PARK SCIENCE 

A RESOURCE MANAGEMENT BULLETIN 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

VOLUME 3 -NUMBER 2 WINTER 1983 
PARK SCIENCE WINTER 1983 

In This Issue: page Editor’s Note: 

37 Parks Participate in 

Natural Resource Management 

Training . 3 

Letters to the Editor 3 

“Interpretation through successful cooperation” was the theme of the Northwest 

RAIN (Northwest Region Association of Interpretive Naturalists) at their October 

1982 workshop in Vancouver, Wash. Within the context of the fiscal restraints that 

encompass the entire field of natural resources, there are words of wisdom for 

science and management as well as for interpretation. 

One workshop title especially spoke to the commonness of our joint professional 

dilemma -its title: “And I Also Interpret.” Briggle Retrospectrve Covers 30 Years 

of Park Management _. 5 

NPS Vegetation Policy Challenged 7 

Davidge Opens GWS Conference 7 

Regional Highlights 8 

OSU Offers Course In 

Microcomputers 9 

Glacier Grizzly Bear Research IO 

SAGIS’ Application Worked 

Out at DSC ._. 11 

Western RAIN Workshop Held 12 

Scientists At Rainier Cooperate In 

bYear Study of Elk Impact _. 13 

Information Crossfile 15 

Cover Photo on back cover 

A report to park managers of recent and on-going research in 

parks with emphasis on its implications for planning and 

management. 

While it has been jolting to many, whose specialized training prepared them for a 

single task in a mosaic of natural resource management and interpretive tasks, the 

demand that people “double in brass” has its own special rewards, both for the 

individuals involved and for the systems in which they serve. The cross-disciplinary 

information and skill exchanges that occur when one person must perform in 

several areas and do several tasks, can be a binding force that makes for synthesis 

and better understanding all around. 

Science and the scientific research methodology received their due at the AIN 

workshop. There was general agreement that the best interpretation of natural 

resources stems from the best scientific research available, but it was not just an “us 

looking at it” approach; it also had a strong component of “us looking at us.” The 

research theme was two-pronged: research of subject matter content, and research 

of audience. 

Elsewhere in this issue, Gary Machlis’s presentation on cross-cultural 

interpretation appears, Machlis. sociology project leader of the NPSKPSU at the 

University of Idaho, stressed his reliance on natural history techniques in studying 

behavior patterns among the various categories of park visitors. Instead of simply 

using questionnaires asking visitors what they feel or how they act, he assigns 

students to observe and make careful notes on the minute-by-minute behavior of 

visitors. The results of his studies have important implications for park managers, 

park interpreters, and concessionaires. 

Research forcontentwas thefocusof another presentation by Leslie Wildesen. 

formerly with the U.S. Forest Service and presently in Washington, D.C. on an 

American Anthropological Assn. fellowship. She described the detaded research 

that went into her Portland State University course on historic bridges and ferries of 

the area, and included in her presentation a lively appreciation of the audience 

pitfalls that such a course might hold. 

Context came through at the sessions as a most important part of interpretation - 

the weaving of specific subject matter into a presentation that has meaning for the 

audience. Increasing audience sophistication combined with decreasing park 

budgets poses an awesome interpretive problem, but not an insurmountable one. In 

cooperation among a wide spread of resource people lie many of the answers to both 

subject matter and audience understanding. 

Roger Clark. project leader for Wildland Recreation Research at the Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station in Seattle, indirectly endorsed the 

NPSKPSU approach when he told conferees in his keynote address: “Cooperation is 

not a panacea for all problems facing interpreters, but many worthwhile objectives 

can be achieved by cooperation among managers, researchers, universities, 

interest groups, and visitors.” Here again is expressed the belief that a wider range 

of input to the interpretive effort results in a broader context for understanding and 

cooperation. 

One specific tool for moving ahead with this approach is the AIN’s Journal of 

Interpretation, co-edited by Sam H. Ham and Machlis, both of the University of 

Idaho. The Journal deals specifically with scientific aspects of interpretation and 

how to bring the two fields into a more efficient, working focus. 

The feeling at the workshop’s end was that the highest quality of interpretation 

demands thorough knowledge of both content and audiences, and that many 

seemingly unrelated goals - of managers, of administrators, and of 

concessionaires - may be surprisingly weliserved if the tools of research are 

brought to bear on better interpretation. 

2 
37 Parks Participate In Natural Resource 

Management Training the trainee’s level of expertise and interest. 

By Ro wauer As an examole. the Cave Manaaement 

component m’ay’last only a few hours for 

Bruce Rodgers, Assateague’s trainee, but 

may last several weeks for Steve Chancy. 

Buffalo River’s Natural Resource 

Management Trainee. Some components, 

such as Resource Management Plans, 

Vegetation Management, Exotic Animal 

and Plant Control, and Integrated Pest 

Management, will require considerable 

attention throughout the course of the 

training assignment. 

In the second State of the Parks Report 

(1981), most often referred to as the 

prevention/mitigation report, the Park 

Service outlined a strategy designed to 

address the numerous threats to park 

resources that had been described in the 

1980 State of the Parks Report. That 

strategy included both immediate and 

long-range actions. The immediate 

activities consisted of the identification 

and ranking of Significant Resource 

Problems (SRPs) to identify the Service’s 

most critical natural and cultural resource 

priorities. Long-range activities included 

(1) the reemphasizing of area Resource 

Management Plans as the primary vehicle 

for documenting resource threats and the 

mitigation actions required: (2) the design 

and development of a Resources 

Information Tracking System (RITS) to 

provide managers, planners, and 

scientists with a pertinent information 

base: and (3) a program to train four levels 

of Park Service employees in the 

philosophy and fundamentals of natural 

resources management. 

Three of the training levels were 

implemented immediately. Natural 

Resource Management courses for 

Superintendents and Mid-level (park 

division chiefs) personnel had already 

begun, and two workshops (Natural 

Systems and Coastal Systems) for current 

Natural Resource Management Specialists 

were held in April and September 1982. 

Five additional workshops were identified 

and areexpected to be implemented during 

ensuing years. 

The fourth level of natural resource 

management training, and one that is 

expected to be the most important for the 

long-term protection of park values, is a 

new, innovative program designed to 

place specially trained Natural Resource 

Management Specialists into parks 

presently lacking the personnel and 

expertise to identify, assess and monitor 

threats and to prepare and implement 

scientifically-based prevention and 

mitigation plans. This training program is 

funded by special allotments to the 

participating regional offices for salaries 

and support costs. It involves a series of 

two-year training assignments which run 

one after the other and are expected to 

continue through 1990. The first of these 

started August 1, 1982, in 37parkunits; the 

37trainees (see photograph) wereselected 

on the basis of their qualifications to meet 

the requirements of the various recipient 

parks. 

The irainees’ first responsibility is the 

completion of an acceptable Individual 

Development Plan (IDP). Each IDP will 

include 35plus components that may vary 

greatly in length and intensity, depending 

upon the specific park requirements and 

All 370f thetrainees began theirtraining 

at Ft. Collins, Cola.. Sept. 8 to 17. 1982, 

when several of the 35plus components 

were discussed. Most of these components 

were only introduced, and each trainee is 

expected to continue with the rest of the 

components during the follow-up 

activities as described in the IDPs. Topics 

discussed at Ft. Collins included 

environmental law. ecosystem maps, 

natural resource management planning, 

endangered/threatened species 

management, integrated pest management, 

public relations, and political realities. The 

Ft. Collins session was the first time all the 

trainees had been assembled. For many of 

the new appointees it was their first 

introduction into the purpose and format 

of the program. 

All of the trainees are expected to be 

together again at least one more time, for a 

week-long sociological component 

scheduled at Texas A 8. M University in 

December 1983. Introduction to statistics 

and probability analysis for natural 

resource manager also will be included. 

Although a good deal of the training 

activities is likely to take place outside of 

the trainee’s home park, either at other 

parks that can provide on-site training 

opportunities, at a variety of other federal 

or state agency sites, or at other offices or 

Institutions. all should be product 

oriented. However, each product should 

benefit the trainee’s home park. And the 

trainee’s curriculum must be sufficiently 

flexrble to allow for day-to-day activities 

required in the operations of the home park 

as part of the completion of the ingredients 

outlined in the trainee’s IDP. 

The basic premise of the Natural 

Resource Management Trainee Program is 

to provide greater assurance for the 

perpetuation of park natural resources. In 

a sense, the program is training people in 

37 parks to be resource ecologists. The 

trainees must learn the art of people 

management and at the same time 

understand and apply basic ecological 

principles that provide the building blocks 

for resource planning and decisionmaking. They must comprehend that “the 

first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save 

all of the pieces,” accept the truth that 

“nature will win in the end,” and utilize the 

concept that if “it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” 

3 

Letters to 

the Editor 

Perhaps the most remarkable thing 

about the NPSiMAB international 

symposium and workshop on “The 

application of genetics to management of 

wild plant and animal populahons” was 

that it occurred. If I had to write the head 

for a news story about the meeting, it 

would read, HIGH-RISK VENTURE 

SUCCEEDS. Consider that the ambient 

bureaucratic and fiscal climate can 

scarcely have favored growth of the idea 

of sponsoring a big meeting on a 

somewhat esoteric theme at a plush 

Washington hotel. Consider the problems 

of getting money and/or moral support 

from 30 sponsoring organizahons and 

commitments from 60 major participants. 

