Yellowstone ScienceA quarterly publication devoted to the natural and cultural sciences

Volume 3 Number 3

Predator Restoration RealitiesWolves: The Next GenerationEarly Yellowstone NarrativesProbing Old Faithful

PS

aggression, but he didn’t run away, either.

His behavior brought him great admira-tion and high hopes for what he mightbring to the Yellowstone wolf populationgene pool, as it brought fear that this wasjust the sort of behavior that might gethim killed.

No secret had been made that wolveswould be lost in this project; the officiallyannounced projection was that 20 per-cent or more of the wolves would die of avariety of causes in these first years. ButI don’t think many of us were prepared tolose Ten, certainly not so soon or sopointlessly. In late April, as he and Ninewere roaming the country near Red Lodge,Montana, he was illegally shot, skinned,and beheaded by a man who was laterapprehended. Nine gave birth to eightpups about the same time, on privateproperty about four miles from RedLodge. Without her mate, her chances ofraising the pups, or of surviving herself,were slight, and so she was captured andreturned to her pen on Rose Creek.

It was impossible not to take Ten’s

Remembering Ten

Even in a group of wolvesthat were, because of the historiccircumstances, extraordinary,Number Ten stood out. A large,gray male with Hollywood-perfectphotogeneity, he arrived in Yellowstonefrom Alberta on January 19, and wasplaced in the pen at Rose Creek with amother and daughter pair, Nine and Seven,who had arrived on January 12. Nine, themother, was believed to be in estrous, andwas herself regarded with special interestfor that reason. Nine and Ten got alongfamously, and signs were good that theyhad mated by the time their pen wasopened on March 22.

What made Ten stand out was his sin-gular behavior when humans were around.Twice a week, biologists brought meat tothe pens, dragging in various elk, deer,moose, and bison parts and leaving themfor the wolves. The wolves in all threepens became agitated as soon as theywere aware of the approaching biolo-gists, and typically fled to the far end ofthe acre-size enclosures, where they pacedor ran anxiously back and forth along thefence. All the wolves, that is, except Ten.Ten took a more assertive position, run-ning wide circles around the people asthey worked. He never exhibi ted

death personally. Thisbeautiful animal, its offspring,

and the resource they are a part ofdeserved better than such mindless hu-man violence. But it would be too easy,and ultimately quite destructive, to maketoo much of Ten’s death—to turn thiswild animal into a martyr to human fool-ishness. The wolves are already over-loaded with symbolism that has little todo with their real lives. The illegal killingof Ten may be symptomatic of manythings, but it also might be viewed merelyas proof that a few people haven’t learnedto use their firearms responsibly, ratherthan as a broader indication that a lot ofmisguided people are out there randomlygunning for gorgeous predators.

We should probably remember Ten forlots of things, including his exhilaratingbeauty and his exciting sense of himselfin our presence. We should probablyresist remembering him too much forbeing a victim, if only because that ulti-mately will just cheapen his memory andmake us think too much like the personwho killed him. Anyway, with a littleluck perhaps we’ll also get to rememberhim through seeing some of his pups asthey make their own ways across theYellowstone landscape.

A quarterly publication devoted to the natural and cultural sciences

Yellowstone Science is published quarterly, and submissions are welcome from all investigatorsconducting formal research in the Yellowstone area. Editorial correspondence should be sent tothe Editor, Yellowstone Science, Yellowstone Center for Resources, P.O. Box 168, 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 © 1995, the Yellowstone Association for Natural Science, History & Education.

Support for Yellowstone Science is provided by the Yellowstone Association for NaturalScience, History & Education, a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to serving thepark and its visitors. For more information about the Yellowstone Association, including

membership, write to P.O. Box 117, Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190.

Editor

Paul SchulleryArt Director

Renée EvanoffAssociate Editor

Sarah Broadbent Editorial Assistant

Ursula WeltmanResearch

Mark JohnsonPrinting

Artcraft Inc.Bozeman, Montana

On the cover: GreaterYellowstone's first known wolfpuppies in more than 60 yearswere born near Red Lodge, Mon-tana, in late April, and trans-ported to a pen in the LamarValley in May. See the story onpage 17. NPS photo by DougSmith.

Table of Contents

Yellowstone ScienceVolume 3 Number 3 Summer 1995

A Journey Toward the Center of the EarthThe first video probe of Old Faithful's "plumbing."by Susan W. Kieffer, James A. Westphal, andRoderick A. Hutchinson

Wolf RealitiesWhat wolves mean now, and what they will mean in the future.Interview with L. David Mech

Black-throated Sparrow in YellowstoneThe park's newest rare bird.by Terry McEneaney

Two Little-Known References to the YellowstoneCountry from the 1860s The latest discoveries of the earliest accounts.

by Lee Whittlesey

ReviewMountains and Plains, by Dennis H. KnightReviewed by Cathy Whitlock

News and NotesWolf update • Predator conference speakers • Volcanic hazards •Obsidian conference • Research summary • Bear conference

6

12

13

15

2

17

Doug Smith/NPS

Yellowstone Science2

A Journey Toward the Centerof the Earth

Video Adventures in the Old Faithful Conduit

volcanoes. She had some ideas aboutheat and mass transfer in volcanoes andabout how complex gassy fluids movedwhen volcanoes erupted. To test theseconcepts, she decided to see if she couldunderstand the heat and mass transferand the eruptions of Old Faithful—asmaller, more regular, simpler, and farmore accessible geological feature than

Why would a researcher spend themajor part of her professional careerstudying Old Faithful Geyser? And whywould a team of three researchers spenda major part of a year designing, building,and lowering a video camera down intothe formidably hot and tortuous conduit?

Researcher Susan Kieffer started study-ing Old Faithful in 1976 as an analog to

The three authors, Sue, Jim, and Rick,from left to right, prepare equipment. Allphotographs and drawings courtesy ofSusan Kieffer.

any erupting volcano.Kieffer started her work using her fam-

ily bank account to buy a super-8 cameraand to fund the drive to Yellowstone, and

by Susan W. Kieffer, James A. Westphal, and Roderick A. Hutchinson

Summer 1995 3

she had her 8-year-old son as a fieldassistant. She obeyed strict park rulesabout remaining on the boardwalks forobservations, filming eruptions from adistance and analyzing the movies to de-termine how fast the fluid comes out ofthe vent (about 180 miles per hour!).

However, a major problem was that thereal action of Old Faithful occurs under-ground, as every observer who sits pa-tiently through episodes of Old Faithful’s“preplay” (the time when the geyser oc-casionally spurts small amounts of waterprior to a full eruption) knows. Wheredoes water enter the conduit? What is itstemperature? How much of it is there?Does it heat up between eruption cycles?Or, does it enter so hot that it actuallycools down while waiting to erupt?

Kieffer brought seismometers to OldFaithful in the late 1970s and early 1980sand monitored the seismicity in an at-tempt to decipher the underground activ-ity by remote observations. During thatwork, she discovered that Old Faithfulhas seismic signals much like those ob-served at active volcanoes—so-calledharmonic tremor, or long-period volca-nic seismicity. Those signals told her thatthere was enough heat in the system toboil at least some of the water during theintervals between eruptions.

