than one reason why not.v

“That’s bad for the bears.” The sec-ond-most popular explanation for notwanting to feed the bears related to theidea that bear-feeding is bad for bears.Concerns cited in this category includ-ed, accurately, the popular adage that “afed bear is a dead bear;” 10 peopleexplained that bears which gain access

to human foods have to be either relo-cated or killed, because they will invari-ably return in search for more and thenbecome hazardous nuisances. Others(25% of those who said no) knew thatbears that were fed would becomedependent upon human foods, andsome worried that they would be unableto survive in the winter, “when there’sno one there to feed them.” Eleven per-cent mentioned the possibility that theymight even lose their natural instinctsand skills for foraging altogether. Athird supposition was that human foodswould be unhealthy for bears; that theyare “not the right food” (8%). In all,32% of the people who said they wouldnot want to feed bears alluded to thefact that to do so would be to the detri-ment of the bears.

“That’s unnatural.” Sixteen percentof those who would not feed said theywere opposed to the idea because it was“unnatural” in some way. Thirteen per-cent said they would not feed the bearsbecause they were “wild,” and eightpercent said that they wouldn’t feedbecause the bears would cease to bewild if they were fed.

“ T h a t ’s bad for people.” F i f t e e npercent indicated that feeding had neg-ative effects on people. The most com-mon responses here had to do with theidea that people feeding the bears todaywill cause trouble for those who visittomorrow, in that they will leave behinda habituated bear who may cause prop-erty damage or bodily injury in its

search for human foodstuffs. Other reasons for not feeding

included “we just want to look, not totouch” (8%), “wildlife should not befed” (8%), a desire to follow the rules(6%), “that’s stupid” (6%, once accom-panied by, “If I saw someone doingthat, I would hit them”), “that wouldmake it like a zoo” (4%), a concern thathuman feeding would disrupt the cycleof nature (4%), an overall feeling thatfeeding is “just not right” (3%), and asimple lack of desire to feed (2%).

As with the question of collaring,there was some ambivalence amongthose who said that they would notfeed. In a clear case either of conflict-ing internal philosophies or of sayingwhat one thinks one should say andthen what one really feels, one womancommented, “I know human food is notappropriate for wildlife—wildlifeneeds to be with the ecosystem as it is.Have they ever thought about sellingfood that could be used for that?”

Question: Why?Results: Of the eight people who

said they would want to feed a bear inYellowstone, five said that they woulddo it in order to be able to get close to abear. The remaining three said that theywould feed because “they’re hungry,”“it seems like the humane thing to do,”and “I’ve just always fed animals. Likesquirrels.” Four were men and fourwere women, and half were in the 18–29 age group. Two were 30–45, and oneeach was 45–55 and 56–65. Three ofthese visitors lived in Idaho (a ratherdisproportionate turn of events, as onlyfive respondents total were from Idaho)with the others hailing from Colorado,South Dakota, Wisconsin, New Jersey,and Georgia.

Conclusions: If one of the precondi-tions for civil obedience of a rule is thatits constituency believes in its legitima-cy, then the NPS appears not to have aproblem in regard to bear feeding, as atleast 95% of those interviewed agreedthat there are legitimate reasons whypeople should not feed bears inYellowstone, and were aware of whatsome of those reasons are. This conclu-sion, however, should be taken with theearlier caveat which tells us to mind the

Summer 2002 7

gap between decontextualized state-ments and contextualized action, andkeeping in mind a 1953 visitor surveyby researcher Donald Bock, in whichalmost everyone claimed to have seensomeone else feeding a bear but almostno one would admit to having done itthemselves.

It also does not bespeak any need toreduce either the numbers of staff avail-able to patrol bear jams, nor the wildlifewarnings that are conveyed via inter-pretive materials, as this question didnot address whether people wo u l dapproach a bear without the intent tofeed. In fact, two people, in the courseof emphatically stating that they wouldwant to stay far away from bears,named “50 feet” as being the properdistance—a full 250 feet closer than the100-yard distance required by law.Surveys have been conducted whichfound that as a group, Yellowstone’svisitors tend to greatly underestimatethe distance from which wildlife view-ing can be safely conducted. The con-tinuing need for both education andvigilance is shown by the fact that halfof those who wanted to feed the bearswere in the lowest age group and by thedecrease in awareness of past feedingas age increases.

In other words, the practical man-agement implications of my results forthis question may be minimal, exceptfor the fact that we have learned thatpeople are generally aware, at thispoint, of at least some of the reasonswhy they shouldn’t feed bears. What ismore important here are the indicationsfor changing visitor expectations, expe-rience, and attitudes, as well as the factthat residual desire for bear feeding stillexists.

Conclusions

This research provides an overviewof the kind of expectations and precon-ceived notions that visitors bring withthem to Yellowstone relative to wildlifeand bears in particular these days. Italso shows that on the whole,Yellowstone’s visitors are not particu-larly bothered by seeing collared orotherwise marked wildlife, that theystill strongly associate bears with the

Alice Wondrak is a writer-editor at the Yellowstone Center for Resources and a life -long lover of Yellowstone. In August 2002 she graduated with a Ph.D. inGeography from the University of Colorado at Boulder. This article is an excerptfrom her dissertation, (Do Not) Feed the Bears: Policy, Culture, and the HistoricalNarrative of the Yellowstone Bear. Alice’s dissertation research was supported bya ge n e rous grant from the CanonNational Park Science Sch o l a rs Pro -gram. Alice and her fiancé, Mark, live inGardiner, Montana.

park but don’t necessarily expect to see them anymore, and are aware of the pasthistory of bear feeding in Yellowstone. And although they don’t claim to be keento feed a bear in Yellowstone, the gap between those who would and those whowouldn’t gets smaller with youth, and it is the young who are probably the leastaware of the park’s history in this regard. It is also the young, however, who seemthe most incredulous to hear of it, which should be encouraging news for thosecharged with keeping the bears natural and the people watching, rather than par-ticipating in, their daily lives.

Yellowstone National Park bear management staff talk with visitors at a “bearjam,” 2001. Author photo.

i A vote for “grizzly bear” alsocounted as a vote for “bear.”

ii It should be noted that this is notindicative of the percentage of ani-mals in the park that are collared, as asingle elk standing by the roadsidemay be seen by hundreds of people aday.

iii This question was also designedto remind people that feeding wildlifeis illegal and punishable in today’sYellowstone, in spite of whether ornot they might want to do so.

iv All respondents were prompted toexplain their answer to question 13.

v This is why the numbers in Fig. 4don’t add up to 100%.

Yellowstone Science8

A s part of the events associated with topening of the Draper Museum ofN a t u ral History at the Buffalo Bill

Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming, Kenyan sci -entist and conservationist Richard Leakey wasinvited to deliver several addresses, including thekeynote speech during the opening ceremony onJune 4, 2002. (The opening of the Draper Museumis covered on pages 12 and 13 in this issue ofYellowstone Science.)

Dr. Leakey, son of the renowned paleoanthro -pologists Mary and Louis Leakey, was born inKenya in 1944. His remarkable early fossil dis -c overies, funded by the National Geog ra p h i c

Society, led to his appointment, at the age of 25, as director of the National Museums of Kenya, a position he held for about20 years. In 1989, he was appointed director of Kenya’s Department of Wildlife and Conservation Management (later theKenya Wildlife Service), a position he held until 1994, and again from 1998 to 1999, followed by a two-year term as head ofcivil service and secretary to the Cabinet. He continues to be embroiled in Kenya’s stormy political scene, and has survivedbeatings, relentless political intrigues, and a plane crash in which he lost both lower legs; many still believe this crash wasan assassination attempt.

Dr. Leakey’s scientific achievements, his leadership in fighting political corruption and the destruction of Kenya’s naturalresources, and his prominence as a global spokesman for conservation, have resulted in many awards, including Gold Medalsfrom the Royal Geographic Society and the Scottish Geographical Society, the Hubbard Medal of the National GeographicSociety, and numerous honorary doctorates. His books include Origins; The Origin of Humankind; The Sixth Extinction; andmost recently, Wildlife Wars: My Fight to Save Africa’s Natural Treasures.

This interview was conducted by former Yellowstone Science editor Paul Schullery and Yellowstone chief of public affairsMarsha Karle at the Buffalo Bill Historical Center following the opening ceremonies for the Draper Museum.

Science, Sentiment, and AdvocacyAn Interview with Richard Leakey

Sue Consolo Murphy photo.

BBHC photo.

Summer 2002 9

ally there are sometimes tensions andoccasional controversy between parkmanagers and surrounding communi-ties, but you will be pleased to knowthat the specialists in education in thepark and the specialists here at theBuffalo Bill Historical Center are onvery good terms.

RL: Yes, I’m sure that’s the case,and I’ve seen this in other countriesincluding my own. And that’s theimportant thing.