Consider the logistics of staging theaffair 

after all the basic arrangements were in 

place. Consider, above all. the questions 

that must always have lurked in the 

background: What if we gave a meeting 

and nobody came? What if it turns out that 

field biologists and population geneticists 

don’t have anything much to say to each 

other? The mere fact of the meeting speaks 

volumes about the determination, 

dedication and diplomacy of Chris 

Schonewald-Cox and the other prime 

movers. That it ran almost flawlessly and 

accomplished many of its objectives was 

jam for the bees. 

Tvoical of the crisolv efficient 

operations. a list of all participants was 

distributed on the last day of the meeting. 

It shows that around 300 attended. I 

thought there were more than that in some 

of the general sessions, but maybe the 

mirrored walls of the Regency Ballroom 

accounted for that impression. Or, perhaps 

some chose anonymity rather than pay 50 

bucks to register. In any case, enough 

people were there and also an adequate 

diversity. By my rough tally, 30percent of 

those from outside the Washington area 

who were not on the program represented 

conservatron groups, 22percent were from 

universities and 17 percent from state or 

provmcial conservation/fish and game 

departments. Attendance from NPS field 

areas wasnumericallyrobust. lcounted 18 

names. That handsomeshowing doubtless 

reflected the fact that the meeting was an 

approved NPS training session, thus 

escaping the travel-to-meetings stigma. 

By contrast, field attendance from thn 

other federal agencies with major 

commitments to natural-area management 

was almost nil, four from the Fish and 

Wildlife Service and two from the Forest 

Service. 

The germinal concept of the meeting, to 

speed the trickle-down (or trickle-across) 

of important ideas by bringing field 

biologists into contact with current 

population genetics theory, was an 
I 1 

Letters (continued) 

exciting one -much talked-about. rarely 

attempted. It was also a bit tricky and 

more than a little subversive. We have, 

after all, pursued our empirical and 

intuitive ways of managing largely 

untainted by theory, and, besides, 

intellectual privation IS considered good 

for the soul. At least, I presume it is. 

because it has become almost as hard for a 

field scientist to get to a technical meeting 

as it’s said to be for a rich man to get into 

the kingdom of heaven. 

The interest profile of this meetmg 

differed from any other I’ve attended, 

possibly because it brought together such 

diverse people. At the usual scientific 

meettnq, the level of attention tends to 

peak early and then to decay 

exponentially. My calculations, alas from 

a rather small sample. indicate that the 

mean LDsafor listening to papers is reached 

on the third afternoon. Later speakers are 

likely to find themselvesaddressing empty 

chairs and a bored projectionist. The 

present meeting started slowly with good 

attendance, but not much feedback. The 

field folks and the high-powered theorists 

tended to circle warily, rather llke a first 

meeting between partners in an arranged 

marriage. The constrained arr vanished in 

the Wednesday afternoon sessions, 

mostly because people from state 

conservation departments began speaking 

up without being unduly worried that they 

might say something silly. The eventual 

greening of the meetrnq owed a lot to the 

persistent Wyoming biologist concerned 

about his tiny fragmented populations of 

bighorn sheep; to the man from Missouri 

who wanted to know whether he should 

mix or match his reltct qroups of prairie 

chickens; to the lady determined to find the 

genetically correct procedure for 

reintroducing river otters into Colorado. 

After that, it went pretty well. More and 

more people were willing to wing it with 

questions and comments; the geneticists 

discovered theoretical interest in some 

field problems that were raised and began 

argumq with each other; and, at least on 

occasion, the meeting became the sort of 

intellectual rough-and-tumble that its 

organizers must have hoped it would be. 

Some of the best-attended and most 

animated workshop sessions occurred in 

the depths of the Friday afternoon. One 

sensed that the peak of useful interaction 

was still ahead; that the meeting could 

profitably have gone on for a couple more 

says. For me. an aspect of the unfinished 

feeling was the heavy load of /‘esprit de 

I’escalier, the bright remarks one thinks of 

too late, that I carried away from the 

meeting. I wish I’d challenged some of the 

unfunny witticisms about subspecies; why 

didn’t I keep asking until I really 

understood the concept of effective 

population size?; if only I had.. In short, it 

was an excellent conference. 

Looking back from six weeks later, the 

glow of course has faded and few of us 

have kept our solemn self-promises to 

study the short course in population 

genetics provided In the handouts. We 

confront the same population 

management problems, perhaps with 

somewhat deeper understandlnq, and 

newly aware that no magic answers exist, 

In genetics or elsewhere. We learned, if we 

didn’t already know it, that geneticists 

command increasingly powerful 

techniques for seeing the qenome beneath 

the skin and that the view obtained can 

yield critical population data. But, the 

techniques are no more available to most 

field biologists than they ever were. What 

we need are working relationships. 

Contacts at the meeting encouraged belief 

that population geneticists could become 

interested in some of our field problems. 

But, it’s not likely to qo much farther than 

that without specific programs, funds and 

more meetings. 

So, what was accomplished lnthosefive 

days at the Hyatt Regency, and what, if 

anything. does it portend? While 

pondering those questions, I kept 

remembering a bit of doggerel from the 

deep past, a fragment from a piece which, 

along with “The Boy Stood on the Burning 

Deck” and other old rousers, used to be a 

staple of grade-school dramatic 

recitations. To avoid being classified as an 

utterly Cretaceous fossil, I wantto make it 

perfectly clear that this was just 

something I heard from the oluer kids. 

Anyway, the poem, Southey’s “The Battle 

of Blenheim”, hasanold soldierdescribinq 

the battle to boys and it concludes: 

“But what good came of it at last?” 

Ouoth little Peterkin. 

“Why, that I cannot tell”, said he, 

“But ‘twas a famous victory.” 

Seen as an Isolated intellectual event, 

the conference on application oi genetic 

principles to population management was 

a resounding success, unique in the slim 

annals of NPS, “a famous victory”. 

Whether any abldlnq good will come of it, I 

cannot tell. One can easily imagine 

another, more specific, genetics workshop 

and see other areas of bloloqy where it 

would be useful to build some bridges 

between theorists and empiricists. Is it 

realistic to think of such things? Well, it 

happened once. I’m glad I was there to see 

it. 

Bill Robertson. Research Biologist 

South Fiorida Research Center 

Everglades NP 

4 

To The Editor: 

I was able to attend the symposium and 

workshop held In Washlnqton. D.C. in 

August on “The Application of Genetics to 

the Management of Wild Plant and Animal 

Populations” because of the note on the 

advance brochure which stated that the 

NPS considered it appropriate training for 

lndivlduals with resource management 

responsibilities. As a result, I benefited 

from the best tralninq session or 

conference I have attended in 12 years as 

an NPS Research Biologist. I found the 

organization to be superb, the speakers 

excellent, and the subject matter highly 

relevant to my Interests. The key to 

success was attractin speakers from 

among the top scientists in the field. 

Although the organizers filled the S-day 

schedule with a potentially exhaustlnq 

array of speakers and workshops from 8 

A.M., to 6 P.M., I was rarely, if ever, bored. 

And I have never attended a conference 

where reaction from mycolleagueswasso 

positive. My NPS colleagues and I felt a 

mixture of pride and amazement that our 

agency had played a major role in puttmg 

on such a high-quality and useful session. 

NPS research bioloqlsts are usually 

expected to carry out a research program 

related to managing park resources and to 

advise park superintendents on a wide 

range of natural resource topics. such as 

(in my experience) species reintroductions, 

management of rare species populations, 

control of exotic species, etc. Resource 

managers encounter an amazmg variety 

of topics. many of which they may be illprepared to handle. Most of us had fairly 

broad biological training in graduate 

school, but have since been barely able to 

keep up with the rapldly proliferating 

literature in our own often narrow fielos of 

expertise. When asked to give advice on 

some topic outside our field, we often don’t 

even know whom to approach for help or 

what questions to ask. Highly speciahzed 

training such as that provided in this 

genetics conference can go a long way 

toward getting us up to date and 

reestablishing and maintaining credibility 

for the NPS in the field of resource 

management. 

I don’t mean to imply by my praise that 

the field of conservation genetics is 

sufficiently well-developed that we were 

spoon-fed solutions to problems. Any 

conference trainees expecting easy 

solutions must have been sorely 

disappointed. Actually, much controversy 

was brought to the surface. Conflicting 

statements by proponents of contrasting 

schools of thought were commonplace. 

Eminent scientists often seemed shocked 

that solutions were expected without 

years of research, and experienced some 

frustration that lack of sufficient data 

often makes it necessary to offer an 

educated quess if one offers a solution at 

all. All that could be offered were the 
elements that should go into decision 

making. Even though new sophisticated 

and expensive research (e.g., 

electrophoretic analysis of allozyme 

variation) to provide more information for 

high-resolution decision making may be 

possible in few cases, such research can 

sometimes be extrapolated from related 

organisms. Certainly one must assemble 

all available information for the decision 

making process. 