In 1983, she was discussing her frus-tration about not being able to observeOld Faithful’s underground activity witha planetary science colleague, JimWestphal of Caltech. The two decided toteam up to build a probe to measurepressure and temperature in the conduitduring recharge (the period when thegeyser’s chamber is refilling with water,or “recharging”) and eruption. It tooknearly a year, and the very skilled designand fabrication talents of Caltech’s Vic-tor Nenow, to build a probe that could dothe measurements. They also had tosatisfy Kieffer’s and Westphal’s rigorouscriteria (and National Park Service regu-lations) that the probe should not getstuck nor cause any damage to the geyserconduit. The probe had to be small (lessthan 3 inches in diameter), flexible enoughto maneuver through expected twists andturns of the conduit, and yet rigid enoughto resist being tied into knots by thewildly circulating water known to existdeep in the conduit. The probe had sen-

sors at 10-foot intervals so that the re-searchers could measure temperature andpressure every 10 feet in the conduit.

With Westphal and Kieffer manningvarious electronic and pressure controlsand sensors, park research geologist RickHutchinson inserted the probe into thegeyser during the spring and fall of thatyear. The scientists were able to recordthe rise of water from nearly 70 feet deepin the conduit up to about 16 feet duringthe geyser’s recharge cycle because eachsensor recorded the increasing pressureas water rose up the length of the probe.Wild fluctuations recorded by the tem-perature sensors indicated that convec-tion was violent in the conduit as hotwater from the bottom mixed with coolerwater near the top.

This experiment was difficult; the tem-perature sensors corroded, and the leadsto the pressure sensors tended to kink andeven break as the probe was tugged aboutby the wild currents in the conduit. Prob-ably the most important result of themeasurements was that even though theinterval patterns are currently differentthan they were 50 years ago, the tempera-tures still had the same values as whenmeasured back in 1942: 118o C at thebottom, 92 Co at the top. Much had beenlearned about the roiling underworld, butthe data were fragmentary and deemednot worthy of publication.

In 1991 Jim Westphal was awarded aMacArthur Fellowship, a prize that in-cluded unrestricted funds to be used inany manner that the awardee chose. Atabout the same time, miniaturization ofvideo equipment was progressing at arapid rate, and Jim decided to use some of

The video camera, in the foreground, is only about 2 inches in length. Behind it is thethermally-insulated container in which it is lowered into the conduit. The tape marksare at 1-foot intervals.

the MacArthur funds to answer the ques-tion of what was happening in the depthsof Old Faithful. Again with his colleagueVictor Nenow, he designed and built avacuum-insulated ice-cooled video sys-tem to lower into Old Faithful. Twoversions have now been built and in-serted into the geyser, each carrying itsown lighting system to illuminate theconduit, two thermocouples to monitorthe conduit and camera temperature, andleads to send the information back tomonitors and recorders on the surface.

What does the conduit look like? Wherethe conduit intersects the surface, it is anelongated fracture about 2 x 3.5 feet indimensions. At 22 feet underground, itnarrows to only 4.125 inches width. Thecamera had a viewing angle of 55°, and inmost places the camera did not record theextent of the conduit in every direction.The walls are covered with rough sinter,and fractures can be observed. It is no-table that the fractures are not sinteredshut, that is, they do not get sealed by thedeposition of sinter: either the rate ofsinter deposition is negligible, or perhapsthe fractures are active and kept open bythe many small earthquakes that occurnear Old Faithful.

Between 30 and 34 feet, two substan-tial ledges were discovered. These ledgesprovided Rick with his greatest chal-lenges in lowering the camera up, down,over, and everywhere to get to greaterdepths.

Between 35 and 45 feet, we encoun-tered a large cavern—so large that thequartz halogen bulbs on the camera couldnot illuminate the walls and we felt thatwe were in a black void. However, the

Yellowstone Science

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

FE

ET

Maximum Water Level

Narrow slot

4 /8 at 22 feet1

Wide vertical cracks

Waterfall

First ledge

slot

Second ledge

South North

4

downward view from this position re-vealed an awesome and somewhat fright-ening phenomenon: a slot at about 45feet, filled with roiling boiling water.Although we were able to submerge oneof the cameras in this water briefly, wewould clearly be running great risk toleave it in that hostile environment verylong, and so in all cases, we hastily re-treated back up the conduit once we gotwithin view of this roiling caldron, some-times watching the rising water follow-ing us upward! It was always a greatrelief for the three of us when the camerareappeared intact back in the sunlit por-tion of the vent near the surface.

One of the most interesting featuresthat we saw each time we were in theconduit was a small waterfall at 24 feetdepth. We have some tentative evidencethat this water is relatively cool (about80o C), and we are speculating that thismay be high-level groundwater findingits way into the conduit. This is of par-

Left: The narrow-est place observedin Old Faithful'sconduit.Below: Rough,knobby sinter cov-ers the walls of theconduit. Two openfractures descenddown the side (up-wards across thebottom half of thepicture).

ticular interest for several reasons. First,we speculate that it may be changes inthis recharge of cooler water that controlthe changing intervals of Old Faithful (atpresent, the intervals are lengthening,which might suggest more cold water atthe present time than in the past). Second,mixing of hot and cold waters is a veryimportant catalyst for mineral precipita-tion. Perhaps we are viewing the mixingof hot and cold waters that will eventuallyprecipitate enough silica to cause OldFaithful to stop erupting. If Old Faithfulkeeps on changing, or suddenly changesits pattern of eruption, we would hope toput another camera in to obtain observa-tions for comparison with the data wenow have.

Old Faithful has been a rich source ofdata for the investigators as well as asource of spiritual inspiration for mil-lions of people. Since Kieffer startedthese studies, volcanoes have erupted allover the solar system, and she has applied

Schematic diagram of the conduit asdocumented by the camera.

Summer 1995 5

The waterfall (the streaks emanating from the upperright corner). A few gallons a minute of water—perhaps at a relatively cool temperature of 80oC—flow continuously into the conduit.

The slot-like cauldron filled with roiling water (lightarea, lower left). The two especially bright spots at thebottom are oscillating water drops descending intothe cauldron.

Looking down toward the large dark cavern near the40-foot level (bottom left, black area). A round poolof water sits on a ledge (middle, left), and a brightstream of water pours down toward the ledge andpool (the light streak emanating from the top of thephotograph). This water is "bank storage," drainingback toward depth after a preplay splash.

her growing body of knowledge about geysers and how theyerupt to volcanoes and geysers on Io (a satellite of Jupiter) in1979, the eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington in1980, historical eruptions of Kilauea Iki in Hawaii, and mostrecently, geyser eruptions on Triton (a satellite of Neptune).In addition, she has applied the concepts to try to understandthe origin of mineral deposits in veins in the Earth’s crust,where silica, calcite, and gold were precipitated in ancient hotspring environments much like the present environmentunder Yellowstone.

You are welcome to share all of the video data obtained bygoing to the Old Faithful Visitor Center and seeing the video“Journey Toward the Center of the Earth” prepared by theinvestigators.

Susan W. Kieffer was an assistant professor of geology atUCLA when she started these studies in 1976. She continuedthem through work with the U.S. Geological Survey, ArizonaState University, and, currently, the University of BritishColumbia where she is professor and head of geologicalsciences. James A. Westphal is professor of planetaryscience at California Institute of Technology. Roderick A.Hutchinson is the National Park Service research geologistin Yellowstone.