The politics of administration andleadership of institutions and communi-ties is in part a turf issue of course, andI’ve played that game too. I know whatthat’s about. If you’ve attended the var-ious functions where I’ve spoken, Ithink you’ll appreciate that one of thepoints I’ve tried to make is that I comeat this question [only] partly as a scien-tist. I’m a farmer; I’ve put quite a bit ofmoney into land. I’ve been a politician,and I’ve been an administrator at thehighest level you get, so I’ve seen thissort of issue from every corner of thebox. And I understand the difficulties. Ithink it’s very challenging.

Yellowstone and the Perception ofNature

YS: During the speeches you’vegiven this week, you’ve said that whenyou were young you heard of Yellow-stone and found a certain inspiration ink n owing that Ye l l owstone was this

Museums in Greater Yellowstone

Ye l l owstone Science (YS): L e t ’sstart with where we are today, at thisoutstanding new natural history exhibit.To newcomers, it might seem odd thatGreater Yellowstone should be blessedwith so many fine museums, and nowwe have the Draper Museum of NaturalHistory to add to the list. With so manywonders of nature available, why aremuseums important in this region? Inother words, why should people visit-ing this extraordinary region go into amuseum—especially a natural historymuseum—when they can stay outsideand experience the real thing instead?

Richard Leakey (RL): To me, as aformer museum person and educatorand writer, there is an initial “Wow!”value to a canyon or a forest or a bear oran elephant. And then the wow-value isquickly dissipated. To really understandwhat it is that wowed you, and to give itcontext and depth, is very rarely possi-ble for somebody looking at the realthing, because they ’re generally notwith people who have the time [toexplain it all]. And yet if you can under-stand the wow, the drama, the awe,through displays and interactive infor-mation kits and things of that kind, thelife of the wow, the life of the awe, isautomatically increased and becomesdeeper. And I think these little visitorcenters are often not enough, becausethey don’t really explain the depth.They’re too small, and you go in andwhat you’re looking for is where thenext picnic site is that has a flushingtoilet. You went in the visitor center tohave your lunch, or have your tea, orhave your pee.

So I think that there is a role formuseums, but the museums are veryseldom tied to something as specific asone ecosystem. They’re very seldomdesigned from the outset to do that task.

Y S : But the Draper Museum isexceptionally well designed to do it.

RL: I find this museum exciting inthat it appears that in the last four yearsa group of people have come togetherand thought about the value of havingsomething like this. But I’ve said toChuck [Charles Preston, curator of the

Draper Museum], and I’ve said it to anumber of people, I think you’ve donea great job getting this far, but the toughwork is ahead. Can you now providethe continuing excitement of the facili-ty and make sure that the awe ofYellowstone and the ecosystem contin-ues to be pushed at people who arecoming through? Have you got theenergy and the money to keep the placedoing that job? And I think this is rele-vant to say: can you persuade people ona different turf, that is the park people,that you’re a complement not a com-petitor? And no, this can’t replace thereal thing, but the real thing can’t givewhat this gives to the average visitor. Idon’t know if that answers your ques-tion.

YS: It does. The interpretive rangerswho work in the park’s visitor centerswould agree that many people justcome in to find the Coke machine or thebathroom, but they would add thatmany others have real questions andreal excitement, and are looking forhelp to learn about the place.

RL: Absolutely.Y S : And the visitors who hurry

through don’t necessarily get thatdepth.

RL: That’s right. And this [muse-um] could provide a lot of that.

YS: You mentioned potential com-petition between the educational effortsof the park and those of the Buffalo BillHistorical Center. Of course tradition-

During the Draper Museum opening ceremony, left to right: Draper MuseumCurator Charles Preston; BBHC Executive Director Charles Shimp; RichardLeakey; former U.S. Senator and present BBHC Chairman of the Board AlanSimpson. NPS photo.

Yellowstone Science10

formative force in the early conserva-tion movement. We think it is signifi-cant that Yellowstone now often bene-fits from other parks in return.Yellowstone’s role has changed. Whereother nations once referred to their pre-mier park as their “Yellowstone,” nowYellowstone is sometimes referred to asthe “American Serengeti.” As anotherexample, for the past several yearsYe l l owstone has been working withCosta Rica to learn more about the legaland political implications of bio-prospecting.

RL: There are some very interestinglicensing agreement questions, I’maware.

YS: Right. And we also imagine wecan learn from the African parks. InYellowstone we deal constantly withthe very emotional issue of death in thenatural world. Many Americans stilltend to like their natural world to betidy and well-mannered, and naturalviolence often shocks them, whetherfrom fire or predation or any othercause, including the deaths of winter-weakened animals. Can you offer usa ny words of encouragement, fromyour African experience, on how toaddress these issues so people under-stand them better?

RL: I would have thought that theexposure of predator-prey interactionand the kills that predators make andpeople watch—the tearing apart of car -

casses and flesh—this surely is some-thing that if any visitor goes to anAfrican park, that’s what they want tosee. They want to see a cheetah kill. Ithink basically that’s easy.

I think the problem with perceptionis in the role of fire. I think there areplenty of arguments around as towhether parks should be fired orallowed to fire, or what is the manage-ment regime policy that you want toadopt. And I think those are going to beissues that will continue to raise senti-ment. But I think it is quite clear that avery good argument can be made forthe beneficial effects of fire on certainhabitats.

entity needs a little extension in termsof area, particularly in winter foraging[lands], which are currently taken up byi r r i gated agriculture and ranchers. Ithink the fact that organizations such asthe Nature Conservancy are beginningto get into negotiating easements andnext-generation property rights is verypositive, because you will make it easi-er for people to understand that a firecan be beneficial and there are otherplaces these animals can move to asthese places regenerate.

YS: But it is only part of the equa-tion we face in reconciling the public tothe realities of nature. In 1988, we hadenormous fires. They were within theknown size range of historical fireshere, but they were shocking. Then, thefollowing winter was the first reason-ably severe winter in several years. Thegrazing animals lost forage to the fires,then, after several easy winters werefaced with more severe winter condi-tions that they were not physiologicallyprepared for. Ecological circumstanceskind of ganged up on the wildlife.

RL: Of course. This happens inmany countries.

YS: Most of us in America wereraised to think of nature as a smoothlyfunctioning machine. Yellowstone hasbeen teaching us otherwise.

RL: As you well know, the idea ofnature being a balance is nonsense. Ifwe had [balance] there would be no

Scientific debate continues over the ecological similarities and differences between African wildland parks and Yellowstone,but they have become almost interchangeable as symbols of the conservation of large predator-prey systems. Left: AmboseliNational Park, Kenya, Darren Ireland photo. Right: Hayden Valley, Yellowstone Park, Renée Evanoff photo.

“...the idea of naturebeing a balance is

nonsense. If we had[balance] there would

be no nature. It isthe imbalance that

provides the dynamicfor diversity.”

YS: We’ve made it, or at least triedto.

RL: Yeah, and I think one of thepoints that needs to be made, and Ithink now it is beginning to happenmore than it was 20 years ago is thatclearly Yellowstone National Park as an

Summer 2002

nature. It is the imbalance that providesthe dynamic for diversity.

Yellowstone as a Global Asset

YS: You have spoken out for theglobal significance of reserves likeYellowstone, but in reality a nationalpark has many constituencies.International, national, regional, andlocal interest groups are often at odds inwhat they regard as “best” forYe l l owstone. Managers of A m e r i c a nnational parks, including Yellowstone,are usually in the middle of thesedebates and, in effect, function almostas arbiters. Presumably that is the samein Africa.

RL: Yes, but I think if you step awayfrom Ye l l owstone being the sort ofproperty of the people who live aroundit, you see that Yellowstone is in fact theproperty of America, the United States.And indeed it is part of the globe’sassets. And it would be, you know,understandable but nonetheless ve r yselfish to perpetuate the myth that thisis a local activity, any more than theSerengeti is. There are obligations. Andthe constituency is not your ranchers.They are part of your constituency, butthe people in Nairobi, probably areentitled to feel that they are part of thesame constituency, you see, ensuringthat this ecosystem is sustained. That’sa shift in thinking.

YS: That is a hard shift to accom-plish.

RL: It is a hard shift but it’s a hardshift because this is a very conservativearea. I can understand people gettingupset if wolves eat their stock, but youknow, at the end of the day, isn’t it moreimportant to have wolves running free,and accommodate the people whosestock is being eaten?

YS: By the way, you have con-tributed to making that shift. In yourspeeches this week you have offeredsuch hearty congratulations to theregional people who worked so hard tocreate this wonderful museum—amuseum that interprets Yellowstone aspart of a globally significant ecosys-tem—that you have almost certainlyhelped some skeptical people betterrationalize the museum’s message,when up to now they may not have beensure they agreed with it.

RL: I know. Several people havesaid that to me.