Much information gained at this 

conference will improve my ability to carry 

out research and advise Haleakala’s 

superintendent. I have a better feel for the 

genetic limitations which very small, isolated populations of of Hawaiian plants and 

animals may have and the potential 

positive and negative results of 

“tampering with” gene pools by 

transplanhng. I can now better develop a 

research approach to a situation in which 

elimmation of pollinators may result in 

drastic reduction of seed production or 

seedling vitality. I am Impressed by the 

potential of exotic species with limited 

genetic variation because of small founder 

populations to undergo a shift from a 

“benign” exotic status to aggressive 

invasion of native vegetation after a long 

period because of introduction of new 

genetic variability or reorganization of 

existing variability. Schinus terebinthifohus 

in Florida seems to be an excellent 

example from my experience. This 

aggressive exotic tree was present in 

southern Florida for nearly a Century 

before a populatron explosion in the 1960’s 

which threatens native prne forests, 

mangroves, and other vegetation. One 

should beware of apparently rnnocuous 

exotics -especially trees and shrubs -in 

ecosystems such as those of southern 

Florida and Hawair which are highly 

vulnerable to invasron by exotics. 

Lloyd L. Loose 

Research Bioiog~sf 

Haleakala Natronal Park 

Makawao, Mau,. Hawa,; 

Briggle Retrospective Covers 

30 Years of Park Management 

By Jean Matthews.Park SCienCeEditor 

“Let’s kind of set a tone for this I’ve 

gotten into the habit over the years of 

looking at things in perspective, and I’d 

like to start by taking you backto theearly 

1950’s when I was a young ranger in 

Yellowstone National Park.” 

The scene was Mount Rainier 

Superintendent Wham J. Briggle’s office 

in the new Park headquarters building -a 

structure that might have sprung up and 

grown out of indigenous materials on 

natural energy, so perfectly site-adapted 

as to be almostmvisibleinits leafyoff-theroad setting. 

The subject was the relationship of 

research and park management, and in 

addition to a probing reporter, Stan 

Schlegel, resource management 

specialist, and Joanne Michalovic, thenew 

resource managemenf specialist trainee 

out of the Denver Service Center, were 

present. 

“In 1949 I was a young park ranger, 

stationed in Theodore Roosevelt National 

Mem. Park in North Dakota - trained 

under an extremely competent 

superintendent - Allyn Hanks. The 

mandate for Theodore Roosevelt, a new 

area in the System, was basically to 

establish our presence and start learning 

our responsibilities. We knew we had 

antelope and prairie dogs and burning 

underground coal mines, and our 

resources for finding out any more were 

limited to the observations and notes you 

made from the saddle of a horse, the seat 

of a pick-up truck, or your own two feet. 

“The superintendent was always asking 

us ‘What did you see? Where are your 

notes?’ We weren’t sure at first whether he 

was just checking up on us or if he really 

;;;E;:,/ery shortly we found out he really 

The notes, it turned out, formed the 

‘Qloe” for the superintendent’s annual 

reports. And what kind of science did these 

reports reflect? 

“There were no scientists in the park 

then - no research as such. But from 

careful, caring observation, done by the 

ranger and historian and recorded in their 

notebooks, we were able to put together a 

pretty good picture of the natural or 

cultural resources. The management 

decisions that grew out of this situation 

were extremely pragmatic. For instance. 

we did not reintroduce the buffalo that had 

once been part of the area. We didn’t do it 

because such a move at the time would 

have created a whole bunch of problems 

5 

Bill Briggle in his chosen habifaf, sbil believes 

m management that “touches the resources.” 

with surroundrng ranchers, and we didn’t 

need more problems.” 

Was this a typical s/ice of the National 

Park System in the Fifties? 

“Not really.Yellowstone. where I went 

next, was staffed with biologists, most of 

whom were studying the elk. Park rangers 

had, in the past, been sent out to shoot 
Briggle (continued) 

coyotes and mountain lions, the natural 

predators and pruners of elk populations. 

The brologists made a strong case against 

this tactic, but the early management 

errors had created an irreversible 

situation and the elk population explosion 

was inevitable.” 

Has research and management been 

able to catch up andovertake theresults of 

early mistakes? Are we still behind, even 

with, oraheadofourproblemsthesedays? 

“I think Yellowstone is pulling ahead. In 

the early days, the park’s boundary was a 

firing line. With ranches surrounding the 

park, rangers were doing elk and buffalo 

reduction and that was pretty much it, so 

far as taking care of the game was 

concerned. Grizzly bear management was 

just starting to be discussed and didn’t get 

much attention until the late Sixties and 

early Seventies. Then biologists started 

domg census studies. They got interested 

in the bears. The garbage dumps didn’t get 

closed off until Jack Anderson (then 

superintendent) stopped that in the early 

Seventies. 

“But I could see the beginning, in the 

early Fifties, of the coming together of 

research and management at Yellowstone. 

The interpreters and the rangers together 

began to see the need for more correct 

information about the resource. The 

superintendent needed that information 

for professional and political reasons- so 

he could move away from hip pocket 

decisions and start selling the 

management program in soundly based 

ways. 

“The decision-making today is much 

more sophisticated. It’s broader-based, 

and its sights are on today’s problems with 

an educated eye on where a certain 

management course probably will pui the 

park tomorrow and the day after. The 

proposal to kill mountain lions in Carlsbad 

Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains NPisa 

good example.” 

How heloiul is the exoerience oleaned 

from a stirit at one park’when it comes to 

being assigned to another area with a 

whole new set of b;Jblems? 

“The specifics change, of course, but the 

System as a whole reflects a growing 

recognmon 0i the useiuiness 0i orgamred 

research in arriving at management 

decisions. 

“I was struck with this steady growth in 

the role of science when I moved to 

Sequoia/Kings Canyon NP. where the 

problems were different but where 

management again was turning to 

research for viable alternatives. The 

problem at SequoraiKings Canyon was 

twofold: 1)the park’s close proximity to 

Los Angeles, and 2) unregulated use of 

the back country. 

“Lowell Sumner was the resident 

biologist at the time, primarily there to 

study deer. But increasingly Sumner’s 

research drifted toward the back country 

management problem, and together with 

two superintendents - first, Eivend 

Scoyen and then John Davis - research 

and back country management became a 

science/management thrust. 

“By 1964-65 thus effort had resulted in 

the first formal back country management 

plan the National Park Serviceever had. It 

eventually became the prototype for the 

Service and is the basis for today’s back 

country work.” 

Would you date the beginnings of a 

formalized research/management team 

approach at around that time then? 

“The year would vary with the park area, 

but overall I would say that by the mid60’s, the whole System was pretty well into 

organized research as a recognized 

partner m the management operation. We 

had begun to set up monitoring programs 

in many places. No longer was it a matter 

01 a ranger riding by once or twice a year 

and making a subjective observation. It 

was measured plots, and building 

enclosures, and photographic records. It 

was objective baseline measurements and 

monitoring. And yet, as good as all this is, 

and as necessary, still there is the need for 

what I call ‘an eye for it.’ 

“By that I mean that there is more to 

scientrfic management of park resources 

than the learning that comes from 

textbooks. The new park scholars still 

need the old park hands. You can’t find in 

science alone all the ingredients for a 

politically valid judgment.” 

Do you think that superintendents and 

rangers and resource management people 

are staying in one area long enough to 

/earn the ropes and do the optimum job? 

“Up to 1976 I think the answer was No. 

We were expanding too fast and we were 

lumping all over the map trying to cover all 

the new bases with the same number of 

players. 

“But now that the growth of new areas is 

restricted, field personnel aren’t moving as 

fast as they had to prior to 1976.” 

Schlegel: “The first resource 

management specialists came info the 

parks just lOor 12years ago, andfhat was 

the t/me when the rangers began to drift 

away from the resource management field. 

Rangers were monng mto implementing 

what the resource specialists were 

reporting as needed to be done. The 

visitation boom pushed rangers more 

heanly into the visitor management area. ” 

“That’s right, Stan, and at the same time 

umversities were getting active in park 

resources. Take the fire research in the 

redwoods. Through the work done by 

university scientists, we found we should 

be letting fires run, to clear out the 

undergrowth and prevent the build-up of 

ground fuel that could catch and kill the 

giant trees. We had had the best intentions, 

but our fire preventron efforts - hke our 

elk predator kills -had been wrong. 

“Good research put management back 

6 

Joanne Michalovic. resource managemenr 

specialist frarnee. was seiectd irom the Denver 

Service Cenfer to be stationed at Mount Rainier 

NP for fhe fwo-year trammg stmt. Michalov,c is 

a Long Islander (NY) with an interd,sciphnary 

deoree w/thin the natural sciences and a 

m&f&s degree from Washington Stafe 

Unlverslfy. 

on the right track, but initially it wastough 

on management in general. They were 

skeptical and they nad to overcome this 

skepticism before a mutual confidence 

could take root. 

“I think we’ve made that step now. 

Management does have confidence in 

research, and we’re showing it all over the 

System -not just rn the acquiring of new 

knowledge (such as involves the elk herds 

here in Mount Rainier), but in beach 

dynamics on the Eastern seaboard, exotic 

goat management in Hawaii, the water 

management system in the Everglades, 

and other similar problem areas where old 

notions and decisions have had to turn 160 

degrees around. That’s where rt’s been 

toughest.” 

Would you characterize this turnaround 

as a ServIcewide phenomenon? 