Yellowstone Science6

Wolf Realities

Yellowstone Science Interview: L. David Mech

Yellowstone’snew wolves

challenge scienceand mythology

YS: A rational, objective, but totallyuninvolved person might look at the wolfrestoration program, and all the troubleand conflict—what Hank Fischer of theDefenders of Wildlife calls “The WolfWars”—and wonder if it’s worth it. Howwould you respond to that? The rage andexasperation on both sides of the issue,the financial costs, and all the rest—whydo this?DM: It’s worth it for several reasons. It’sworth it just because we ought to do it.We are restoring the wolf to restore theecological integrity of the park. If youquestion that, then you might as wellquestion everything else that’s done herethat almost everyone agrees is worth do-ing because Yellowstone is so importantto the nation and the world. I don’t knowwhat it costs to run the park, but I’m sure

it’s substantial; why is that worth it? It’sthe same argument, really.

And as far as the costs are concerned, Iagree it’s not cheap, but if you cost it outover the next 50 or 100 years, it costsrelatively little. If you want to get reallypractical about it, and really do justice tothe economic analysis, you have to factorin what the wolf will earn the regionaleconomy. The studies that have beendone indicate that the economic value ofwolf restoration will far outweigh thecosts.

But by almost any standard, I think it’sworth it to restore a major component ofyour most visible ecosystem here, theungulate-predator ecosystem. You knowthe wolf is very conspicuous by its ab-sence and in a natural area of such world-wide significance, it’s worth it.

The effort to restore wolves to Yellow-stone has had no more faithful, expert,and effective friend during the past 20years than L. David Mech. Long re-garded as this country’s foremost wolfauthority, Mech has been studying theanimal for more than 35 years. His book-length works include The Wolves of IsleRoyale, The Wolf: Ecology and Behav-ior of an Endangered Species, and TheArctic Wolf: Living with the Pack. Mech,a biologist with the National BiologicalService and an adjunct professor at theUniversity of Minnesota, has been widelyhonored both for his remarkable scien-tific productivity and for his long laborson behalf of wolf conservation and publiceducation. He has been an importantadvisor to Yellowstone managers formany years. This interview took place onMarch 29, just a few days after the firstpen was opened to release the wolves, soit to some extent focuses on those firstexciting days when the wolves were stillnear or in their pens, and suspense washigh about what they would do.

Mark Johnson/NPS

Summer 1995 7

YS: Yellowstone is already a complexplace, with a surprisingly complicatedpredator-prey system. The grizzly bearsand coyotes already kill about a third ofthe new elk calves every year, and theother predators, including black bears,mountain lions, and a variety of smallerones, are undoubtedly having all sorts ofeffects on the ungulates and other herbi-vores. With all this predator-prey inter-action already in place, how will the wolffit in? Will it have a big enough influenceto be what the ecologists used to call akeystone species?DM: Oh absolutely! As we were drivingback from the pen sites today, we cameacross the heart of the northern winterrange. I don’t know how many dead elkthere are out there, but you don’t have towalk or drive very far to see one. Whenthe wolf is established here I’d be sur-prised if you find that many dead ungu-lates lying around. I think they’re goingto be taken care of before they reach thatpoint. Now that’s not going to be nextyear or the year after. It may be ten yearsor more. But the wolf is going to have thatkind of influence on your ungulates. Itcertainly does every place else.

Wolves and the Modern Mythology

YS: One of the biggest public perceptionproblems facing wolf restoration has beenthe persistent misunderstanding of howwolves will affect livestock. There is anelement in the regional community justconvinced that countless cattle and sheepwill be killed very quickly. All the dataindicates otherwise. We frequently usethe example of Minnesota, which has amuch higher density of both wolves andlivestock than the area around Yellow-stone, and which has amazingly few prob-lems with depredations on livestock. Butthis isn’t a belief that will be changed bymere facts.DM: What helps more here in the West,I think, is pointing to Montana. In north-

western Montana there has been a well-documented natural colonization ofwolves, and what’s going on up there isan easily recognizable analogy to whatwill happen here. When ranchers pointout that Minnesota is different from Wyo-ming and Idaho, you can respond bysaying, “But how different is Montana?You have the same livestock, the samemethods of livestock management, andthe same general environment in Mon-tana as in Wyoming and Idaho. If the 70or so wolves in northwestern Montanaare killing an average of one or two do-mestic animals a year, why are you folksso worried here in Wyoming and Idaho?”It’s pretty hard to refute that.YS: One of the frustrations of educatingpeople about real wolves and what theydo has been the reluctance of many Ameri-cans to consider all the Canadian parks—there must be at least a dozen of them—that have wolves and don’t have signifi-cant problems with wolves killing live-stock.DM: That’s true, and I don’t know whythat has been so difficult for people.YS: But you’ve worked a lot in Canada.Why won’t we learn anything from ourneighbors to the north?DM: Our general public really doesn’tknow much about Canada. Wolf biolo-gists do because we’re interested, we’renear Canada, and some of us have workedup there for years, but most people justdon’t know what Canada is like. Andhow many of these ranchers who are soconcerned about wolves have been toAlberta or British Columbia? Not thatmany.YS: In your years of researching wolvesand working with wolf management,you’ve been exposed to all of the differ-ent constituencies, including a lot ofpeople who have either always supportedwolves or have come around to support-ing wolves. What advice can you give tosomeone trying to start a restoration pro-gram, as far as how to gain public sup-

port? Is there a dominant theme, like akey message, that reaches people bestwhen you’re trying to explain to themwhy wolves matter?DM: Not that I can think of. I think youdeal with three kinds of people in an issuelike this. You’ve got the kind that arevery much anti-wolf. You may not real-ize it at the time because they’re veryvocal and get a lot of media attention, butstatistically there aren’t that many of thesepeople around. Locally there may be, butstatistically it’s a low percentage, lessthan 25% of the public certainly. Andthen you have perhaps another 25% thatare pro-wolf. That’s a guess but it’sprobably about right. And then you’vegot this mass in the middle, this 50% thataren’t really committed but they’re opento reasonable arguments.YS: Maybe that’s the question: whatarguments work?DM: Most important, they don’t have tobe profound arguments. They don’t haveto be anything more complicated thanexplaining that the wolf was wrongly andunnecessarily wiped out of the park andwe have the chance to restore it. Say thisto many of the noncommitted people, andthey’ll say, “Sounds like a good idea.”YS: Is there anything to say to the reallyhard-core wolf haters that might changetheir minds?DM: No. There isn’t going to be anyargument that’s going to convince them.It’s a religion with them. They just don’tlike wolves and typically they also don’tlike grizzly bears or cougars or any otherpredator.YS: It’s cultural.DM: It’s even more than cultural. It’s afrontier religion kind of a thing. I don’teven try to persuade them.YS: It seems that what we’re dealing withamong the people who really hate wolvesis their dependence upon received wis-dom. Most of them have never seen awolf in the wild, and most of their parentsdidn't either. Their knowledge of wolvesis deeply ingrained in their culture, butit’s based on opinions held by their ances-tors three or four generations ago. Min-nesota has had wolves pretty much con-tinually, and so the wolf opponents therehave had to deal with the reality of wolvesrather than folklore; has that made Min-nesotan attitudes different?