YS: Yellowstone’s problems oftenseem irresolvable, and vast amounts ofenergy and money go into trying to set-tle them. But over the past few days, atleast some of the people who have lis-tened to you describe the problems andissues facing Kenyan parks must havepaused to wonder: we must seem likereal whiners to you. By comparison toKenya, we Americans have great luxu-ries, not only in the wealth of wild

lands and wild animals but also in theeconomic and legal wherewithal to carefor them.

RL: It is very true. Yeah. I mean,you know, if a troop of baboons comesonto your property, they can destroyeverything. Fast. And then you talkabout a herd of elephants, or a herd ofAfrican buffalo, and it’s hopeless.

YS: That leads back to this matter ofhow the national park gets along withits neighbors, and for that matter withits former tenants. In one of yourspeeches, you brought up the long tra-dition of guilt that plagues manynational parks. Either there is guiltbecause the land was originally“stolen” from Native Americans, orfrom white people who themselve stook it from Native Americans, or insome other way someone is believed tohave suffered loss for the sake of creat -ing the park.

RL: Absolutely right. And it doesn’thelp make policy if you’re doing it on ad e f e n s ive starting point. And, youknow, one has to say, thank God some-body did think of stealing this landfrom somebody else, because if theyh a d n ’t we wo u l d n ’t have it today.That’s the bottom line, isn’t it?

If you look at what’s happened tothe rest of the country, and it has beentaken over by motor bikes and trail rid-ers and agriculture and irriga t i o n ,etcetera, thank goodness somebody

continues on page 14

11

Whether it is the bison of Yellowstone or the buffalo of Africa, wildlife of this size and nature are a force to be reckonedwith. These African buffalo are enjoying a mineral dig in the Aberdares Mountains in Kenya. Darren Ireland photo.The Yellowstone bison are grazing Yellowstone’s Lamar Valley. Renée Evanoff photo.

Yellowstone Science12

On June 4, 2002, the Draper Museum of Natural History joined the four other museums in the Buffalo BillHistorical Center (BBHC) complex in Cody, Wyoming. The seventeen-million-dollar facility, termed by avariety of speakers as “the first natural history museum of the twenty-first century,” celebrates the complexnatural and cultural landscapes of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. In delivering the keynote address at theopening ceremony, Kenyan scientist-conservationist Richard Leakey, himself former director of the NationalMuseums of Kenya, said that “This museum will be the envy of great cities and countries around the world.”

If that seems a trifle hyperbolic, the exhibits themselves provide considerable support for Leakey’s claim.The BBHC now has seven acres under the roofs of its five museums andresearch library, and the Draper occupies a substantial share of that acreage.The roughly 30,000 square feet of exhibit, gallery, and classroom spaces in theDraper Museum are designed around a four-story rotunda. Visitors enterthrough an “Expedition Trailhead,” featuring two log cabins: one a “field sta-tion classroom” and the other a “naturalist’s study” that celebrates the Muries,the Craigheads, and other famed Yellowstone-area researchers and historicalfigures. A 3,700 square-foot photography gallery branches off the trailhead.

From the trailhead, visitors enter the top of the Grand Hall, passingthrough a variety of interactive exhibits about alpine life, and then descendingramps through various life zones. They find a dense yet hospitable array ofexhibits and educational opportunities, including a life-size depiction of a buf-falo jump featuring a massive sculpture of airborne bison in mid-fall from acliff (their remains appear in a re-created archaeological site at the bottom).

At every turn, ecological information mingles with the interests, passions,and effects of human culture in the greater Yellowstone setting. Classroomsand a theatre branch off from the Grand Hall here and there, indicating thestrong educational outreach component of both the Draper and the BBHC.The large circular floor of the Grand Hall is a colorfully-tiled map of theGreater Yellowstone Ecosystem that attracts a steady flow of visitors to trace

Sculptor T.D. Kelsey’s life-size portrayal ofbison suspended in mid-fall in a buffalo-jump exhibit. BBHC photo.

Above, Ms. Nancy-Carroll Draper, pri -mary benefactress of the new DraperMuseum of Natural History. Aboveright, Ms. Draper releasing monarchbutterflies during opening ceremonies.Middle, wide view of the front of theBuffalo Bill Historical Center, with thenew wing housing the Draper Museumon the left. BBHC photos.

Summer 2002 13

their own travel routes across the landscape (underlying photo, BBHC).Visitors encounter not only the wonder and beauty of nature, but also the complexities of human rela-

tionships with the ecosystem—the continuing puzzle of the great Pleistocene extinctions; conflicts betweennative and non-native ungulates in modern greater Yellowstone; controversies over the restoration of preda-tors; possible effects of global warming on regional plant species abundance and distribution; and impacts ofagriculture and other industries on the setting.

The opening ceremony, held in front of the main entrance to the BBHC, featured a variety of luminaries.Sportscaster and Wyoming native Curt Gowdy was master of ceremonies. Former Wyoming Senator Alan K.Simpson, now Chairman of the Board of the BBHC, paid special tribute to the Draper’s primary benefactress,Nancy-Carroll Draper, whose brief, emotional remarks about the dream that the museum represented for somany people were met with a standing ovation.

The ceremony was not without its own natural history. Simpson andDraper opened a large trunk to release 250 monarch butterflies that quicklyscattered to settle on the hats of the crowd. And, more in keeping with theunpredictability of nature in greater Yellowstone: when an eagle, provided byHawkquest of Denver, Colorado, was brought on stage during the opening ofthe ceremony, it immediately attracted two irate crows. The crows perchedon the peak of the BBHC directly behind the podium, and spent the entireceremony circling over the crowd and loudly objecting to the eagle even afterit was taken from the stage (a scheduled flight of the eagle was cancelled dueto the probable opposition of the crows).

At once, the Draper Museum becomes the foremost educational force ininterpreting the character and history of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.It likewise complements the other BBHC facilities—The Plains IndianMuseum, the Cody Firearms Museum, the Buffalo Bill Museum, and theWhitney Gallery of Western Art, as well as the McCracken Research Library—in providing a well-rounded celebration of this region.

The opening ceremony proceeds whiletwo crows watch from peak of BBHCroof. NPS photo.

Above left; the Honorable AlanSimpson, BBHC Chairman of theBoard of Trustees, delivering remarksduring the opening ceremony. NPSphoto. Above, a portion of the high-elevation landscape exhibit with moun -tain goat and bighorn sheep mounts.BBHC photo.

Yellowstone Science14

said, well it’s not going to happen here.Because that’s for the good of every-body.

YS: Most conservationists wouldagree, but there is an historical tenden-cy of hostility and suspicion amongregional people, especially in commu-nities whose activities and economicfortunes are directly tied to the fate of anearby national park. This is a univer-sal situation near National Park Serviceareas all over the United States. Howdoes that work in Africa? How do yourborder towns relate to the parks? Howmuch say do they have in management?

RL: Well, it’s certainly very muchpart of the debate in Africa, the role ofcommunities adjacent to parks as stake-holders. I would take a tougher linethan I used to and say that, yeah, Iunderstand they’re stakeholders, but thepeople who live around a nuclear reac-tor are theoretically stakeholders, andthe people who live around a hydro-electric dam setup are stake h o l d e r s .Why is it that national parks have tobend over backwards to give the localcommunity greater rights, or access, orbenefit, when none of the other nation-al enterprises that benefit the wholecountry are similarly taxed with a dou-ble level of involvement?

And I think it’s this guilt thing. Ithink that it’s different here [in theUnited States], but perhaps not that dif-ferent. I mean, we clearly wouldn’thave kept this environment as it is if ithadn’t been the park.

YS: It does seem mostly likely thatwithout the federal reservation of thepark so long ago, the Ye l l ow s t o n ePlateau would now be settled and itsvarious resources intensively and com-mercially developed.

RL: Yeah. And maybe they [localinterests] are enlightened today, bu tt h ey ’re enlightened today becausethere’s an example to be enlightenedon.

You know, you can’t now reversethe clock. It’s a pity. But certain peoplesay, well the Maasai have lived withwildlife for centuries; why are youtelling them they can’t interact? Well,of course they have, and indeed thewildlife survived because they didn’t

interfere with it. They didn’t interferewith it because they didn’t need to.T h ey didn’t have to put childrenthrough college, and buy medicationsfor their mother-in-law, and run a vehi-cle, and insure it. But once you get intoa modern economy, once you get intothe dynamics of being part of a twenty-first century economic enterprise state,you can’t any longer live with the val-ues you had before. Sadly.

It used to be sufficient for people toharvest the forest. But there were lessthan a tenth of the people wishing toharvest it, and they weren’t harvestingit to sell hardwood timber to makecoffins for people on the west coast ofAmerica. Now, cutting down one treeper person per year doesn’t pay thebills. They need to cut down a hundredtrees. And there are a hundred timesmore people than there were then. Soyou can’t change one side of the equa-tion and not the other.