“It probably was, basrcally. but without 

any real formalization. There wasn’t much 

good communication in those days - no 
coordination of effort or mformation 

exchange. 

“We drdn’t have RMPs then. Sure, we had 

fire and back country management plans, 

but they weren’t overall resource 

management plans. The plans were in 

people’s heads, but they weren’t tied to 

manpower and budget and they weren’t on 

track. 

“Today’s RMP is directly tied to budget. 

And in 197677when I was Deputy Director 

of the Service there was no management 

oriented research funded unless it was 

identified in the RMP. I’ve heard it called 

“Briqgle’s Law.” 

What do you see as the current status of 

park management? 

“People with experience in the field, who 

know the resource,. are not as evident 

today in policy posrtrons. Therefore, they 

need educahng. If you get a ‘no’ to your 

request, then sharpen your pencil and your 

presentation. Try to garn understanding. 

Fix your sights all the way to OMB and the 

Appropriations Committee. We have to be 

more articulate, do our homework better, 

be more convincing.” 

Do you have any advice as to how to do 

that? 

“One of the most important ways is to 

educate your public. And do it before they 

get to the parks. Unfortunately, the 

outreach program has been cut. For years 

we’ve concentrated our interpretive efforts 

on describing the flora and fauna of the 

parks. Our captive audiences haven’t been 

advised of the problems and opportunities 

in parks. only their glories. Mitigation of 

people impacts must be handled. 

“Politics and resource management are 

inextricably interwoven. We must have 

better communication with people in the 

political arena so they can help advise 

management about direction and ways of 

operating. Going blindly about our mission 

without regard to the sociological and 

political effects can bring all resource 

management to a screetchinq halt and 

everyone can come unglued. Managers 

must be politically astute if they want to 

accomplish their mission, even to survive. 

Management can be awfully right and, at 

the same time, awfully wrong.” 

Can sociological research help 

management tread this delicate path? 

“Sociological research will help 

management get over the idea that people 

can be regulated. Compliance comes from 

convincing people that it’s the thing to do.. 

not something they have to do so long as 

biq Brother IS watching them. 

“But let me say one thing more -to the 

managers. Never let the absence of 

science-based answers stand between you 

and what common sense advises you to 

do. Remember that as a manager you are 

ultimately responsible for the resource. 

Three imperatives for this task are 

experience, common sense, and the 

courage to take risks. When common 

sense dictates ‘move,’ you must move! 

“To the scientist, I say: ‘You have to be 

sure of your findings. and willing to stand 

by your advice. If your superintendent is 

called into court to defend his decisions 

then you must be ready to march into court 

with him, and stand on your data.’ 

“There is no time to sit on past laurels. 

We must move inertia and then move 

beyond it -thinking ahead in an orderly 

planning process.” 

“M;chalovic: the new RITS approach 

should help bridge the information gap 

between parks.” 

What most we do to improve resource 

management capability? 

“You might ask around among the parks 

about what impact the publication Park 

Science is having. Is it a useful tool. Are the 

rangers using it? Do they see it as helping 

them do their jobs better? 

“I see the park rangers today moving 

away from resource management - their 

early role - and into law enforcement, 

search and rescue, specialization skills. In 

ranger training, the large block of time is 

for law enforcement. Nothing like thesame 

amount is devoted to resource 

management and resource appreciation. 

“I can’t blame the individual rangers. To 

them, that appears to be the glory road 

today. But if the park rangers are allowed 

to lose interest in the resource, and thus 

the confidence of the park manager. then 

the parks are in for difficult times in the 

years ahead. Let’s get back to the basics! 

It’s the only way if we want to be 

successful and survive! 

Davidge Opens 

GWS Conference 

Ric Oavrdge, special assrstant to the 

Assrstant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks, told the opening session of the 

George Wright Society Conference on 

Protection of Cultural and Natural 

Resources: 

“If there is any programmatic act that 

should have absolute academic and 

professional integrity, it is the National 

Park Service science program.” 

Davidqe addressed the conferees at 

their opening session Oct. 18. 1982. in the 

Department of the Interior auditorium. 

“The last real mission statement for 

science was in Ron Walker’s 

admimstration.” he said, “and it presents a 

challenge to this Administration. We want 

to look at the structure of the science 

program - how it interfaces with 

management - and how we can better 

interject science services into resource 

management. 

“The hallmark we are looking for is 

common sense - good, down-to-earth. 

feet-on-the-ground activity. I’m convinced 

we can do a much better job than we’re 

doing now.” 

Davidqe cited the Everglades NP as one 

of the most threatened parks in the System 

and said, “Morally, we should be dealing 

with these problems and the fact is we 

don’t know too much about them.” He 

urged National Park scientists to interface 

with the science services of other Federal 

agencies and also state and local agencies 

that can supply pertinent scientific 

information. 

The Strategy Conference recommendations will be carried in their entirety in the 

George Wright FORUM. 

A deeply probmq analysis of NPS policy 

NPS Vegetation 

for managing vegetation in National Parks 

is carried in Environmental Management. 

Vol. 6. No. 2, pp. 104122. In this article. 

Thomas M. Bonnicksen and Edward Stone 

argue that the Park Service has failed to 

recognize the significance of changes in 

the vegetation that occurred after fire was 

excluded and of the “unnatural 

vegetation” that now exists and that will 

be perpetuated if the fire process is simply 

renewed. 

fires are allowed to operate freely, at what 

Policy Challenged 

future time, and upon what criteria will the 

Park Service declare an ecosytem as now 

“natural?’ 

Bonnicksen is assistant professor of 

forestry at the University of Wisconsin, 

Madison, and Stone is professor of 

forestry at UCal. Berkeley. 

The article raises a plethora of pertinent 

questions, among them: “Is reducing fuels 

acceptable as the only or principal 

objective? Are fire-induced changes 

acceptable so long as fuels are reduced? 

What standards should be used to judge if 

theseotherchangesaredesirableornot?If 

reintroduced fires are used and natural 

7 

The article presents two philosophies: 

one, to reintroduce prescribed and natural 

burns and then simply declare whatever 

results as a natural ecosystem, and the 

other, leave the ecosystems alone and 

allow them to change in whatever way 

nature dictates - “beginning today.” 

The authors plead for consideration of 

unanswered questions and for 

achievement of widespread agreement 

based on unambiguous, quantifiable 

criteria, rather than on “fuzzy undefined 

concepts like dynamic equilibrium.” 

The paper presents five alternatives that 

reflect both philosophies, and then addsa 

sixth that the authors thmk spans the two 

points of view “providing a middle 

ground that can serve as the beginning of a 

compromtse.” 
Regional Highlights 

Water Resources Lab 

A number of publications now are 

available from the Water Resources Field 

Support Laboratory (WRFSL) with special 

significance for NPS scientists and 

resource managers: WRFSL Report No. 82. 

1, Status Report: Acid Rain Research in the 

National Park Service, 1982 Report No. 82 

2. Guidelines for Water Quality Program 

Development in NPSAreas; Report No. 82-3 

State of the Art in Road Salt Deicing; and 

Report No. 82-4. Evaluation of NPS 

Participation in the National Atmospheric 

Deposition Program I, An Overview. 

A conference session, “Water 

Management in Park and Recreation 

Areas,” helc in Lincoln, Nebraska in May 

1982. will be available shortly as WRFSL 

Report No. 82-5. The conference was 

sponsored by the Water Resources 

Systems Committee of the American 

Society of Civil Engineers and was part of 

the larger conference on “Managing Our 

Limited Water Resources.” All WRSFL 

reports are available from the Lab, NPS, 

107C Natural Resources, Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 

Pacific Northwest Region 

A new journal, Women in Forestry. 

published jointly by the College of 

Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences and 

the Laboratory of Anthropology at the 

Universrty of Idaho, will deal with ideas 

and information written for. from, and 

about women. It will serve as a medium of 

communication among women in natural 

resource fields and aims at assisting them 

in reaching their professional goals. Four 

issues per year will cost non-students $15; 

students, $10. Dixie L. Ehrenreich. editor, is 

at the Anthropology Lab, University of 

Idaho. Moscow, ID 83843. 

f.. 

Olympic NP and the Penninsula College 

fisheries technology program will sponsor 

a symposium, “The Olympic Wild Fish 

Conference,” at the College in Port 

Angeles, Wash., March 24-26, 1983. The 

conference will allow scientists, resource 

managers, and the public an opportunity 

to focus on the current status of Olympic 

Penninsula native populations of salmon 

and trout stocks, and on the research, 

policies, and management pertaining to 

them. 

Southeast Region 

Abstracts of a Colloquium on long-term 

ecological research in terrestrial and 

marine biology of the Virgin Islands. held 

at Virgin Islands NP in July 1982, are now 

available from research biologist Robert 

Brander, Virgin Islands NP, P.O. Box 7789, 

Charlotte Amalie, U.S. V.I. 00801. The 

papers deal with water quality, climate, 

and exotic and human impacts. 

.** 

Forty-six research projects covering a 

wide range of topics in the biological, 

physical, and social sciences in the 

southern Appalachian region are 

described in a publication stemming from 

the Eighth Annual Scientific Research 

Meeting held in June 1982 at Great Smokey 

Mountains NP. The abstracts are available 

from Uplands Field Research Lab, Great 

;y3iey Mountains NP, Gatlinburg. TN 

ff. 