Yellowstone Science8

DM: The real difference between hereand Minnesota is that in Minnesota, theanti-wolf people are not saying they don’twant wolves, they’re only saying theywant wolves controlled. They used to saythey didn’t want them 20 years ago—"Wipe them out, they’re no good foranything.” But first of all, some of thosepeople died off, and second, it has beenless and less socially acceptable in Min-nesota to say that. The wolf is seen byenough of the general public as being apositive animal that there’s actually beena shift in position among these otherfolks—the farmers whose livestock arebeing killed—to the point that they’resaying, “Control the wolves; we don’twant you to wipe them out but controlthem.”

There have been a lot of factors in-volved in making people realize that thewolf is valuable. Some of it is the resultof media coverage that makes all thedifferent position holders more aware ofthe values held by each other. There’salso the wolf’s protection under the En-dangered Species Act. Now that there isa potential fine of $20,000 for killing awolf, anybody can see that the animal hasa whole different value to society than itdid when the only money associated withit was a $35 bounty for killing one. Thepenalty for killing a wolf has more effectsthan merely acting as a deterrent to pre-vent people from killing one. That pen-alty also alerts them to how much theseanimals may matter to their neighbors,and to people far away. It officiallyplaces more of a value on the animal.Combine that with the resulting mediaattention and things like the InternationalWolf Center in Minnesota, which as youknow has been very successful in educat-ing people to what wolves are really like,and people from all over the world arenow coming into wolf country and mak-ing the wolf into a revenue-generatingattraction. As all that happens, attitudeschange. Even those who continue to hatewolves don’t dare say it anymore upthere.YS: It must make a difference that yearafter year all those people in Minnesotaare exposed to the really trivial livestocklosses to wolves. That’s the reality. Butin the West, the only reality is an inher-ited perception of the wolf as a cata-

strophic killing machine that’s going tobring western civilization to an end.DM: I’m glad you mentioned that be-cause that’s a very important point. InMinnesota, people know the reality; eventhe wolf haters know the reality of thesituation. Here, the folks have an exag-gerated and almost hysterical view:“Wolves are going to kill my kids, they’regoing to wipe out my herds,” that kind ofthing. Minnesota has 2,000 wolves, andthose awful things don’t happen, andnobody there is going to say they happenbecause they know from their neighborsor their own experience that wolves aren’tlike that. If they did say them, nobodywould believe them because they knowbetter. At worst, the wolves will kill afew cattle or sheep, and some turkeys, soit’s not considered a serious problem. InMontana people are actually afraid wolveswill wipe out their livestock, but in Min-nesota, wolves kill far less than one per-cent of the livestock in wolf range eachyear.YS: Any guess at how long it will takebefore that hysteria starts to moderate inthe Yellowstone area?DM: I can make a guess because I thinkwe have just passed through that stage inMontana. Ten years ago in northwesternMontana, you had that same kind of hys-teria, but what I’m hearing from wolf

biologists and managers who have workedin Montana in the last 5 years is thatthey’re finding some pretty reasonableviewpoints out there, now that the wolvesare actually there and functioning and notkilling people and wiping out livestockherds. One pack of wolves denned andlived in the middle of a pasture with cowsall around, and didn’t even kill one for ayear. So from that, my guess is thatmaybe 10 years after wolves are reason-ably well established you’ll see somemoderation in the hysterical rhetoric. Itcould be less than that, maybe 5 years, butthe hysteria is strong right now. I testifiedat the legal case [involving one of thelawsuits filed to stop wolf restoration] inCheyenne in December and I heard whatwas being said. Some of those folks werecertain that as soon as the wolves werereleased in the park the first thing theywould do was go to so and so’s ranch andkill all his livestock. When that doesn’thappen for a few years, you will see amoderation in those views.

First Impressions of the New Wolves

YS: Advocates of wolf restoration havefrequently quoted you as saying that Yel-lowstone was simply outstanding wolfcountry. When you made that assess-ment, what part of the Yellowstone set-

Wolves stirred strong feel-ings on both sides of thereintroduction debate, anddemonstrators of both per-suasions made appearancesin Yellowstone in recentyears. The above sign pro-claimed the valuelessnessof wolves, while the demon-stration (left) demandedtheir return to the park.

NPS photos

Summer 1995 9

ting were you looking at?DM: I was looking at the prey base. A lotof people might think that the most im-portant thing is habitat, but for wolves,habitat is prey. Remember that a thou-sand years ago wolves lived everywhere,in just about every habitat on the northernhalf of the planet. It doesn’t really matterwhat the plant life, topography, or cli-mate is; if there is prey and protectionfrom humans then wolves can live there.That’s all they need, and Yellowstone hasboth a great prey base and good protec-tion.YS: So what is the biggest challenge forwolf restoration here?DM: The challenge is dealing with howfar wolves move. Once the wolves arerestored, the park and surrounding wil-derness areas, where wolves should beallowed to thrive, will always be a naturalreservoir for wolves that will disperseelsewhere. I don’t know of another landcarnivore that travels as far as wolves do.You can draw a radius of 550 miles aroundthe park, that’s where these wolves couldbe expected to disperse to. That’s whythe experimental nonessential designa-tion was so important. It allows manag-ers more freedom to deal with wolves thatventure to where nobody wants wolves tobe.YS: Let’s get back to the current restora-

tion efforts. Would you contrast for usyour observations of the first week of theIdaho wolves versus the first week of theYellowstone wolves? The Idaho wolveswere released in “hard” releases, just letout of the shipping containers, while theYellowstone wolves went through 2months of acclimation, held in large pens,before they were released. There is agreat deal of interest in what we can learnfrom those two different methods.DM: Well that’s a very good contrastbecause it illustrates the difference be-tween a hard release and a soft release. Inthe hard release the wolves were releasedand just about as soon as they could figureout where the sun was they started head-ing back north, in the general direction oftheir home in Canada. One of them went120-130 miles or so. So far here in thepark, we’re getting just casual explora-tion of the area immediately surroundingthe pens. And it’s clear that, whatever thewolves ultimately decide to do, there isno immediate intention to run off in someparticular direction or another. Theywalk and circle around, zigzagging hereand there, and ending up back near thepens. In these first few days, there hasbeen a lot of inspection of the pens them-selves, and then the wolves graduallymoved outward in what I would call ex-ploratory moves. That is quite different

from what we saw in Idaho.YS: If you had to characterize what’sgoing through the heads of these Yellow-stone wolves, is it that they have achieveda comfort level with that little basin they’rein around the pen and they don’t feel theurge to leave?DM: It seems that they don’t yet feel theimmediate urge to just “home.” If whatwe’ve done by penning them for 2 monthshas worked, they may not now have anyconcept of home other than where theyare. That’s the whole idea. Rather, theconcept they should have now is that“Here I am—I’m free, I can explore, andI can make my way around here.” Thatshould be the only impulse they shouldhave, plus “I’m hungry, lets find some-thing to eat!”

In a sense, this is very much like whathappens to a dispersing wolf, one that hasleft home on purpose to find its ownplace; it’s not going home. In fact, it’sdoing the opposite of homing. It’s search-ing for a place to find a living and a mate.In the case of these animals, they alreadyhave their mates, so it’s just a matter ofsearching around here to find a goodplace to make a living.