YS: In the past 10 years or so, we’vewitnessed a heartening political andsocial process in greater Yellowstone,in which Native American tribes havebeen re-enfranchised in the dialoguesover the management of the park. But ithas also pointed out what you have justdescribed, that so far there seems to beno equitable or politically palatableway to “restore” those cultures to thislandscape.

RL: It can’t be done. It’s a pity, butit can’t be done.

YS: A intriguing element of the rela-tionship between some national parksand native peoples in this country. espe-cially in Alaska, is subsistence hunting.You certainly have subsistence huntingin Kenya.

RL: But not in national parks. Youknow, I guess it’s not unlike this argu-ment that the Inuits or some of theIndian indigenous people of the ArcticCircle should be allowed to continueclobbering whales. Yeah, but there is noglory in slaughtering a whale today.These people are driving around onsnowmobiles, using outboard motors;they’re not traditional any more.

YS: But they would argue that thetradition survives despite the changedtechnology, and that their culture hasn’tfundamentally changed just becausethey have fancier tools. They wouldargue that they’re still who they were.

RL: We’re all still who we were. Ihave a friend who’s a very erudite,highly educated man. Full-bloodMaasai. And you know, he says, “Whatis all this talk about traditional people?Who are these traditional people? Whyam I any less traditional? Why am I,[with a] heritage of Maasai blood goingback six hundred years, why is it that Ihave to wear a cloak and a fly whisk tobe considered to have a stakeholding inthis matter? Does my suit offend?”

So he’s who he was. Isn’t that thesame thing?

The Role of Scientists in NationalParks

YS: In your book, Wildlife Wars,you talk about several biologists you’veworked with who have made the choiceto become advocates and politicalactivists. Scientists in the United Statesseem very divided over whether or nott h ey should engage in the politicalarena of resource conservation. Howare these African scientist-advo c a t e sperceived by their colleagues? Has theira c t ivism affected their professionalstanding?

RL: I don’t think there is any doubtat all that there is a role for everybody.Take Jane Goodall. She hasn’t done anyscience in chimpanzees for many, many

The interests of indigenous peoples,such as these Maasai in Tanzania mustbe addressed by modern park managers.Photo courtesy of Kerry Murphy.

Summer 2002 15

years. And yet her advocacy—the des-perate state of wild chimpanzees andthe need to consider ways in which thegreat apes can be secured for thefuture—I mean, it’s been enormouslypowerful.

YS: The world seems to agree thatshe’s a hero of the highest order.

RL: And I think the scientists mayhave looked down on her when shestarted her advocacy, but I think todayJane is widely respected for havingmade an enormous contribution tochanging the status of the chimps andother great apes to a point where thepolitics of their conservation are actual-ly being discussed by politicians, whichis how it should be.

And I think people like CynthiaMoss and Joyce Poole [elephantresearchers in Kenya] and others aredoing the same thing in other areas, soI think one has to be very careful. Iwouldn’t want to criticize those scien-tists who are simply committed to try-ing to understand systems and produceevidence upon which policy can bemade. That is a very valuable and sig-nificant role. But at the same time, they[scientists] are human, and they areconstituents, and they may have attimes a point of view, and I think thosewho do go into advocacy are to beencouraged.

I think where people go wrong isthat they often suggest that their [scien-tists’] advocacy should be more rele-vant because they are scientific. I don’tagree. You don’t have to be scientific tobe relevant. And so we tend to be a lit-tle more polarized than is necessary.And I think some of the African scien-tists have done tremendous things forthe good of wildlife. I don’t look downon them. I strongly encourage them.But you know, it’s very rare that youhave time to do both for very long. Youhave to do one or the other. Withoutbeing in any way putting it down, Imean there is a certain cynicism in it, ifyou look at the skills of writing grantapplications. I mean, even the purestscientist is having to be quite skilled atadvocacy.

YS: Let’s move from the philosoph-ical to the more immediately practical.

As in most American national parks,managers in Yellowstone are requiredby law to know a great deal about cer-tain animal species, in order to managethem according to legislative mandates.This often invo l ves attaching somepretty substantial technology to theindividual animals. As long as therehave been radio collars and other tagsand markers in Yellowstone, there hasbeen debate over their appropriateness.Is this an issue in Kenya?

to] do it to death. There is always a dan-ger, [and I’m speaking] as a previousadministrator, that we’re so busy gath-ering data that we don’t actually everunderstand what the data is telling us asmanagers. We lose sight of the corebusiness. And I think it’s always impor-tant to try to keep a balance.

Experiencing Wildlife in Parks

YS: One of the most interestingaspects of wildlife appreciation inYellowstone involves what might becalled a personality cult of the wild ani-mal. Ever since the early days of road-side bear feeding, visitors have come toknow a surprising number of Yellow-stone animals as individuals. Today,there are grizzly bears and wolves thatpark visitors have in some cases literal-ly watched grow up. Does that sort offamiliarity with individual wild animalshappen in your parks?

RL: I think much less so. We havevery few repeat visitors in our nationalparks; so many of our visitors are over-seas tourists who come once.

YS: But your guides probably knowsome animals more specifically?

RL: Guides may know.YS: In a way, those animals that are

so well known, even if they are still liv-ing entirely without human assistance,such as feeding, are kind of the sacrifi-cial animals in the population. Theirrole, in the big picture of park manage-ment, is to be habituated enough tomake it possible for us to get thisextraordinary glimpse into the life ofthe wild. But any time an animal isplaced in that position it seems thatsome of its wildness—its remotenessfrom us—might be compromised.

RL: I think that’s true, but ultimate-ly, you know, a modern state has tohave soldiers and politicians and doc-tors, and some of these animals are con-tributing to the good of their species.

YS: It is true that they are servingrather like emissaries from their speciesto ours.

RL: That’s right. One has to be real-istic, you know? They’re part of theteam.

YS: Another element of the visitor

“You don't have to bescientific to be relevant.”

RL: Oh, yes. The debate is equallyheated and I’m very ambivalent. I thinkthe research has to be done and I thinki t ’s important for us to know theanswers to a lot of these questions thatdo require intervention. What I’m notsure is whether a lot of this scientificwork has to be done on the same“patch” [of land] as your prime wildlifephotography and tourism. And I thinkthat in some of the larger parks a littlemore effort could be made to tag ani-mals that are not going to be seen everyday by hundreds of visitors.

I mean, there’s no question that peo-ple do get annoyed if they photograph arhino and it’s got an orange collar on it.They didn’t come all that way to dothat. And yeah, it is important that therhino’s movements be understood, but Ithink there needs to be a little more sen-sitivity about the value of the publicappreciation. Because we’re in a mar-ket. I think if you’re watching a groupof wild dogs and some scientist comesover the horizon and starts shootingthem with darts, [you are right to say]what the hell’s going on here, I camefrom the other side of the world to seethese animals, and what are you doing?Go and do it somewhere else. So thereare both sides to the story.

YS: On the positive side, here inYe l l owstone, visitors could easilyencounter several researchers in thecourse of their visit, and with a littleluck may come away with a heightenedunderstanding of the animals, or of whythe information matters so much here.

RL: But you know we don’t [want

Yellowstone Science16

experience of wildlife involves profes-sional photographers and fi l m e r s .Everybody has a camera any more, butwe’re talking here about the commer-cial enterprises that are attracted tonational parks for ease of access toremarkable wildlife viewing. How doyou deal with that use in Kenyan parks?

RL: Again, in Kenya it is slightlydifferent. I think we’ve been slightlytoo mercenary in putting a financialprice on access and I think we oftenforget that good photographs and goodfilms sell the product, and we aredependent on visitors, and we shouldnot underestimate the advantages we’regetting without just the money.

Perhaps a second aspect is [that]some of these [Kenyan park] areas arefor those who want to off-road drive.They create precedents and a lot of pho-tographers want to do things that arepossibly more dangerous than theywould be here. There are many moredangerous species in an African park,and it does require a degree of knowl-edge and experience to get away withwalking in some of these areas on footto get the buffalo, rhino, elephant. Atthe end of the day, bad publicity arisesfrom somebody getting trampled orgored and so one is careful.

But we do make concessions. Idon’t know if you take the NationalGeographic, but there was a MzimaSprings article [November 2001] withunderwater pictures of hippo and differ-ent fish. They had special access to oneof the springs that the public can’t visit,and were there for a year and a half.And so we do facilitate that sort ofthing. [But] if someone wants to makea commercial ad for a four-wheel drivevehicle against a backdrop of spectacu-lar wildlife and scenery, then we makethem pay for that.

YS: So do we. Another interestingcomplication of managing large wildanimals is human safety. One of themost dramatic differences in NorthAmerican and Kenyan wildlife experi-ences is that we rarely have someonekilled by an animal, especially in theparks.