A conference on Maintenance of 

Biological Diversity in the Lesser Antilles, 

to be held in conjunction with Biosphere 

Reserve dedication ceremonies at Virgin 

Islands NP, is scheduled tentatively for 

May 1983. The conference will focus on 

maintaining biological diversity in the 

Lesser Antilles and on generating 

recommendations for the upcoming world 

meetings on maintenance of biological 

diversity. 

Western Region 

An article describing significant 

inaccuracies in reporting wilderness 

permit data appeared in Environmental 

Management. Vol. 6. No. 4. pp. 324335. 

under the by-lines of David J. Parsons and 

Thomas J. Stohlgren of Sequoia and Kings 

Canyon NPs and James M. Kraushaar of 

the University of Vermont School of 

Business. Data from Sequoia & Kings 

Canyon show that changes in visitor plans 

resulted in an over-reporting of total 

persons by 8 percent and of visitor nights 

by 23 percent. 

Parsons also authored a summary 

synthesis of “Fire Management and 

Vegetation Effects in Mediterranean-Type 

Ecosystems as part of the Proceedings of a 

Symposium on Dynamics and 

Management of such ecosystems. The 

latter is carried in the USDA General 

8 

Technical Report PSW-58, Berkeley, CA 

available from the Pacific Southwas 

Forest and Range Experiment Station 

Forest Service. 

The biannual report (#16) of the 

NPSXooperative Park Resources Studies 

Unit at the University of Nevada, Las 

Vegas, covering the period from Jan. 1 to 

June 30. 1982, is now available from 

Charles L. Douglas, senior research 

scientist and Unit leader. Six studies at 

Death Valley NM are described, two at 

Lake Mead NRA, one at Joshua Tree NM, 

and one at the San Gabriel Mountains, 

California. Subject matterincludesseveral 

aspects of bighorn sheep ecology and 

behavior, burro-small vertebrate 

interactions, and floristics and vegetation 

of the Black Mountains. 

Mid-Atlantic Region 

An Overview of the FY 82 Mid-At/ark 

Region Science Program has been 

produced by the MAR Division of Natural 

Sciences. The research/resource 

management report describes monitoring 

and research efforts at Shenandoah NP in 

the areas of air and water quality (with 

support from the WAS0 Water Resources 

Division, the U.S. Geological Survey, and 

the WAS0 Air Quality Division). and a 

major effort through the USF & WS 

Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit at 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University (VPI) to examine the seasonal 

movement patterns, identifying seasonal 

habitat preferences, estimating bear 

density and reproduction, and relating all 

factors to management activities. 

The Overview lists the following 

additional studies at Shenandoah and 

elsewhere in the region: 

At Shenandoah NP: “A Hiking Trail 

System Model for the Central District of 

Shenandoah NP,” and a proposal to 

establish a Shenandoah NP Field Research 

Center; 

At Assateague Island NS: “A Study of the 

Behavior and Ecology of the Feral Ponies, 

Sika Deer and White-Tailed Deer Within 

Assateague Island NS,” and “Frequency 

Spectrum of Oceanic Overwash Events on 

Assateague Island NS: Implications of 

Natural Disturbances for Habitat and 

Community Development;” 

At Delaware Water Gap NRA: “Rare and 

Endangered Plant Species Within the 

Delaware Watergap NRA,” “Factors 

Affecting Gypsy Moth Egg Survivability,” 

and “Parasitism m Gypsy Moth Larvae 

Populations from the Watergap NRA, 

Gettysburg NMP, and Catoctin Mountain 

Park;” 

At Independence NHP: Several studies 
a 

being conducted by the Morris Arboretum, 

including “Trees for Urban Parks - A 

Guide for the Selection and Culture of Trees 

in NE Cities;” 

And studies specific to New River Gorge 

National River, Gettysburg NMP. Valley 

Forge NHP, and Allegheny Portage 

Railroad NHS. 

National Capital Region 

A growing outbreak of racoon rabies in 

West Virginia and Western Maryland is 

responsible for the implementation of an 

urban racoon ecology study that had been 

drafted by Dave Manski of the Ecological 

Services Lab. NPS is working with the 

National Zoo, the University of D.C.. and 

the Communicable Disease Center in 

Atlanta on the plan, which now involves 

trapping, radio collaring, and inoculating 

the racoons In Washington, D.C.‘s Rock 

Creek Park. 

*tt 

Under the direction of Kay Thomas and 

Jim Sherald of the Ecological Services 

Lab, a herbicide, cacodylic acid, has been 

injected into Kudzu. wisteria vines, and 

English ivy plants in Rock Creek Park and 

on the George Washington Memorial 

Parkway in an experimental effort to 

control these exotrc plants. Salt water 

treatments, flaming, cutting, and severe 

pruning methods also have been 

implemented. 

f.. 

In February 1983. the National Capital 

Region will complete the third year of its 

three-year Integrated Pest Management 

contract. According to Dick Hammerschlag. 

chief of the Ecological Services Lab, what 

has evolved over the life of the contract is 

a philosophy and a personnel set-up that 

has moved away from a pesticide based 

management process and toward an 

analysis of alternative strategies with 

strong emphasis on biological controls, 

better site management, and improved 

understanding of the ecology of pests. 

Southwest Region 

Oriental (Asian) clams werefound in Bull 

Bayou at Hot Springs NP. Population 

densities as high as 84 per square meter 

were reported. However, research 

biologist Gerry Hoddenbach says clam 

specialists report 2,OOOto 5,OOOpersquare 

meter have been known in Arkansas. The 

clams are a specific problem not only 

because of their proclivity to cover stream 

bottoms and directly affect benthic 

organisms and indirectly affect other 

aquatic life, but also because clam larvae 

can penetrate irrrigation pumps, pipelines 

and other water conveyances and cause 

mechanical problems. Canals have been 

known to be all but blocked by colonies of 

clams that cause flooding problems during 

times of high water. There are few, if any, 

controls for the clams. 

.ff 

Unit archaeologists returned to Point 

Reyes NS for the first two weeks of October 

to complete underwater remote sensmg 

operations in Drake’s Bay. The session 

emphasized the use of side scan sonar as 

the primary inventory tool used in 

association with a magnetometerandsubbottom profiler. 

**. 

A contract with Harvey, Stanley,and 

Associates, and environmental consulting 

group, has resulted in the capture and 

radio-collaring of one mountain lion at 

Carlsbad Caverns/Guadalupe Mountains. 

While no others have been captured in the 

lion study there, a professional lion hunter 

recently killed three of the animals on 

adjacent ranch land. 

f.. 

The Rio Grande Fisheries Recovery 

Team in Santa Fe met on Nov. 1516 to 

discuss the recovery plansforthe Big Bend 

NP Gambusia. The decision was to try to 

rehabilitate one of the natural springs that 

has been altered, by drilling a well 

designed to enhance the natural artesian 

flow. Chief Scientist Milford Fletcher said 

the Gambusia population is more than 

adequate to justify the effort and he 

expected the springs alteration to be 

accomplished within the next year. 

Rocky Mountain Region 

Victor Jackson of Zion NP is the winner 

of the Freeman Tilden Award for 

outstanding contribution to interpretation 

by an NPS interpreter. The announcement 

was made by the Washington Office on Oct. 

27. 

Pacific Northwest Region 

An inexpensive but handsome green-oncream pamphlet defining the NPS 

Cooperative Park Studies Unit at the 

University of Washington has been 

produced by the Pacific Northwest Region 

of NPS. The flyer gives a short history of 

the WU Unit, and a brief outline of the 

Unit’s research, academic programs, and 

extension programs. The CPSU concept 

given is “a means by which the NPS and 

cooperating universities mutually 

strengthen their ability to conduct 

research, improve teaching and training 

opportunities, and apply natural and 

social sciences information to improve the 

management of natural and cultural 

resources.” 

9 

OSU Offers Course 

In Microcomputers 

An intensive short course on 

Microcomputer Applications for Resource 

Managers will be held March 22-23. 1983, 

at the School of Forestry, Oregon State 

University, Corvallis, according to Ed 

Starkey, research biologist and leader of 

the NPSlCPSU at Oregon State. 

The workshop is designed for those with 

little or no experience with 

microcomputers, and will focus on 

applications rather than theory. 

Participants will be introduced to the 

general operation of microcomputers and 

will have ample opportunity for hands-on 

experience with a number of commercially 

available proorams with a variety of 

applications. _ 

Soecific aoolications will include 

statistics. data base management, on-line 

communication networks, word 

processing, and budgeting. A fee of $190 

includes all course materials and 

computer time. Contact for the course is 

Conference Assistant, School of Forestry, 

Oregon State University, Corvallis. OR 

97331 

TEN YEARS IN THE MAKING A 

Landmark Study in Wildlife Ecology! 

With these words, Macmillan 

Publishing Co., Inc., 200D Brown St., 

Riverside, NJ 08370, trumpets the 

publication of Doug Houston’s The 

Northern Yellowstone Elk: Ecology and 

Management:‘This book is one of the 

first indications that an objective 

and experimental approach is 

entering the field of wildlife 

management,” says A.R.E. Sinclair 

of the University of British Columbia 

in the book’s foreword. Richard S. 