Now we may be wrong. It’s too earlyto tell. It may be that after a week of thisthey suddenly remember a place in Canadaand want to head back. But right nowthey are doing everything we would ex-pect them to do if they weren’t going togo home. And so everything looks goodso far [See page 17 for an update on thewolves].YS: It is important to keep in mind thatthis whole project has been billed as anexperiment, including the hard releaseversus the soft release. Besides gettingwolves restored, the whole idea is tolearn.DM: Right, and we’ll learn so much inthe next week about that experiment. Ican’t wait for the next week to come andsee where these wolves are going to be.YS: Let’s talk about the way the releaseshave gone over the past week. Howsurprised should we have been by thewolves’ reluctance to leave the pens?With hindsight, can you see anything weknew that might have suggested that thiswould happen?DM: No, there was no precedent for this.The closest we have to this experience

Yellowstone's new wolves have had no apparent trouble taking local prey species,most of which were familiar to them. Wolf Project Leader Mike Phillips (left) and WolfBiologist Doug Smith investigate a successful kill during the ongoing monitoringprogram that is part of wolf recovery in Yellowstone.

Jim Peaco/NPS

Yellowstone Science10

involved a pack of four that I held in a penfor three or four weeks. It was a wildpack, captured and held for 3 or 4 weeksin Minnesota and then flown to Michiganand held for another week in a pen there.We wanted to do a soft release, just openthe pen and let them come out on theirown, but it ended up being a hard release.We sort of pushed them out of the pen. Sowe didn’t really learn anything from thatto apply here.

I guess the fact that none of us didpredict that they wouldn’t just rush out ofthe pen is good evidence that we reallydidn’t have any basis for thinking that.But in retrospect you can begin to under-stand what might be going on. They havebeen restricted to that enclosed area for solong that when they are immediately out-side of it they may not even have theconcept of inside and outside. I know atthe Crystal Bench pen, those wolves havebeen released but now they’re pacingalong the outside of the pen kind of likethey did on the inside. And when youthink about it, how would they knowwhat side of the fence they are on? It’s afence, it’s not something they’ve had a lotof experience with. They have to explorein order to learn and they’re intimidatedby anything new. Until they are moti-vated to overcome that intimidation, thenatural thing is to stay with what youknow and that’s the pen.

The behavioral dynamics of the packsare especially interesting at this point,and they give us a lot to wonder about.For example, one of the wolves at theCrystal Bench pen has gone about a thirdof a mile from the pen. I have a theoryabout that one. I think it’s not an alphaanimal because if an alpha animal wentout it would go farther and it would havethe alpha of the opposite sex with it, so wewould see tracks of a pair. What could begoing on is that at this time of the yearsome of those younger animals are drivento disperse from the pack. About 25percent of them should be leaving rightnow, and there are four of the young onesin the pen, so at least it’s not unusual tothink that one might be predisposed toleave. We’re not sure what happens withthat, but there is certainly evidence fromcaptive raised wolves that a certain amountof aggression goes on among the packmembers that drives an individual away

from the others, though in a captive packall it can do is move to the opposite end ofthe pen. Well, in the case of the CrystalBench pack, when the individual gets tothe opposite end of the pen, it may noticethat there’s an opening there and moveout.

On the other hand, the other thing thatoften happens with these individuals isthat they kind of like to stay with the pack,even though they’ve been driven away.So what they do in the wild is trail alongbehind the pack. That may be what’sgoing on right now. This animal mayhave been kicked out, so it moved awayin order to avoid the aggression, but iskind of hanging around because it stillwants to stick with the pack.YS: Speaking of interesting things towonder about, the wolves have all of ushere asking each other questions that onlythe wolves can answer. For example,what are the chances that one of thosefemales might decide to den in the pen, oreven use one of those boxes as a den?DM: I think that it’s really unlikely for acouple of reasons. One is, I’ll be sur-prised if we get reproduction this firstyear because captivity during this time ofyear is very stressful. The Minnesotawolves that I moved to Michigan actuallybred in the pen, but they never had pups.We’ve had a couple of wild female wolvesthat we put in cages and kept for years andthey never came into estrous. So there isa certain stress associated with being heldcaptive. Because of that, I’ll be surprisedif you have reproduction this year.YS: There has been some evidence ofbreeding behavior in all three pens, butwe have tried not to get our hopes up,considering the stress of the situation.DM: But! On the other hand, I haven’tbeen right about much of this yet and somaybe that’s good reason to hope. AsSteve Fritts [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice biologist] has said, we must expectthe unexpected.YS: There is an assumption here that thepresence of plenty of winterkills and lotsof live elk will help make the wolves feelat home and may reduce the likelihoodthat they’ll take off and travel a longdistance. Does it matter to the wolveswhether or not the available meat is liveor dead?DM: I don’t think so. I think food is food.

YS: Will the size of the pack be a signifi-cant factor in their ability to kill preyhere?DM: It rarely is. Single adult wolveshave been recorded killing every majorNorth American prey species, includingmoose, musk ox, and bison.YS: So it isn’t an advantage for theCrystal Bench group to have four youngwolves besides the alpha pair?DM: I view the pups as being more of aliability than a help, because that alphapair has to feed them. If I were trying tohave the highest chance of a pack gettingestablished, I would rather have severalpairs of adults to start because all theywould have to do is support themselves,produce pups, and then start the pack likethey would do ordinarily.

History and the Future

YS: The Yellowstone wolf restorationproject has been celebrated as the firstrestoration of a large carnivore in thewestern national parks, and a lot has beenmade of what an important precedent itis. Do you see what we’re doing here asa historic event?DM: Oh absolutely! And it’s historic notonly because it’s taking place in Yellow-stone. It’s also historic in terms of the

Dave Mech assisting with carcass tied totree in an effort to coax the captive wolvesfrom their pen.

Jim Peaco/NPS

Summer 1995 11

restoration of a very controversial ani-mal, especially an animal that was delib-erately exterminated from the park. Thereare a lot of parks around the world thatdon’t have their full complement of spe-cies, but those missing species were elimi-nated long before the park was even cre-ated. Here in Yellowstone, wolves wereexterminated intentionally by early man-agers, and now a later generation of man-agers is restoring them.YS: You’ve often commented on whodoes these things. It is said that thegovernment wiped out the wolves, but itwasn’t that simple.DM: Right. The wolves were wiped outof the park by the government, but wecan’t just say it was the government be-cause the government was doing what thepublic wanted: the government reflectedthe public will at the time. And that’sexactly the same thing that’s happeningnow. It’s the same government, but it’sdoing exactly the opposite and again, it isa reflection of public attitude. So in asense there is a symbolic aspect to it, thatone hopes may be a kind of an example ofwhat we can expect from the public. Ithink that direction is going to continue—that public attitude is going to continue toget better and better toward the environ-ment. We’re not going to go back to thedays where you exploit everything to the