RL: I think we have much more,a b s o l u t e l y, not necessarily photogra-phers, but the number of people killedby wildlife incidents is I should think150 or 200 a year—buffalo, rhino, andso on. It’s very common.

YS: In your book, Wildlife Wars,you describe the revelation you experi-enced in Amboseli National Park insouthern Ke nya, when elephant

researcher Joyce Poole drove you intothe midst of a family of elephants. Atthe time, Poole was being criticized byother ecologists for introducing toomuch “sentiment” into her scientificstudy, and treating her study subjectstoo much like they were people. Here iswhat you said:

For the first time, though, Irealized that my job involvedfar more than merely ensuringthat a certain number of ele -phants continued to exist inour parks. KWS was doingmuch more than that: we werep rotecting sentient cre a t u re swith babies and sisters andfamilies. I fell asleep laughingat myself. In the space of onehour, I had become a “senti -mental” convert.

That statement resonates powerfullyin today’s Yellowstone. As that kind ofsensitivity increases, do you think it’sl i kely that we’ll reach the point innational parks that we will value animallives as much as human lives? Will civ-ilized society eventual conclude that ahuman’s life in greater Yellowstone isworth no more than a grizzly bear’slife?

RL: I wouldn’t have thought so. Iam sure people come out and say that,but it doesn’t mean it’s true.

It’s very different to say that an ani-mal’s life has no value and only ahuman life does have value. I don’tthink there’s any question that if wewere a group of people together, andwe were given an opportunity to helpsomebody, we would choose to helpour family first. It doesn’t make themany more valuable. You do somethingto save your child or your wife or yourcousins, before Joe Doe over the hill,and certainly you, as Americans, woulddo more to look after Americans thanyou would to look after Kenyans.

I also think this is possibly a conse-quence of nothing less than the Judeo-Christian theology to have dominionover the earth, and to have that greatchasm between us and them. I thinkwhat we do is say that it’s not a chasm,

Wildlife (such as this lioness on a zebra kill in Masai Mara National Reserve,Kenya) kill hundreds of humans in Kenya each year. Such extensive loss of humanlife is a significant difference between African and North American nationalparks. Darren Ireland photo.

Summer 2002 17

it’s part of a continuum, but it’s notgoing to drive me to only eating lettuce.I can tell you, I’m part of the foodchain. I enjoy being part of the foodchain, and there it is. But it doesn’tmean that I don’t have a far greaterappreciation in the way I conduct mylife and my job when it comes to look-ing after my responsibilities to knowthat an elephant is much more than sim-ply a four-legged chunk of meat.

But this is true of civil rights, youknow. There were those people whohad the temerity to suggest the slavess h o u l d n ’t be slaves–that there wa ssomething fundamentally wrong in put-ting people in servitude and bondage.But others said, where are we going?[They asked] Where is this leading?Then you want good race relations—where’s that taking us? I don’t think it’sany different. I think it’s just an increas-ingly enormously valuable storehouseof knowledge that successive genera-tions of humans are gaining.

[Saying these wild animals have]“Personality” is wrong. T h ey havecharacter. They have a degree of cogni-tion that we never suspected. Now, Ithink that it is quite clear that a bisonhas sentimental feeling, but perhapsless humor than some of the social pri-mates.

YS: Or than the wolves.

RL: Or than the wolves. But youknow, as we learn more we can putsome of these things in better perspec-tive. I’m not sure if you shoot a bisonthat the rest of the troop feels the loss.But I’m pretty sure that if you shoot outa wolf in a pack you have a far biggerimpact than with bison. And I thinkwith elephants it’s more certain, andwith chimpanzees it’s much more sig-nificant. With humans it is even moresignificant. So I don’t think we shouldbe ashamed of being aware [of it].

many of our behavioral traits we’rebeginning to see in other creatures. Ithink it’s a little arrogant to think [theseobservations are] anthropomorphic, butthat’s the only way we can describethem. Our vocabulary is tied to our ownexperience. You know, what humanshave done to humans is outrageous, [asis] what we continue to do to our envi-ronment, including what we continue todo to the other species who live in it.I’m not sure it’s equally outrageous.What is equal?

Parting Advice

YS: It’s clear from the story you tellin Wildlife Wars that as director ofwildlife management in Ke nya youwere able to take a thoroughly disen-chanted and discouraged governmentdepartment and—after you’d dismissedthe corrupt people—turn it into a vital,productive agency that did its job withenergy and a great deal of pride. Whatadvice would you offer today’s parkmanagers and staff, to help them keeptheir hopes and spirits high?

RL: I think everybody works forsomebody somewhere. And I think itbehooves those who have people work-ing under them to make everybody feelpart of the team and to appreciate otherpeople’s efforts. I think it’s when thehierarchy of management [honors] thei n d ividual sacrifice and commitmentthat people are making, and when peo-ple are rewarded for that commit-ment—not necessarily financially butby the right words and the rightactions—that you can build a muchstronger team that will go throughmuch greater difficulty than if every-body’s just punching a number. That’swhat I would say. It is a collectiveeffort.

A magestic African elephant, photographed in the Samburu Reserve Kenya. KerryMurphy photo.

“...what humans havedone to humans is out -rageous, [as is] what wecontinue to do to ourenvironment, includingwhat we continue to doto the other specieswho live in it. I’m notsure it’s equally outra -geous. What is equal?”

And yes, the old timers don’t wantany sentimentality and they accuse youof anthropomorphism. Well, anthropo-morphism isn’t a package you get fromsomewhere else. It’s a concept. And

Yellowstone Science18

Before wolves were reintroduced toYellowstone in 1995—when there wereno wolves “out there”—it was naturalto imagine that a few individual wolveswould have inordinate importance. Wewondered over those first few wolvesand guessed what would happen, but, asexpected, the stories spun by thewolves themselves were much, muchbetter. Such is the case with wolf #7.

Wolf #7 was one of those fi r s twolves, and this is her story. It cannotbe told, how eve r, without invo k i n ganother wolf, #9, the best known of allwolves in the reintroduction effort, andthe mother of #7. Through 1999, 79%of all wolves in Yellowstone were relat-ed to this founder wolf, a staggeringnumber. The contribution of #9 to therestoration of wolves here is a rich storythat will forever secure her place in theannals of Yellowstone. The story of herdaughter, #7, while more unsung, alsoneeds to be told, and especially now,because we found her dead this lastMay, killed by other wolves. It is time-ly to review her legacy to wolf restora-tion in Yellowstone.

Number 7 came from Alberta withthe first shipment of wo l ves toYellowstone on January 12, 1995. Shewas captured in a neck snare, destinedfor the stretching board, but then wasrescued for reintroduction into Yellow-stone. She was radio collared and re-released into her pack to be used as a“Judas” wolf. Judas wo l ves werenamed such because they revealed thelocations of their fellow wolves, whichcould also be captured and used in thereintroduction effort. She was captureda second time a week later with herpackmates, an experience she learnedfrom well, as it took us three years torecapture her in Yellowstone to replaceher failing radio collar.

She was acclimated with her moth-er, #9, in the Rose Creek pen behind theBuffalo Ranch in Lamar Valley. Malewolf #10 was introduced to the mother-daughter pair one week later, but appar-ently #7 only endured this pen match-making. She left as soon as she couldwhen the wolves were released fromthe pen in late March 1995. She wan-dered nine months alone.

In January 1996 she found #2, a dis-persing Crystal Creek wolf on BlacktailDeer Plateau. Their pairing representedthe first naturally forming wolf pack inYellowstone’s new wolf era—all theother packs had been reintroduced aspacks. To commemorate the event wenamed them the Leopold pack. AldoLeopold recommended wolf reintro-duction to Ye l l owstone in 1944, anevent we felt worthy of recognition.

The pair had three pups that firstyear and went on to have six more lit-ters together. Over the course of herlife, # 7 gave birth to at least 39 pups, ofwhich at least 29 survived to becomeyearlings. By 1998 the pack had 13wolves, and from 1998 through 2002her pack size varied less than any otherpack for that time period ranging from11 to 14. During four of those years itwas 13 or 14 wolves. Their territoryalso changed little over the years; it wasprobably the most stable of any pack inthe ecosystem. Blacktail Deer Plateauwas Leopold turf, and they never leftYellowstone National Park.

The offspring #7 produced also didwell. A daughter dispersed nearby andformed the Swan Lake pack—coexist-ing as a neighbor peacefully because ofextensive knowledge of her mother’sterritory accompanied with a knowl-edge of how to avoid her mother’spack—only rarely were they locatednear each other. Border skirmishesamong wolves can be ferocious andfatal, but were unrecorded for these twopacks. Another daughter dispersed andstarted the Cougar Creek pack nearWest Yellowstone. A son left and trav-eled the closest of any wolf toBozeman, Montana, within eight miles,but soon after he disappeared, not to befound again.