Miller of Yale says the book “sets a 

high standard of scholarship and 

science. has done a good job of 

sorting through a conflicting array 

of data that has generated a classic 

management controversy.” 
Glacier Grizzly 

Bear Research 

By C.J. Marlinka 

Editor’s Nofe: Newspaper clips from a// 

over the United Srates are increasingly 

sprinkled with headlines such as “Grizzlies 

Seen As Imperiled in Wyoming,” “Sixth 

Grizzly Kill May Lead Officials to End 

Baiting, ” and “Grizzly Populations 

Dwindled Rapidly. ” The New York Times, 

the Jackson Hole Guide, the Great Falls 

Tribune and the Washington Post are 

representative of fhe wide range of 

publications devoting space to thesubject. 

In view of this drumbeat ofpublic concern, 

Park Science asked Clifford Martinka, NPS 

research biologist at Glacier NP, to update 

his 7981 statement for the U.S. House 

subcommittee on Public Lands and 

National Parks. The following is his 

response. 

Grizzly bears are part of the native 

wildlife heritage of Glacier NP. 

Servicewide policy and park plans 

recognize that scientific information is 

necessary for proper management of this 

umque natural resource. Occasional 

aggressiveness by bears toward park 

visitors emphasizes the dimenston of 

human safety as part of the need for 

credible knowledge about the bears. In 

addition, their threatened status m the 

contiguous Umted States requires a 

factual data base If recovery is to be 

successful. 

Park management has responded to 

grizzly bear research needs by integrating 

the capability for field studies into the 

resident research program. Research 

actlvlty was initiated in 1967aftergrizzlies 

caused the deaths of two backcountry 

campers. Study goals included the 

collection and evaluation of quantitative 

data on population status, ecological 

relationships, and management of the bear 

population. Field data collection was 

stressed but it quickly became evident that 

management records were an invaluable 

source of trend information. University 

contracts provided topical studies while 

liaison with other agencies and the 

scientific community assured that data 

from regional studies alsowere available 

to park managers. This research 

framework continues; its intensity is 

largely dependent upon annual support 

funding levels. 

Research findtngs have been reported in 

management documents, at interagency 

meetings, at scientific gatherings, and in 

several dozen reports, articles, and 

technical papers. Significant results may 

be summarized in five categories as 

follows: 

I. Population Status. An estimated 

Two young bears on a bare meadow fimsh ihe 

remains of an elk carcass. 

population of 201t23 grizzlies (1 per 8 

square miles) inhabited the park from 

1967-76. An average of 34 cubs was 

produced each year but population levels 

remained relatively stable over the lOyear 

period. Natural mortality and dispersal 

from the park are important factors 

contributing to population stability. 

Population data collected since 1976 

suggest continued stability; the entire 

package is being used as baseline data in 

the regional recovery plan. 

10 

2. Population Ecology. Park habitats 

provide a variety of high quality food and 

cover for grizzlies. Seasonal use of these 

habitats is relatively predictable and 

several significant concentration areas 

have been Identified. Habitat use patterns 

have provided the foundation for two 

research projects, the results of which 

provide planning tools to minimize 

encounters between grizzlies and park 

vlsltors. 

3. Grizzly/Visitor Interactions. Grizzly 

bears have been involved in 25 

confrontations that resulted in 28 visitor 

injuries and 6 deaths from 191&80. The 

number of confrontations is closely 

correlated with park visitation levels. 

However, rate analysis during recent 

decades suggest that confrontations may 

actually be increasing faster than park 

visitation. Changing bear behavior is now 

being investigated as a possible 

contributor to this trend. 

4. Effects of Management. Grizzly bear 

losses resulting from management 

activities totalled 47 from 1951.82. Annual 

losses followed the same increasmg trend 

as visits and confrontations. However, 

losses remain less than one percent of the 

estimated park population and are 

considered to be within biologically 

acceptable limits. It should be recognized 

that mortality adjacent to the park may 

involve individual bears from the park 

population and that total losses are likely 

somewhat greater than one percent. 

5. Information Systems. The collection and 

use of credible information is an essential 

element of grizzly bear management. 

Accordingly, the park research effort 

expanded its data processing program to 

include development of a management 

information system. Result wasa program 

which is now incorporated into a 

servicewide bear information 

management system (BIMS). 

Current research in Glacier continues to 

emphasize grizzly bear studies. The staff 

recently was expanded to include a 

Wildlife Biologist (Kate Kendall) whose 

sole responsibility will be field bear 

research. Two principal topics are being 

addressed: 

1. A complete review of existing 

population data is being conducted to 

assure that previous analyses accurately 

reflect population conditions and that 

existing data sources are efficiently 

utilized. 

2. The effects of food stress on bear 

behavior are being studied along with the 

distribution of important f&ds and 

habitats within the park. This work is 

considered requisite to management plans 

for further separating grizzhes and park 

vlsltors. 

The issue of behavioral conditioning 

also is beina considered. but inherent 

complexities nave demanded a cautious 

approach. 

It is generally agreed that grizzly bear 
management requires a more substantial 

data base than currently exists in the park. 

Research plans therefore include some 

major degree of attention through the 

198Vs. A program to address the most 

pressing needs is expected to include the 

following: 

1. Continued efforts to monitor grizzly 

bear population trends with an emphasis 

on refinement of techniques for routine 

collection and evaluation of blological 

data. 

2. Development of a more comprehensive 

data bank of park vIsitor stabstics, 

especially numbers and trends of hikers. 

3. Completion of an inventory and 

mapping of park habitats including 

NPS Director Russell E. Dickenson, in 

a major address at Oregon State 

University on November 22. put the 

plight of grizzly bears in the category of 

“do or die” situations that the Park 

Science is facing. 

“The grizzly is alive and well in 

Glacier,” he said, “even though 

public/private planned and existing 

activities outside the park may have an 

effect on the grizzly populations. 

“But the grizzly situation in 

Yellowstone is desperate. Only about 200 

of the animals are estimated to remain 

there, and we are sure of only about 30 

females. It would be an absolute tragedy 

if irresponsible or thoughtless actions 

toward the grizzly, in the Yellowstone 

area, were allowed to wipe out this 

important population.” 

distribution and production trends of the 

bears’ key foods. 

4. Improvement in our understanding of 

bear behavior, especially bear reacttons to 

human presence in their habitat, and 

continued study of the potential for 

behavioral conditioning of individual 

bears. 

5. Implementation of prototype vIsItor 

management packages on an 

experimental basis to determine If they are 

effective m reducing confrontations with 

bears. 

Finally, available inlormation permitssome 

judgements and predictions about the 

future of grizzlies and their management in 

the park environment. Current population 

SAGIS Application Worked Out At DSC 

Editor’s Note: In the Writer 1982 issue of 

Park Science Harvey Fleet, Chief of the 

Science Section at the Denver Service 

Center, dwxssed activities in digital 

cartography (computer mapping). The 

fallowing article describes a recent 

application. 

The Division of Natural Science, WASO, 

recently asked the Remote Sensing 

Section, Denver Service Center, to 

discover the availability of aerial 

photography and Landsat imagery for 

potential use in a Parks-As-Islands sfudy 

of IO NPS Biosphere Reserves.2 An 

appropriate search request to theNational 

Cartographic Information Center (NCIC) 

produced a rather awesome stack of 

computer listings containing thousands of 

accessions and their associated 

‘Systems Applications Group Informahon 

System 

‘Everglades, Yellowstone, Great Smokies. 

Glacier, Olympic, Big Thicket. Big Bend. 

Sequoia/Kings Canyon, Organ Pipe. Rocky 

Mountain. 

Continued on Page 12 

L 

Olympic NP IS shown here as a superimposition of medium scale (between 1:19,.500and 1:60,000) color 

mirared aerial photography. Each shaded area represents an EROS Data Center “acc,ession” 

contaminp a group or series of photographs shot as a smgle project. The different accessmns are 

distmgu!siied-by shading patterns. 

status may be described as healthy, witha 

minimum but increasing human Influence. 

Since park visitation conbnuesto rise,and 

both confrontations and bear removals 

correlate with visitation, an expanding 

human impact on the grizzly population is 

expected. Reversal of this anticipated 

trend may not be easy but certainly is 

within the realm of possibility. Park 

visitors have been and continue to be a 

significant element in the management 

picture. An emphaslson thiselement holds 

the oreatest promisefor breakingthetrend 

of increasini losses. 

Park manaoement in the future will be 

further complicated by expanding 

development and use of adjacent lands. 

It’s hkely that impacts on grizzlies will 

expand there in much the same fashion as 

11 

has occurred in the park. Since many park 

bears travel to adjacent habitats, it could 

very well be that the park population 

suffers from factors beyond direct 

management control. Thus, our ability to 

conserve 200 bears is probably an 

optimistic estimate. A more realistic 

figure may be closer to 100. a value 

thought by some authoritres to be at below 

minimum viable population size. 

To assure full conservation potential, 

the park obviously must pursue a regional 

management plan for grizzlies. Progress 

toward that goal is being made through the 

recovery plan. Grizzlies have many human 

friends and it is that relationship which 

provides a hopeful light for their future. 