Nth degree. We’re going to continue tomove toward being far more respectful ofnature. I don’t mean necessarily thatwe’re going to stop all hunting and trap-ping and all of that kind of thing becausethat will have to go on for practical rea-sons. But we are going to become moreand more respectful of what small part ofthe natural world we do have left.YS: In that future you are describing, doyou see large carnivores being restored toother large national parks or other wildcountry in the west?DM: I don’t see why not. I think that weare always going to have to do it carefullybecause of the down side of it.YS: You mean possible problems thatdevelop from conflicts between carni-vores and private property?DM: Yes. I think that certainly has beenwell considered in the Yellowstone wolfreintroduction, and if we can restore thewolf to Yellowstone, there aren’t manycarnivores I can think of that we can’trestore to other national parks. I think thewolf, both in terms of its biology and itspublic image, is probably the most chal-lenging carnivore to try to restore.YS: It is likely that even out there in thelarger conservation community, mostpeople have little idea of how complexand difficult it was to get to this point withYellowstone wolf restoration—just get-

ting the first animals here was a monu-mental task. Perhaps it’s even better thatthey don’t know what a political andlogistical challenge it is, or they mightnot be as excited about restoring wolvesand grizzly bears to Colorado and otherplaces. Do you think that this restorationeffort in Yellowstone will pave the way?Will each subsequent restoration beeasier?DM: I’m not sure they are going to getprogressively easier, in terms of the poli-tics, but Yellowstone is going to serve asan example that people can point to andsay, “Well wait a minute, we were able torestore the wolf to Yellowstone and takecare of the legitimate issues and the falseperceptions that surrounded the wolves.And if we could do it there, why shouldn’twe be able to restore wolves and othercarnivores in other places?”

Not that the problems are going to bethe same; the biological problems with,say, restoring the grizzly bear someplacemay be more horrendous than the bio-logical problems of restoring the wolf toYellowstone, but I don’t think the politicscould be any more horrendous. And thebiology you can deal with if you can getby the politics. So in terms of trying topersuade the public or the politicians, bypointing to Yellowstone wolf restorationas an example, it will be a good model.

Wolf puppies were not always as welcome in Yellowstone as they are now. In 1922, a litter of pups (upper left) was captured onBlacktail Plateau after their mother was shot. This litter was kept and shown at park headquarters at Mammoth Hot Springs fora few days. The photograph was donated to the park in 1994 by William Bickett of Ephrata, Washington. Mr. Bickett and hisbrother Wally are the children in the photograph with the wolf puppies. The puppies were eventually destroyed by order of thepark superintendent, in keeping with park policy on predator control. The new litter of pups (upper right) have received a farwarmer welcome, and are currently being held for release later this year.

Doug Smith/NPSNPS

Yellowstone Science12

especially on the scapulars; dark grayhead; broken white crescent-shaped eye-ring below eye; dark gray tail with whitetail edges; white belly; cream gray flanks;light gray undertail coverts; and under-side of tail dark gray with white webpatches near the distal end of the tail.

I observed this black-throated sparrowfor approximately 15 minutes, and it ap-peared very tame, at times approachingwithin four feet of me. The bird also sangrepeatedly. The song was a five-notebell-like song, with the first two notesbeing very clear and distinct, followed bya three-note trill.

So what is the significance of this find,you may ask? The black-throated spar-row is a characteristic bird of the aridsouthwest. It is a “desert sparrow” ofsorts that rarely ventures out of its habi-tat, which is composed of arid brush andriparian washes, desert scrub, thorn brush,mesquite, and juniper. The bird is typi-cally confined year-round to a geographicarea that extends from central Mexicoand Baja Mexico to west Texas, southernNew Mexico, southern Arizona, south-ern Nevada, and southern California. The

In the annals of ornithology, Yellow-stone National Park is not noted for itsdiversity of birdlife, yet over the years aninteresting array of birdlife has been docu-mented. The black-throated sparrow(Amphispiza bilineata) has recently beenadded to the list of rare and unusual birdsdocumented in the park.

On April 18, 1994, at approximatelynoon, I observed and photographed ablack-throated sparrow at SteamboatPoint on the north shore of YellowstoneLake. The habitat in which the bird wasfound was a mixture of open meadow,big sagebrush, juniper, lodgepole pine,and low-growth vegetation associatedwith geothermal features. The bird ob-served on this date is described as fol-lows: a diminutive sparrow slightlysmaller than a dark-eyed junco (Juncohyemalis); with a black chin and neck,with the darkness extending into an in-verted black triangle on the breast andterminating at a point on the lower breast;gray-black bill and legs; black lores; darkiris; bold white supercilium andsubmoustachial stripe; brown back andmantle; brown wings with black streaks

summer range of this species is morespread out to the north, including north-ern Arizona, northern New Mexico, south-west Colorado, Utah, southern Idaho,Nevada, and east-central California. Ob-servations of the black-throated sparrowoutside of the ranges described above areconsidered casual due to the lack of ob-servations. According to P.D. Skaar’sMontana Bird Distribution, there are onlytwo records of the black-throated spar-row in Montana, both from MissoulaCounty. And according to the WyomingGame and Fish Department’s Distribu-tion and Status of Wyoming Birds andMammals, casual records exist only fromthe Green River, Jackson, and Laramielatilongs in Wyoming.

At first glance, Yellowstone does notappear to be a paradise for a diversity ofbirdlife because of its harsh climate, butthe park continues to surprise even themost ardent avian observer.

Terry McEneaney is Yellowstone’s birdmanagement biologist, and author ofbooks on the birds of Yellowstone andMontana.

by Terry McEneaney

Black-throatedSparrow inYellowstoneFirst record of the species

Summer 1995 13

Historical Vignettes

by Lee H. Whittlesey

Aubrey L. Haines, in his books The Yellowstone Story (1977) and Yellowstone National Park: Exploration andEstablishment (1974) performed the monumental task of writing the history of the Yellowstone Plateau prior to its formaldiscovery in 1870. But as Haines himself stated about his own books, “You have every right to exclaim, with the Queenof Sheba, ‘The half was not told me!'” Indeed there are many small corners of Yellowstone history left to be explored.

Following the fur trade era (1822-1840) and before its formal discovery (1870), the Yellowstone plateau was visitedby numerous Euro-Americans, most of them prospectors searching for gold or other minerals. Few of these men (all of themthat we know of, with one possible exception, were men) left full accounts of their travels. But fragmentary accounts of theirtrips found their way into Montana Territorial newspapers, where the peripatetic Haines generally discovered them duringhis many years of research.

Only a few of these accounts made it into 1860s books, with most appearing in newspapers or unpublisheddocuments such as diaries. In all cases, we do not know from where the authors got their material, but probably in most casesit was from a wandering prospector. Men like George Huston, William Hamilton, George Bacon, George Rea, GilmanSawtell, “Uncle” Joe Brown, George Bruffey, James Dunlevy, A.H. Hubble, James Gemmell, John Dunn, A. BartHenderson, Newton Seward, Lou Anderson, Legh Freeman, George Reese, and the large DeLacy party are all known to haveprospected or simply visited present Yellowstone National Park in the 1860s. Unfortunately, they left us little in the wayof information, and, at least for the present, we know little about their trips to the upper Yellowstone country.

Two Little-Known References to theYellowstone Country from the 1860s

Yellowstone Science14

Recently, Yellowstone-area references in two rare books have come to my attention; these are noteworthy fortheir observations of Yellowstone before its formal discovery and exploration.

Alfred E. Mathews wrote the rare book Pencil Sketches of Montana, which he self-published in 1868 in New York.It contains his sketches and text about Montana Territory. On page 75, he stated that “The source of the Yellowstone isa clear, deep beautiful lake, far up among the clouds; that is kept cool by drippings from the eternal glaciers. Near this lakethe river makes a tremendous leap down a perpendicular wall of rock, forming one of the highest and most magnificentwaterfalls in America.”