Number 7 looked small but wasactually big, weighing 115 pounds in2000. Her legs were short, making her

Wolf #7: The Passing of a Matriarchby Douglas W. Smith

even nearer. It is known that alphawolves are preferentially attacked whenwolves do battle. They are more valu-able to the pack, and hence, for rivals itis like taking out a general rather than alieutenant. So far it looks like theLeopold Pack will survive and #2 willcarry on. Now only two wolves, #2 and#42, are left from the original 31 rein-troduced.

Number 7 was eight when she died,old by wolf standards. And when sto-ries about Yellowstone wolves are oldby the standards of stories, hers willstill be among them.

Douglas Smithis currently thep roject leader ofthe Ye l l o w s t o n eG ray Wolf Rest-oration Project inY e l l o w s t o n eNational Park. Heworked as biologistfor the project from1994 to 1997 andhas been with thep rog ram since itsinception.

Doug has studied wolves for 23years; prior to Yellowstone, he workedwith wolves on Isle Royale from 1979 to1992 and in Minnesota in 1983. Hereceived his Bachelor of Science inWildlife Biology from the University ofIdaho in 1985, and his coursework andfieldwork from 1985 to 1988 earnedhim a Master of Science in Biologyfrom Michigan Technological Univer-sity. Smith received his Ph.D. from theUniversity of Nevada, Reno, in the pro -gram of Ecology, Evolution, and Con-servation Biology. He has producedn u m e rous publications and has lec -tured widely on wolves and beavers. Heco-authored the book The Wolves ofYellowstone, a chronology of the firsttwo years of the wolf restoration effortin Yellowstone National Park. Doug isan avid canoeist, having run many wildand remote rivers within A l a s k a ,Ontario, Nunuvut, Yukon, and North-west Territories. He and his wife,C h r i s t i n e, make their home inGardiner, Montana.

Summer 2002 19

look petite, but she had a stout body.She also probably seemed smallbecause her leadership of the pack wasnot overt, but rather had a subdued,gentle touch to it. Contrast this withwolf #40, who ruled by aggression andultimately was killed by her packmates.Within a few days watching, a noviceobserver could identify #7 because ofthis quiet nature, which was observablein the wolves around her due to theirdeference. Her gray color had a reddishtint, a trait she passed on to most of hergray pups, which made them annoying-ly hard to identify, but we could alwayspick her out because of her distinctivebehavior—a dead giveaway.

While other wolves changed matesfrequently, with multiple mates in thesame breeding season at times, #7always had only one mate and one littereach year. Her black mate, #2, visiblygrayed as he aged, but she did not, or ifshe did, her graying went unnoticedamid her gray coat.

She was found dead during a track-ing flight on May 12, 2002; her radiocollar was in mortality mode, beepingat twice the normal rate. We hiked inthe next day and located her carcass. Atthe time of her death she had a litter ofsix, one-month old, pups that she wasstill nursing. Her teats were visible and

it was evident that they were beingused. Some worry ensued over the fateof the pups because normally pups areweaned gradually, but it was clear thatthis year’s pups were weaned “coldturkey.” In June, we saw six rambunc-tious pups mobbing a non-lactatingfemale who patiently endured theirwishful attempts. They made it, and asof this writing (August 2002) continueto do well.

We found her dead near whereanother pack had denned. A new packhad formed from a fragmentation of thelarge Druid Peak pack. We suspect theykilled her because they were nearby,and there was an elk kill they made

A very rare aerial photo of #7 nursingher pups, and below, #7 and her mate,#2. Their pairing represented the firstnaturally forming wolf pack in Yellow-stone’s wolf restoration era.

A natural ending to a legendary matri -arch of Yellowstone’s fascinating wolfpoplation. NPS photos.

Yellowstone Science20

park rangers, as caretakers, you play animportant part now, in the survival oftribal people.”

How Yellowstone, along with otherfederal and state agencies, manages thepark’s buffalo was by far the most pop-ular topic at the meeting. Elders first,and then other individuals from eachtribe spoke about the buffalo as a wayof life. Other topics discussed includedhow to increase visitor education (inter-pretation) of American Indians’ con-nection with Ye l l owstone, long-termroad reconstruction efforts and theirimpacts on tribal resources, summerarchaeological ex c avations, and the dilemma of managing Obsidian Cliff,

described below.Several attendees accompanied park

staff on field trips. Rick Wallen, of theBison Management Office, led a groupto see the park’s bison herds. The othertrip, to Obsidian Cliff National HistoricLandmark, was led by John Varley,Director of the Yellowstone Center forResources, who said he was honored totalk about the Cliff, which is “one ofmy favorite places, just because the his-tory reaches up and grabs ahold ofyou.”

Varley then engaged those attendingin a dialogue about ways to protect andinterpret the site, given the importanceof this place to Indians and the fact thatmany people yearn to remove obsidianas souvenirs of the park. Native repre-sentatives expressed a desire to work

Some of those attending the spring 2002 government-to-government consulta -tion meeting. Frank Walker and John Varley pictured upper right corner. NPSphoto. Below: Elaine Hale and John Varley from YCR with Darrin Old Coyoteand George Reed of the Crow Tribe at Obsidian Cliff. Sandra Nykerk photo.

Tony Incashola, Director of the Salish-Pend d’Oreille Culture Committee.Sandra Nykerk photo.

On May 29–30, 2002, YellowstoneNational Park continued its tradition,inaugurated in 1998, of regularly con-sulting with governmental representa-tives from affiliated and bison-interest-ed American Indian tribes. At thisspring meeting, 15 representative sattended from the Comanche Tr i b e ,Confederated Salish and Ko o t e n a iTribes, Crow Tribe, Eastern ShoshoneTribe, Kaibab Paiute Indian Tribe ofUtah, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, andthe Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Rep-resentatives from the Intertribal BisonCooperative (ITBC) also were present;ITBC represents over 50 tribes acrossthe nation, all proud owners of buffaloherds. Assistant Superintendent FrankWalker and other park staff were activeparticipants.

Tribal sovereignty, and the specialtribal-federal government relationshipof ward and trustee, elucidated by an1832 Supreme Court decision, directlydefines a relationship between tribesand the federal government that is notshared by the general public. Hence,the need exists to approach and dealwith Indian tribes differently than wedo the general public.

Yellowstone acknowledges its mil-lennia-long, multifaceted A m e r i c a nIndian past, as well as the role itsresources play in maintaining the diver-sity of tribal traditions. A mutual inter-est exists in cultural preservation: tribesdesire that certain traditions survive,and the National Park Service wants toassist such preservation as part of theirmandate to preserve cultural resources(what we refer to as “ethnographicresources”). At the government-to-gov-ernment meeting, To ny Incashola,Director of the Salish-Pend d’OreilleCulture Committee, reminded parkofficials, “You maintain the medicinalplants, the food plants, and the animals,those that are important to our way oflife as Indian Nations. Whether yourealize it or not, as park officials, as

Continuum of Yellowstone’s Land Managers Deliberate the Complexities of Preservation

Summer 2002 21

with the park on a policy to allow col-lecting for traditional purposes.Assistant Superintendent Wa l ke rresponded that park staff would workwith tribes to develop a process best forall concerned, one that is respectful ofthe National Park Service mission andsimultaneously considers the obliga-tions of the federal government towardIndian tribes. In recent years, tribeshave requested permission to collectitems including bison skulls, plants,thermal mud, and obsidian for tradi-tional, including ceremonial, purposes.The requests have been handled on acase-by-case basis with some permis-sions granted and most others met byo ffering alternative sites outside thepark where such items could beobtained. Park staff should referrequests for collecting and questionsabout conducting traditional cere-monies to cultural anthropologistRosemary Sucec at (307) 344-2229.

Walker reiterated the terms of theentrance fee exemption for affiliatedtribes instituted in the fall of last year.The policy permits a waiver of therecreation fee charged at the entrancegates, to allow affiliated tribal membersto enter the park for ceremonial purpos-es. Other regional parks have similarpolicies, including Glacier NationalPark and Craters of the Moon NationalMonument.

In June, Crow elder, historian, andreligious leader Grant Bull Tail spentseveral days at many park sites relayingthe oral history of the Mountain Crows’time in what is now Ye l l ow s t o n eNational Park. The Crow are believedto have come into the area as early asthe 1500s, during a time we know asthe Little Ice Age. The 1851 Treaty ofFort Laramie recognized the easternportion of the park, from YellowstoneLake along the Continental Divide, asCrow aboriginal territory. Mr. Bull Tailtold park personnel that the Yellow-stone Plateau was used as a mountainsummer home for the Crow, also knownas Sheepeaters (a name that applies toMountain Shoshone, too). He said thatwhat is now the park would be enteredfrom the east, at Cody, as if entering atipi. Petition for entrance was made to

the patron spirits. Once affirmed, thejourney began along trails, some ofwhich are now roads, as well as rivers,in a clockwise direction. Family groupspassed by Yellowstone Lake, over CraigPass, and along the Firehole River. Atwhat we know as the Bannock Trail butthe Crow refer to as the Nez PerceTrail, they crossed over the YellowstoneRiver near Tower Junction. The properway to exit was to retrace the sameroute by which they had come in.