Martmka IS Superwsory Research B&gist 

at Glacrer NP. 
SAGIS (continued) 

latitude/longitude coordinates. Plotting 

each accession on a map of its respective 

Biosphere Reserve is the only way to learn 

the exact extent of its coverage - 

information essential for the Parks-AsIslands study. But plotting thousands of 

accessions by hand is a very laborintensive process and produces stacks of 

single-purpose hardcopy maps. We 

thought that SAGIS (Systems Applications 

Group Information System), adopted and 

adapted from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service in Fort Collins, might be able to 

help us with this task. 

As always, themostformidableproblem 

was entry. How were we going to get the 

data into SAGIS? After an initial attempt at 

hand-coding and hand-entering the data 

from the computer keyboard (using the 

printouts previously received), wedecided 

to try to get a tape listing from the EROS 

Data Center (EDC) in Sioux Falls, SD. Our 

second attempt was successful and 

yielded a computer tape containing all the 

data we wanted.. and then some.because 

our search criteria resulted in many 

duplicate accessions. 

We read the data from the tape into the 

computer (the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

CDC CYBER) and reformatted them using a 

program written by Ron Buss, a 

programmer in the Rocky Mountain 

Regional Office. Using a CYBER system 

edit utility, we then separated the master 

file into 10 separate files, one for each 

Biosphere Reserve. Using another CYBER 

utility, we then sorted the accessions 

within each file so that the duplicate 

accessions occurred one right after the 

other in the file. This allowed us to weed 

out duplicate accessions simply by 

checking successive numbers. 

We then ran a BASIC program I wrote to 

create “headers” (identifying, coded 

labels) for each accession and to extract 

and convert the respective four 

latitude/longitude coordinates to UMT 

(Universal Transverse Mercator) 

coordinates, which SAGIS uses. 

We reformatted this output, using our 

own software, sorted the reformatted 

output, and assigned sequential header 

numbers using another package of our 

own construction. At this point we used 

UNWAMS (specifically, this means unWetlands Area Mapping System, and it isa 

typical cryptic file name, any of which 

must be seven characters or fewer in 

number), a SAGIS utility, to convert the 

data to a SAGIS mapfile. 

Working with the SAGIS mapfile. we use 

CALPLOT (a computer plotting program) to 

search and display the accessions for each 

Biosphere Reserve. For example, one 

graphic might show the location of all 

medium-scale (between 1:19.500 and 

1:60.000) black-and-white aerial 

photography available for Olympic NPfor 

1953. The Figure here shows how you can 

use a variety of shading patterns to 

distinguish between accessions. Colors 

also are possible using the plotter rather 

than the black-and-white hardcopy unit. 

Using SAGIS in this way allows us to 

store, locate, and display a large volume of 

map-based data that otherwise would be 

difficult and time consuming to handle. 

Now that the software is written, the 

process could readily be used for any 

geographic location. As needs arise, we 

anticipate applying the technique to other 

NPS area. 

Interpretation 

Western RAIN 

Workshop Held 

Nearly 150 persons from Oregon, 

Washington, Idaho, Montana, and 

Wyoming attended the workshop 

conducted by the Northwest Region of the 

Association for Interpretive Naturalists 

(Northwest RAIN) Oct. 2629in Vancouver, 

Wash. On day one of the workshop, three 

concurrent sessions ran all day under the 

general headings “Interpretation m the 

Private Sector,:’ “Special Populations,” 

and “Shoestrrng Techniques for a 

Shoestring Budget.” On day two, the 

conference split into five groups for allday field trips to Mount St. Helens, Mt. 

Hood, the Trojan nuclear power plant in 

Washington, the Columbia Gorge, and the 

Washington Park complex in Portland, 

Oregon. 

The final day of the conference dealt 

with Research for Interoretation. 

interpretive techniques, and a “‘hot issues 

panel,” in which one of the hottest issues 

turned out to be the question of 

volunteerism in the interpretive field and 

what that movement portends in the way 

of interpretive professionalism. 

Roger Clark with the U.S. Forest 

Service in Seattle sounded the keynote as 

the conference opened: “Interpretation in 

the 1980’s: Delivering the Message 

Through Cooperation,” and wildland 

recreation professor Paul Saunders, from 

Washington State University, delivered 

the closing banquet remarks. 

Gary Machlis. NPS sociologist from the 

University of Idaho in Moscow, delivered 

one of the meatier presentations of the 

workshop when he addressed a session on 

“cross cultural interpretation.” He 

described the “myths” and “norms” of 

various cultures and how human behavior 

can be inferred to mean certain things by 

one culture that are not necessarily meant 

by the people who exhibit these behaviors. 

“Our myths,” he said, “tell us what is right 

and wrong, good and bad, appropriate or 

taboo. And “norms” are the informal rules 

12 

for behavior -the things that tell us how 

to act at a football game as opposed to a 

cemetery. Norms are society’s powerful 

hand, telling us what is polite, what is 

rude, what is appropriate.” 

Machlis suggested that interpretation, 

in order to stand the best chance of 

transcending cultural gulfs, might best be 

based on what he called “universals.” 

These universals consist of distinctions 

that hold in every culture -concepts such 

as family, stratification, hierarchy, and life 

cycles. Using “family” as an example, 

Machlis pointed out a biological fact of 

human life - that you either have some 

semblance of a “family” to nurture you 

from birth until you can cope on your own, 

or you die. 

“So if you start Interpreting a historrc 

site by asking ‘What do you think family 

life was like when this fort (or whatever) 

was built?‘the chances are you will reach 

all the visitors in theaudience in someway 

- at then own cultural entrance level.” 

Machlis suggested that census data is a 

classic source for the cultural information 

on your local scene. Such data can tell you 

what cultural groups you are dealing with 

- by sex, by income, by living area, by 

nationality, and so forth. There is no 

greater cross-cultural challenge to be 

faced than the one that is inherent in the 

United States today, Machlis said. The 

divisions are deep and cover an enormous 

range of cultures. 

“Consider,” he said, “the great cultural 

gap that exists between some stuffy 25 

year-old interpreter and an audience of 

video game freaks.” Then multiply this 

seemingly frivolous disparity by scores of 

gaps that occur among urban poor, blue 

collar, white collar, professional, 

Southern, Northern, Mexican, black, and 

all the rest of the pieces that make up the 

U.S. cultural patchwork. “There is no need 

to include Japanese,Germans,French,and 

the rest of the nationalities to define our 

culture gap problems and opportunities, ” 

Machlis said, “but these other nations and 

their tourists provide us wrth a growing 

visitor audience and a arowina need for 

understanding.” _ _ 

He closed bv describina one orooosed 

Park Service solution to the interpretation 

of Ellis Island - to invite each of the 

national and ethnic groups who had 

entered the U.S. there in great numbers to 

supply its own interpretation of what Ellis 

Island meant to those forebears. “It works 

out to a sort of market basket approach,” 

he said. “The visitor can browse through 

the various ideas presented and respond 

to those that make a connection with his 

own experience.” 

And then Machlis tacked on a throwaway line that could serve as the subject 

for an entire workshop. “Perhaps,” he said, 

“interpreters should be catalysfs for, 

rather than definers of, the public myths.” 
Scientists At Rainier Cooperate 

In 3-Year Study of Elk Impact 

lolding the antenna and wearing a techtronics radio locator, Alan Ewert momtors a radro-coliaredeik. 

By Alan Ewert 

Elk have always been a subject of great 

merest to sportsmen and game managers. 

dare recently, the elk of Mount Rainier NP 

rave come under increasing scientific 

observation because of their impact on 

lark resources. Elk impact has included 

regetation reduction, trail erosion and 

watershed disruption. Park officials are 

:oncerned with the adverse effects of a 

frowing population on the fragile park 

esources. 

Traditionally not a native of Mount 

jainier, elk from the YellowstonelGrand 

reton localities were transplanted 

letween 1912 and 1933 to areas near the 

lark’s boundaries. In accordance with the 

Irowing conservation movement at that 

ime, these introduced herds generally 

were protected from hunting pressures. As 

early as 1914, small herds of elk were 

leginning to be seen in the interior of the 

lark. 

As with many transplanting operations, 

this one was not without its problems. By 

1934 concern was being voiced about the 

transplanted elk invading the park to the 

detriment of other wildlife. 

Despite growing populations, little 

or$nrze;f(;;earch was conducted on elk 

1962. At that time, 

during an aerial survey over 466 

elk were sighted along the east 

boundary alone. Because of a variety of 

human activities, including increasing 

numbers of clear-cut areas along the 

park’s periphery, elk populations 

continued to grow in numbers and impact. 

To address this mounting problem, the 

Mount Rainier Deer and Elk Management 

Coordinating Committee was formed in 

1967. Committee members included 

personnel from NPS, the Forest Service, 

the Washington State Department of 

Game, and representatives of Washington 

State Sportsmen’s Council and the 

Weyerhaeuser Company. Through this 

13 

group, research ettorts were focused 

around the total population and 

characteristics of the park elk, the 

migration characteristics of the drfferent 

herds, and the impact on the park’s 

ecosystems. 

Currentlv under the suoervision of 

Stanley Schlegel. Resource ‘Management 

Specialist, the elk research program is 

concluding its third year of data collection 

under the present methodology. Within 

this particular research design, a 

combination of vegetative measurement, 

aerial census,, systematic field 

observation, radro telemetry, and data 

interpretation using acomputer-enhanced 

analysis of variance procedure is utilized 

to determine herd size, composition, 

impact, and migration patterns. 