Mathews also enlarged our information base on the wildlife of the region. Among other things, he described theupper end of what is now known as Paradise Valley, including with his narrative a sketch of the valley where theYellowstone River leaves Yankee Jim Canyon. On pages 74 and 75, at the beginning of the chapter entitled “Exit of theYellowstone from the Mountains,” he describes this sketch and then discusses the animals he saw: “In the foreground ofthe view are seen two antelopes: these animals are quite numerous in the region, and during two days that the authorremained in the valley, he saw many large and small herds: elk and mountain sheep also abound, and have been frequentlyseen in immense droves.”

Another rare book is John C. Van Tramp’s Prairie and Rocky Mountain Adventures; or Life in the West . . .,published at Columbus, Ohio, by Gilmore and Segner in 1866. On page 50, Van Tramp noted: “According to the mostrecent reports there is, between the head of the Madison river and the upper waters of Yellowstone [river], a volcanic regionof perhaps 100 square miles in extent, in which some of the volcanoes are said to have lately been in a state of eruption.Hot springs are found not only in this region but in various others . . . .”

The Van Tramp statement may have been taken from information shown on both the 1851 hand-drawn map byJim Bridger and the 1851 manuscript map by Father DeSmet (if Van Tramp had occasion to ever see those maps or talkto Bridger or DeSmet). Or perhaps his information came from an 1860s prospector, one of those shadowy men whom wewish had left us more information.

These books represent two more sources to add to the list of scarce historical references to present YellowstoneNational Park area during the 1860s. Aubrey Haines once observed that the rate at which these early accounts were stillbeing discovered suggested that many more still waited to be found. It seems that is still true, and the hunt for these littlehistorical treasures continues.

Lee Whittlesey, who has been researching Yellowstone history for more than 25 years, is Yellowstone’s historian-archivistand the author of numerous books and articles about the park’s history. His most recent book , Death in Yellowstone, waspublished this spring by Roberts Rinehart, Inc.

Summer 1995 15

cal and biological controls of speciesdistributions, which ultimately determinethe pattern of vegetation types.

The ecosystems of most concern in theYellowstone region, i.e., the foothills tran-sition, the mountain forests, and the sub-alpine and alpine zone, are presented inPart Four. The description and emphasisof this section clearly reflects Knight’sinterest in plant ecology, plant-animalinteractions, nutrient cycling, and theecology of forest disturbance. The foot-hills region represents an important tran-sition between harsh conditions of thelowlands and the closed forests aboveand thus provides critical winter habitatfor elk, antelope, deer, and moose. Themosaic of vegetation types is highly vari-able and reflects biogeographic history,geologic substrate, and mesoscale andmicroscale climate. The expansion ofjuniper in some regions and the decline ofaspen in others are attributed to the ef-fects of climate, fire suppression, andgrazing by livestock and native ungu-lates. Knight advocates research at thescale of landscapes to determine the mag-nitude and cause of recent and ongoingvegetation changes.

Mountain forests cover about 22 per-cent of Wyoming, and their diversity is afunction of climate, topography, nutrientconditions, and history. Although onlysix tree species are common in Wyomingforests, their adaptations vary consider-ably among mountain ranges, and theeffects of fires, insects, and severe weatheraccount for interesting mosaics of forest,meadow, and shrubland. The interac-tions between beetle infestation, fire, andfungal attacks are lucidly described, andreaders will find this information rel-evant to understanding vegetation pat-terns in Yellowstone forests. Separatechapters are given to a discussion ofmountain meadows and alpine regions,and, although they comprise a relativelyminor component of Wyoming’s area,they illustrate the sensitivity of high-elevation communities to subtle varia-tions in environment. The relations amongsoil type, moisture, slope, and wind rein-forces the idea that these, like other eco-systems, are polygenetic and spatiallyheterogeneous.

The fifth part of the book describesareas of special interest: the Yellowstone

Book Review

Mountains and Plains: The Ecology ofWyoming Landscapes by Dennis H.Knight. Yale University Press, New Ha-ven, 1994, 338 pages; $40.00.

“Heated debates over ecological phe-nomena frequently develop when sweep-ing generalizations are made” writes Den-nis Knight, and to convince us of that hetakes us on a journey of Wyoming’s land-scapes to examine the workings and di-versity of various ecosystems. In Moun-tains and Plains, we are introduced to thephysical settings, the major biologicalplayers, and the land-use controversiesassociated with the grasslands and steppe,the foothills and mountain forests, andthe alpine regions of Wyoming. With thepatience of an experienced professor,Knight goes beyond the descriptive toinstruct us in ecological processes. Welearn about nutrient cycling in grasslands,the importance of keystone species likebeaver in the riparian zone, and the com-plex plant-animal interactions that deter-mine mosaic patterns within conifer for-ests. In landscape after landscape, we seethat the physical and biological realmscoexist naturally in a fragile, dynamicequilibrium. The disharmony of the lastcentury, brought about by agriculture,logging, mining, and urban development,stands in stark contrast to the prehistoriccondition. In the 1820s, bison, elk, deer,and antelope outnumbered people by 150to 1. By the 1950s, they outnumberedpeople by no more than a factor of two,while livestock were five times moreabundant than people.

The book is divided into six parts. Thefirst part provides the backdrop, describ-ing aspects of the historical and modernsetting of the state. The book adopts atelescoping view of time, mentioningbriefly the long-term geological eventsthat shaped the broad physiography ofmountains and basins. More attention isgiven to the climatic and vegetationalchanges that accompanied the Quater-nary ice ages, and particular those fol-lowing the last glaciation. The postgla-cial environment fashioned the landscapesand biota that have contributed to therange of resources available for humanutilization. More important, perhaps, this

prehistoric stage sheds light on the rangeof ecological processes that naturally oc-curred prior to Euro-American settlement.

Riparian environments are describedin Part Two. These habitats are moreimportant ecologically and economicallythan their area would imply. Althoughstream and lakeside communities consti-tute less than 1 percent of the region, 80percent of the native animals depend onthese habitats for food, water, shelter, andmigration corridors. These habitats forma fragile continuum from high elevationto low, and they are especially vulnerableto urban development, livestock grazing,reservoirs, and irrigation.

The upland ecosystems are arrangedby elevation starting with those of theplains and intermountain basins and end-ing with those of the mountains. PartThree of the book focuses on the dry,cold, and windy landscapes of the low-lands, including grasslands, sagebrushsteppe, desert shrublands, and dunes andbadlands. These are as diverse and com-plex as the forested regions, althoughmuch of the action takes place below theground where it is more difficult to study.The chapters discuss some of the adapta-tions that plants have undergone to sur-vive the rigors of drought, fire, shortgrowing seasons, and herbivory. Theyalso describe the paths of energy andnutrient flow through these ecosystemsand the extent to which cycling is abettedby disturbance. The chapters on sage-brush steppe and desert shrublands pro-vide excellent discussions on the physi-

Yellowstone Science16

nity to learn about ecological phenomenathat have occurred for millennia. This initself is one of the major scientific valuesof wildlands that should be protected”(page 231).