Bull Tail also relayed a compellingepic saga of how a bright and skillfulCrow hero courageously engaged thep owerful and dangerous forces ofnature here, once referred to as “mon-sters,” to make the land safe for Crowsto live. Ye l l ow s t o n e ’s contemporaryland managers give different names tothese forces that include a cataclysmicvolcano, molten earth, hy d r o t h e r m a lbasins, wildfires, and predators, and arecharged with tending to this dynamicnatural system while painstakinglydeliberating the effects of their deci-sions with vested communities such astribes who were once caretakers here.The saga of Ye l l owstone, in va r i e d

forms, continues. The park’s reinvigo-rated relationships with native peoplesis one that hopes to incorporate, in abalanced and measured fashion, theperspectives and needs of AmericanIndians so that along with the park’sbiodiversity, the plethora of multicul-tural traditions engendered and nur-tured in this unique environment cancontinue to be preserved.

New Wide-Screen Film Debuts atOld Faithful Visitor Center

Yellowstone National Park and theYellowstone Association have releaseda new film explaining the park’s gey-sers, hot springs, mudpots, and otherhydrothermal features. The high-defini-tion, wide-screen, surround-sound filmhas been two years in the making andwas produced by Northern LightProductions of Boston. It is the firstnew film developed for a Yellowstonevisitor center in more than 25 years andmarks the beginning of the develop-ment of several new educational proj-ects and programs focusing on Yellow-stone’s rare hot water features. Fundingfor the film was provided by theYe l l owstone Association, which wa sfounded in 1933 to provide educationalproducts and services for park visitors.

Grant Bull Tail at Dragon’s Mouth,Yellowstone National Park. RosemarySucec photo.

Yellowstone Science22

Yellowstone: A Symphony of Fireand Water is shown throughout eachday at the Old Faithful Visitor Center.The 14-minute film includes interviewswith renowned geologists, spectacularcinematography of the park’s varioushydrothermal features, and animationshowing how these features are fueledby a “hot spot” of molten rock that liesnot far beneath the earth’s surface in theYellowstone area.

A 24-minute version of Ye l l o w -stone: A Symphony of Fire and Water isavailable for sale at visitor center book-stores, or by mail from the YellowstoneAssociation. The cost is $14.95. Toorder this item from the YellowstoneAssociation, call (877) 967-0090 orvisit www.YellowstoneAssociation.org.

Ranger Adventure Hikes ProgramExpanded

This spring Yellowstone’s Divisionof Interpretation announced the expan-sion of the Ranger Adventure Hikesprogram for 2002. Interpretive parkrangers are offering ten, half-day hikesper week from June 17 through August31. Hikes are offered at Old Faithful,Mammoth Hot Springs, and the Tower/Roosevelt areas, providing visitors witha more in-depth experience aboutYellowstone National Park.

The Ranger Adventure Hikes pro-gram is offered as a fee activity. Theprice of this program is $15 for adults,$5 for kids aged 7 to 15, and free forkids six and under. These high-qualityprograms are limited to 15 participantsper hike. Hikes rated from easy to diffi-cult. Some hikes are not recommended

for people with heart, breathing, or seri-ous medical conditions. Program loca-tions change daily. Information andtickets are only available in-person atthe following NPS Visitor Centers: OldFaithful, Albright (Mammoth), Grant,Canyon, and Fishing Bridge. Ticketsmust be purchased prior to hike day.

The park has identified fee pro-grams as those activities that go beyondthe scope of the basic interpretive pro-gram, focus on programs that serve asmall segment of park visitors, or tendto be relatively ex p e n s ive to off e r.These programs are beyond the park’sability to fund without recovering someof the costs. Fees charged go back intothe program’s budget and help offsetstaff and supply costs. Interpretive parkrangers continue to offer more than4,000 free walks, talks, and eveningprograms for the public each summer.

Yellowstone originally offered hikesas part of the interpretive program untilthe early 1990s. They were discontin-ued when the federal budget could nolonger keep pace with operationalneeds. Ye l l owstone re-established ahike program during the 2001 seasonand received many favorable commentsfrom participants.

Wayne Brewster Receives ResourceManagement Award

Yellowstone Center for ResourcesDeputy Director Wayne Brewster hasbeen chosen as one of two recipients ofthe 2001 Director’s Award for ResourceManagement. Nominated by his parkcolleagues, Wayne was selected on thebasis of his leading role in resolvingt wo precedent-setting issues in theNPS: the reintroduction of gray wolvesto Yellowstone and central Idaho andthe management of bison, Brucella, andlivestock in the Greater YellowstoneEcosystem. He was specifically recog-nized for his skills in the areas of lead-ership; logistics; NEPA; interagencycooperation and negotiation; and bio-logical, social, legal and political analy-sis in situations of high complexity andvirulent controversy that have impor-tant, widespread implications and ram-ifications for the NPS as a whole.

Robert Johnson, research director atE ve rglades National Park, was theother award recipient. Wayne andRobert accepted their awards followingthe NPS’s annual Natural Resourcemeeting, held in Tucson, Arizona onAugust 6, 2002. The meeting was heldin conjunction with the joint annualmeeting of the Ecological Society ofAmerica and the Society for EcologicalRestoration.

New Courthouse Proposed

Ye l l owstone Park SuperintendentSuzanne Lewis announced on May 7that the park is soliciting public com-ments on the proposal for a courthouseto be built in the Mammoth Hot Springsarea of Ye l l owstone National Pa r k .Proposed building functions wo u l dinclude a courtroom, judge’s chambers,interview rooms, ante room, temporaryholding fa c i l i t y, law enforcementoffices, and evidence and records stor-age areas. The building would be twostories high with a basement for a totalof approximately 9000 square feet. Theproposed building footprint would beapproximately 3000 square feet.Several sites in the Mammoth area willbe considered in the planning process,in conjunction with the requirements ofthe U.S. Courts and U.S. MarshalService. The building would be fundedthrough the NPS Line Item Construc-tion program, U.S. Courts, and the U.S.Marshall Service.

The existing courthouse, located inthe “Pagoda,” has been determined to

Interpretive park ranger Bill Wengelertalking with visitors during a RangerAdventure Hikes program. NPS photo.

YCR Deputy Director Wayne Brewsterwith some very tired horses after a gru -eling climb in to a backcountry cabin.NPS photo.

Summer 2002 23

be grossly inadequate in terms of spaceand security for the fa c i l i t y, judge,defendants, and all involved in court-room proceedings. The NPS believesthe building is no longer suitable for itspurpose as a courtroom, but the build-ing would continue to be used foroffices by the North District rangeroperation.

The comment period was extendedthrough June 3, 2002. The EA shouldbe available for public review in thewinter of 2002–2003.

Brucellosis Symposium Scheduled

“Brucellosis in the Greater Yellow-stone A r e a ,” a two-day symposiumsponsored by the Greater YellowstoneI n t e r a g e n cy Brucellosis Committee(GYIBC) will be held on September17–18, 2002, at the Snow King Resortin Jackson, Wyoming. The purpose ofthis year’s symposium is to provideinformation about the work andprogress that the members of theGYIBC and other government and aca-demic institutions have made on thebrucellosis issue. Registration is $100and is open to all interested parties. Formore information, contact either BeckyRussell at (307) 766-5616 or rrussell@uwyo.edu; or Terry Kreeger (307) 322-2571 or tekreege@wyoming.com. Thisevent is hosted by the Wyoming Gameand Fish Department.

New Framework for Winter Use ofParks Announced

On June 25th, a new proposedframework for a preferred alternativefor winter use in Ye l l owstone andGrand Teton National Parks wa sannounced by the parks. The two parks,plus the connecting Rocke f e l l e rMemorial Parkway, have been dealingwith winter use issues for seve r a ldecades. Debates over these issuescame to a head on November 22, 2000,with the publication of a final environ-mental impact statement and record ofdecision (ROD) that called for the elim-ination of recreational snowmobile andsnowplane use from the three-park areaby the winter of 2003–2004.

That ROD resulted in a law s u i tbrought by the snowmobile industryand others asking that the decision beset aside. Under a settlement agree-ment, the Department of the Interioragreed to do a supplemental environ-mental impact statement (SEIS) tosolicit more public comments on theearlier decision and alternatives and toconsider any new or updated substan-tive information not available at thetime of the earlier decision. The draftSEIS was made available to the publicon March 29th and was open for publiccomment until May 29th. Over 350,000comments were received.