During the winter season, elk were live 

trapped along various points both inside 

and immediately outside of park 

boundaries. After being tranquilized with 

Pneu-Darts (Succinylcholine Chloride), 20 

elk were fitted with radio transmitters. 

Others were fitted with ear tags and 

numbered collars. After the taking of 

appropriate data such as weight, sex. and 

age, the elk were released. To date, 17 of 

the original 20 radio-collared elk are being 

monitored. Using the telemetry equipment 

and triangulation techniqueselk locations 

and subsequent movement can be 

identified readily. 

Present evidence indicates that what 

initially was several small herds living 

outside the park has grown to a herd of 

between 1,720 and 2,140 elk, which are 

taking up summer residence in the park. 

Subsequent analysis of the vegetative 

measurements revealed that a significant 

change has occurred in the floral 

composition of the sub-alpine meadows, 

due to trampling and grazing. 

Radio telemetry and field observations 

further substanbated the hypothesis that 

Bull elk grazes jr? a mountain meadow. 
ELK (continued) 

the elk are using the park’s sub-alpine 

meadows as summer feeding grounds and 

migrating outside the park during the 

winter. Elk herd composition data with 

respect to sex and age ratios are being 

collected through the combined efforts of 

the various agencies involved. This year 

approximately 300 elk were located 

between September Band 9in an operation 

involving more than 25 people. The 

information collected is used by the NPS 

and the Washington State Game 

Department. 

With Park Superintendent John Rutter’s 

proclamation in 1963 designating the elk 

situation worthy of NPS consideration, the 

need for a management scheme became 

recognized. What makes this parbcular 

management problem unique is the 

interagency approach involving NPS. the 

Forest Service. the Washington State 

Game Department, the Washington State 

Sportsmen’s Council, and other concerned 

groups. Despite sometimes competing 

management objectives, a spirit of 

information sharing and fact finding has 

become a dominant feature. At least once a 

year. the above organizations convene to 

review publicly theresultsof NPSresearch 

and share any new ideas. 

From these meetings, management 

alternatives have been developed. 

Currently, those considered most feasible 

include: 

1. Take no action on the part of the NPS. 

2. Direct reduction by shooting of elk 

herds within the park. 

3. Reduce elk numbers through sport 

hunting outside park boundaries. 

4. Manipulate the elk in areas of 

population concentration, by means 

such as reducing the herd “memory.” 

Any management alternative chosen 

will be faced with the constraints of public 

acceptance, cost factors, and technical 

feasibility. Likewise, an effective 

management scheme must involve the 

tertiary process of identification, data 

collection, and decision-making. 

Currently, the NPS at Mount Rainier is 

involved in the data collection stage of this 

process. 

In a larger sense, the elk situation at 

Mount Rainier is indicative of a growing 

soohisticatron within the NPS concernina 

resolution of difficult managemen 

problems. Despite differing management 

goals, the NPS has sought out potentially 

involved agencies and asked their 

opinions, so that together they could 

formulate an acceptable management 

scheme for all concerned parties. 

Perhaps of even more importance than 

effective solution to the current elk 

sltluation at Rainier is the fact that 

consultation has replaced confrontation 

cooperative effort among involved 

among various governmental agencies. A 

agencies and groups can provide better 

long-range committment has been madeto 

protection of our park resources for future 

research and data-gathering as opposed 

generations, and serve as an effective 

model for future situations of a similar 

to quick decisions based on gut-level- nature. 

inStinCtS. In an age where the National 

Parks no longer are islands unaffected by 

Photos by James E. MI//S Ewert and MI//S aa 

events outside park boundaries, a 

Resource Management Speoalists at Mount 

Rainier NP, 

Elk Wallow from a distance (above) dommates the meadow. Seen up close (below) the same wallow 

shows the elks’devasfabng. bulldozer effect. 

14 
information crossfile 

An effort to improve the gene pool of the 

ast remaining species of pure wild horse 

3y U.S. and Soviet conservationists 

appeared in the August/September issue 

If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife News. Thetwo 

zountries exchanged six rare Przewalski’s 

Jorses in July in a swap negotiated under 

the U.S. - U.S.S.R. Environmental 

4greement. One male and two female 

lorses from the Bronx and San Diego Zoos 

eft for Moscow in mid-July 1982, their 

destination being Russia’s Askama Nova 

Wildlife Preserve. Their counterparts from 

the Russian oreserve arrived in New York 

Zity in late july. 

Onlv 420 of the Monoolian wild horse 

sp&i& survive, all of t(em in zoos. None 

?as been seen in the wild since 1968. The 

mproved genetic mix hoped for from the 

Terse exhange could improve the chances 

for eventual reintroduction in Mongolia. 

f.. 

The distinguished and much-honored 

:areer of Jack Major. with special 

:mphasis on his many contributions to the 

*esearch and input needed to manage the 

National Parks of the Sierra Nevada are 

jetailed in an article by David J. Parsons in 

the Oct. 12. 1982 issue of Madrono. Vol. 29. 

No. 4, pp. 520 6. 

“The Role of Plant Ecolooical Research 

in Sierran Park Management: A Tribute to 

Jack Major,“is the title of the piece, by the 

Kings Canyon/Sequoia NP research 

scientist. “His (Major’s) interest, as well as 

that of his students and associates, in the 

plant ecology of the Sierra Nevada has 

contributed to a basic understanding of the 

vegetation, which in turn provides a basis 

for effective resources management 

throughtout the Sierra,” Parsons wrote. 

Examples of Major’s research 

contributions include impacts of fire 

suppression and grazing. and subalpine 

and alpine vegetation studies. Parsons 

points out the NPS asset (eventually 

formalized through establishment of a 

Cooperative Park Studies Unit at the 

University of California, Davis, where 

Major taught) that Major represented - 

“valuable consultation and inspiration to 

countless undergraduate as well as 

graduate students of his colleagues both 

at U.C. Davis and elsewhere.” 

Major retired in 1981. 

.ff 

Any scientist or interpreter wishing to 

communicate scientific information to the 

general public and thirsting for examples 

of excellence in this genre will find a 

superlative piece in the December issue of 

Science 82 -Jack Page’s monthly essay 

- this one entitled “A Tree for All 

Seasons.” As the subhead reads, “Besides 

providing beauty, music, and symbolism. 

trees also perform some inspiring 

biological feats:’ Page details these feats in 

admirable language, satisfying science 

without talking down to the public 

1.. 

A by-line article by Robert and Patricia 

Cahn in the Oct. 13. 1982 issue of The 

Christian Science Monitor describes the 

way nations seeking to set aside new 

national parks are being challenged to 

manage their natural areas in ways that 

will help meet the people’s needs for 

firewood, food, jobs, and other 

necessities. 

“But will such new protected areas 

really be national parks in the century -old 

tradition of Yellowstone?” the Cahns ask. 

The question stems from the third once-adecade World National Parks Congress 

held in October in Bali, Indonesia. 

(If. 

For the first time since 1917 a new 

species of duck has been discovered -this 

time off the coast of Argentina, according 

to the Pennsylvania Games News. Named the 

white-headed flightless streamer duck, 

Tachyeres leucocephalus. the duck runs 

across the water, appearing like a small 

sidewheel steamboat. 

*.* 

In his November 22 appearance before 

an Oregon State University audience at 

Corvallis, NPS Director Russell E. 

Dickenson described the way an artificial 

seaweed (called Seascape) seems to be 

extending the 112-year -old Cape Hatteras 

lighthouse’s lease on life. 

The 208 - foot lighthouse -the nation’s 

tallest -has been endangered many times 

in the past five decades as the Atlantic 

ocean’s forces have alternately taken 

away and given back vital portions of the 

lighthouse’s land base. 

In 1980. Bill Garrett, a Du Pont engineer, 

patented his invention and in May 1981 he 

began the installation of the artificial 

seaweed, now anchored in the sand 300 

feet offshore in rows parallel to the beach. 

Since then, the beach has given some 

evidence of build-up, and it is Garrett’s 

contention that the synthetic fronds have 

acted much like real seaweed and caused 

the sand-laden surf to drop its load. 

Garrett donated 1,000 units of the 

seaweed; 5,000 additional units were paid 

for by the Save The Lighthouse Committee 

of North Carolina, co-chaired by Senator 

Jesse Helms and Governor James Hunt 

and ably directed by Hugh Morton of 

Grandfather Mountain fame. 

RUSSELL E. DICKENSON, Director 

National Park Service 

US. Department of the Interior 

Editorial Board: 

Damel J. (Jim) Tobin, Regional Director, and 

Donald R. Field, Regional Chief Scientist, Pacific Northwest Region: 

Roland C. Wauer. Chief, Natural Resources Management, and 

John Dennis, biologist, Washington Oftice; 

Supt. William M. Lukens, Padre Island National Seashore, and 

Asst. Supt. Dale B. Engquist, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. 

Jean Matthews, Editor: Oregon State University NPSICPSU, Room 126 Forestry Sciences Lab, 

3200 Jefferson Way, CoIvallis, OR 97331 (503) 757.4579; e-420-4579 

15 
=-. . . . .