The proposed framework wo u l dallow some snowmobile use with verystrict limitations; it would provide forc l e a n e r, quieter snowmobiles ands n owcoaches using “best ava i l a b l etechnology”; and adaptive managementwould allow for flexibility. Critical ele-ments of this proposed preferred alter-n a t ive framework include: reducingnumbers of snowmobiles; continuing tolimit snowmobile use to park roads;requiring all snowmobiles to be “bestavailable technology” (cleaner and qui-eter, i.e. four-stroke engines); applyinga d a p t ive management methods toadjust numbers as new information andresearch is obtained; requiring that allsnowmobilers be guided (either com-mercially or non-commercially); incor-porating a reasonable phase-in period;and requiring that funding must beobtained to support the entire package,including ex t e n s ive monitoring andeducational elements.

Much work remains to be done onthe preferred alternative to define thedetails, i.e. numbers of snowmobiles tobe allowed and how the commercial vs.non-commercial guiding would occur.It is important to remember that this isa proposed framework—not a decision;it is the first step in what eventually willbe a decision.

Recently, the National Park Servicereached an agreement for an extensionto complete the Final SEIS. The exten-sion was requested so that the park canmore effectively analyze the thousandsof public comments and incorporateany significant new additional informa-

tion or data submitted with respect tothe plan. With the approved extension,the record of decision will now be final-ized by March 21, 2003.

Yellowstone Interagency ScienceConference Coming

The Eighth Yellowstone InteragencyScience Conference will be held onSeptember 11–12, 2002 at the YCCcamp at Mammoth Hot Springs. Thismeeting brings together scientists fromgovernment agencies and universitiesto report on continuing scientific stud-ies in greater Yellowstone. The range oftopics includes geophysics, geothermal,limnology, biochemistry, geology, geo-c h e m i s t r y, biology, hy d r o l o g y, map-ping, remote sensing, and GIS applica-tions. Registration is $20. For informa-tion about submitting a paper or regis-tering for the conference, contactDaniel Norton; USGS, MS973; P.O.Box 25046, Federal Center; Denver,CO 80225 or call Dr. Norton at (303)236-2484.

Fuel Cell Installed at West Entrance

In May, Yellowstone National Parktook a significant step in its ongoing“Greening of Ye l l owstone” initiativewith the installation of an H Power 4.5kilowatt fuel cell at the park’s WestEntrance. The fuel cell, which will pro-vide heat and power to ticket kiosks andan office on a test and demonstration

Fuel cell being installed at WestEntrance on May 6, 2002. NPS photo.

Yellowstone Science24

basis, is the first to be installed in thepark. Electricity from the fuel cell willpower lights, communications equip-ment and computers in the entrancefacilities, while the heat will be used forspace heating.

The fuel cell produces electricityand heat through an electrochemicalprocess rather than by combustion. TheH Power fuel cell at Yellowstone usespropane to operate. A reformer extractshydrogen from the propane, and thehydrogen produces electricity whenmixed with oxygen in the fuel cell stackat the core of the system. The only by-products of the reaction within thestack are heat and pure water.

Ye l l owstone partnered with Fa l lR iver Rural Electric Cooperative ofAshton, Idaho, and Energy Co-Opportunity (ECO) of Herndon,Virginia, to provide the fuel cell. FallRiver REC provides commercial powerto the park’s west entrance. ECO is ane n e rgy services cooperative wo r k i n gwith H Power of Clifton, New Jersey, todevelop a stationary fuel cell on behalfof Fall River REC and more than 300other ECO member utilities. Fall RiverREC will own and operate the Yellow-stone fuel cell.

Yellowstone officials hope that theyear-long demonstration of the fuel cellwill lead to expanded use of the ultra-clean and quiet technology to generatepower to various park areas. Of partic-ular interest are remote ranger stationsand other facilities where generatorsare now being used. For more informa-tion on this or any other “green” initia-tive programs taking place in the parkyou may contact jim_evanoff@nps.govor call (307) 344-2311.

Grizzlies Struck by Vehicles

On the evening of August 12, bear#125 was hit by a vehicle approximate-ly one half mile north of Cany o nJunction. After being struck broadsidein the shoulder and head area, the bearran off into the surrounding forest,leaving behind its radio telemetry col-lar which was knocked off in the acci-dent. Her two cubs, believed to be cubs-of-the-year, followed her into the for-

est. A nineteen-year old adult femalegrizzly, bear #125 is the oldest collaredbear in the Greater Ye l l ow s t o n eEcosystem. Rarely seen, she has pro-duced several litters during her lifetimeand has never been in conflict withhumans. She was first radio collared in1986 and her activities have been mon-itored throughout the Mount Washburnarea, specifically the Antelope Creekdrainage. The fate of bear #125 and hercubs is not certain at this time. As ofthis writing, the bear managementoffice is still investigating.

Another adult female grizzly wasstruck and killed on August 2 by avehicle traveling on Highway 191 northof West Ye l l owstone. Earlier in thesummer, a 14-pound male grizzly cub-of-the-year died from injuries receivedafter it was apparently struck by a vehi-cle either late on the evening of June 20or early the next morning. The cub wasfound lying in the road with severehead trauma on the west end of MaryBay at Yellowstone Lake. In both inci-dents, the carcasses were sent to theMontana Fish, Wildlife and Parks lab inBozeman, Montana, where a necropsywas performed.

See a Bear? Don’t Drop that Pack!

Yellowstone National Park officialsreport that on June 20, 2002, a blackbear was able to obtain human foodwhen two fishermen dropped theirbackpacks after they encountered thebear while walking downstream alongthe Yellowstone River near the conflu-

ence of Tower Creek. The bear wascoming upstream toward the two visi-tors at the time of the encounter. Afterspotting the bear, the two fishermenimmediately turned and starting walk-ing away from it; the bear continuedupstream in their direction. The fisher-men became concerned and droppedtheir backpacks along the trail, continu-ing on. They noted that the bear imme-diately went to the packs and was ableto open them and obtain the food.

Feeding bears or leaving food wherethey can get it, as in this case, isextremely dangerous for both bears andpeople. A bear that eats human food orga r b a g e — even once—may becomeconditioned to this food source anda c t ively seek it out around people.These bears often become increasinglya g g r e s s ive and dangerous and cancause injury to humans, requiringremoval of the bear.

If you do encounter a bear—DO NOT drop your pack.

By dropping your pack, you arecontributing to conditioning bears tohuman foods. And in the rare casewhere a bear attacks, a pack will helpshield your back from injury.

Wildlife is just one of Yellowstone’sprecious resources. Park visitors areencouraged to help the park protect thisimportant resource by obeying parkregulations. Keep a safe distance fromall wildlife; it is against the law toapproach within 100 yards of bears orwithin 25 yards of other wildlife ornesting birds or any distance whichcauses disturbance or displacement ofwildlife. If wildlife react to your pres-ence, you are too close. It is illegal tofeed any wildlife in the park.

New Publications Available

Copies of the publication AmericanIndians and Yellowstone National Park:A Documentary Overview by PeterNabokov and Lawrence Loendorf areavailable by contacting Beth Taylor at(307) 344-2203 or Beth_Ta y l o r@nps.gov. This report was commis-sioned to investigate American Indian

Visitor photo.

25Summer 2002

Please keepYellowstone Science

coming!

Thank You

affiliations with the land and resourcesof the park. It challenges some persist-ent misconceptions and lays out theirrole in the history of the Yellowstonelandscape.

The Yellowstone Bird Report, 2001and the Yellowstone Wolf Pro j e c tAnnual Report, 2001 may be viewed inpdf format on the web at www.nps.gov/yell/publications. The wolf reportis available in print while copies lastby contacting Deb Guernsey at (307)344-2243 or Deb_Guernsey@nps.gov.

Printed copies of E c o l og i c a lDynamics on Yellowstone’s NorthernR a n ge by the National ResearchCouncil are now available for purchasefrom the Yellowstone Association orthrough the National Academy Press(NAP) web site at www.nap.edu or by calling them at (800) 624-6242. As was first reported in the spring 2002 issue ofYellowstone Science, the electronic version of the report is available for viewing at the NAP web site or through a link withpark’s official web site, www.nps.gov/yell/nature/northernrange.

The Natural Resource Year in Review for 2001 summarizes and analyzes significant natural resource preservation issuesand trends in the national park system for each calendar year. The 2001 report contains several feature articles highlightingYellowstone National Park. It is published electronicaly and can be viewed at www.nature.nps.govpubs/yir/yir2001.Printed copies may be obtained by e-mailing rich_gregory@nps.gov.

Wedepend on ourreaders’kind support to helpdefrayprintingcosts.

Please use the envelope on page 12 to make your tax-deductible donation. Checks should be payable to the YellowstoneAssociation. Please indicate that your donation is for Yellowstone Science.