The last part of the book on sustainableland management provides a forum toadvocate long-term land-use planning inWyoming. Knight urges that we use thenatural and semi-natural landscapes as ateaching tool to better understand theenvironmental constraints needed toachieve sustainability. He is a championof ecosystem management to preservelandscape mosaics, biodiversity, and natu-ral areas in ways that will lend them-selves to stable interactions betweeneconomy and environment over the longterm. Unfortunately, this goal has notbeen achieved in Wyoming’s short his-tory, nor have other western states beenmore successful.

I recommend Mountains and Plains toreaders interested in Wyoming and theecology of the intermountain West. Itwill also provide basic knowledge forthose interested in the preservation andprotection of wildlands. The book iswritten in a nontechnical style that makesit accessible to a wide audience. A usefulglossary, an appendix of scientific names,and a comprehensive bibliography areinvaluable resource material. The photo-graphs are illustrative, but they are blackand white and rather drab. This is nocoffee-table book of pretty pictures; in-stead it serves as a stimulating primer onthe ecology of the Intermountain Westand the scientific inquiry that these land-scapes engender.

Cathy WhitlockDepartment of GeographyUniversity of Oregon

Plateau, Jackson Hole and the Tetons,and the Black Hills, Bear Lodge Moun-tains, and Devils Towers. I turned to thissection when first examining the book,and, perhaps like reading the last pages ofa good mystery ahead of time, I wasinitially disappointed. The descriptionsof the ecology seemed cursory, and theleap into management issues seemed with-out context. Later, I realized my con-cerns were unfounded, because the firstfourteen chapters provide a clear frame-work on which to evaluate the resourcemanagement debates that center on north-west Wyoming. A Yellowstone special-ist may find the chapters on Yellowstoneand Jackson Hole somewhat superficialin their treatment of wildlife issues, theaspen decline, and fire management. But,it is important to remember that the focusof this book is all of Wyoming, and GreaterYellowstone is an excellent venue to dis-cuss resource management issues thataffect wide regions. Knight is a consum-mate diplomat in his balanced discussionof controversies associated with the man-agement of elk, bison, wolves, and griz-zly bears. In each case he falls on the sideof natural regulation as an appropriateresponse. He notes, for example, that ata recent conference in Yellowstone noevidence was presented to suggest exces-sive grazing by elk. Instead, forage fluc-tuations appear to vary with climate morethan with grazing intensity. While ac-knowledging that aspen and willows havebeen visibly affected by ungulates, Knightadvocates a better understanding of therelationships between succession, fire,climate, and herbivory in assessing thepresent status of aspen and willow at thelandscape scale.

Controversies concerning fire manage-ment are described along familiar lines—those who advocate continuing a policyof natural burning and those who arguefor prescribed burning and other man-agement techniques to “control” fire.Knight notes that only a policy that al-lows wildfires to run their course willmaintain the present mosaic withinYellowstone’s forests. In discussing thenatural regulation policy, he writes “thereis merit in taking a passive or semipassiveapproach to wildland management. Toexercise active management consistentlywith precise goals preempts the opportu-

100 Mi

50 100 150 Km

Linda Marston, 1993

WYOMING AND THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN WEST

Alpine

Spruce/Fir

Douglas-FirLodgepole Pine

Ponderosa PineAspen/Conifer

Oak

Juniper

Dessert Shrub

Grassland

Sagebrush

Sand Dunes

0

0

50

Summer 1995

&notesNEWS

17

Gains and Losses for the Wolves; BigGains for Wolf Watchers

As we reported in the previous issue ofYellowstone Science, all three groups ofYellowstone’s new wolves were releasedin late March, and began a wide-rangingexploration of the park and nearby lands.An immediate side-effect of that explora-tion has been outstanding wolf-watchingopportunities for the public, especially inthe Lamar Valley. In early May, thewolves started the long process of dispel-ling myths (see interview with DavidMech on page 6) by debunking the notionthat no one would see them. The roadthrough the Lamar Valley, one of thequietest parts of the park’s road system,has witnessed a growing number of “wolfjams,” as visitors, professional photogra-phers, and park staff have sighted eitherindividual members of the Crystal Creekgroup on an almost daily basis, some-times seeing most or all of the six mem-bers of this group together.

The wolves have been observed play-ing, resting, chasing elk, and interactingwith grizzly bears and coyotes at car-casses. Watchers have witnessed severalpredations on elk (both adults and newcalves), and the wolves have even shownsome cautious interest in the new bisoncalves, though, what with the vigilance ofthe bison cows, no successful predationshave been observed. The visibility of thispack may decrease as the elk move tosummer ranges farther from the road, andas visitor use of the valley increases, butthis first spring’s experience suggests thatYellowstone will provide excellent wolfviewing in the future.

The fortunes of the three wolves in the

Rose Creek group have been mixed. Theyoung female separated from the adultpair right away, and has stayed in or nearthe park, sometimes in the HellroaringCreek drainage, sometimes north of theLamar Valley. The adult pair spent muchof early April a few miles north of thepark in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilder-ness Area. They were not located afterApril 13 until park biologists, making atelemetry flight on April 24, located themon the north slope of Mount Morris in theCuster National Forest, about 30 milesnortheast of the northeast corner of thepark. On April 26, while in the same area,the male’s (#10) radio collar signal be-came erratic, and on April 27, U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service agents found the par-tially dismantled collar hidden in a drain-age culvert. They found no sign of themale, who was presumed killed.

Probably about the same time, the fe-male gave birth to eight pups—four malesand four females—on private land aboutfour miles from Red Lodge. Biologistsdiscovered the pups in a hastily made denon May 3, and, knowing that without thehelp of the male the mother would be hardpressed to provide for them, began leav-ing her road-killed wildlife to supple-ment her food supply. Because of thelocation of the animals in a relativelyhigh-risk area, the U.S. Fish & WildlifeService decided to return them to thepark. On May 18, biologists captured theentire group and moved them by helicop-ter to the Rose Creek acclimation pen.

This capture illustrated the extent ofthe harm done by killing the male, be-cause it highlighted the risks and ex-penses involved in having to handle thewolves more than was planned. Themother was captured first, but when thebiologists went to the site of her den, they

Jim Peaco/NPS

discovered that she had moved the pups.It took several tense hours to locate thenew den and reunite the pups with themother for the quick flight to the park. Nodate has been set for their release, but itwill probably occur in late summer whenthe pups are larger.

In the meantime, on May 7 the skinnedcarcass of #10 was discovered, with thehead missing. Rewards offered by thefederal government and conservationgroups led to a report that a Red Lodgeman, 42-year-old Chad McKittrick, hadkilled the wolf. On May 15, a searchwarrant was issued for his house.McKittrick admitted to the killing, andsurrendered the animal’s hide and skullto agents. On May 16, he was chargedwith the killing.

Until mid-April, the Soda Butte groupof five wolves stayed in or near the north-east corner of the park. By April 22, theyhad moved about 15 to 20 miles north ofthe park in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wil-derness, and have moved up and downthe same drainage ever since, with someindividuals, and on one occasion most ofthe pack, moving all the way back into thepark. The alpha female has stayed in thesame small area for several weeks now,and there is speculation that she, too, mayhave a litter of puppies. Biologists hopeto investigate that situation soon.

Park biologists are accumulating sub-stantial amounts of information on thewolves and their activities. Besides gath-ering the telemetry data, NPS biologistshave examined numerous kill sites andhave recorded many extended first-hand

Memorial Day weekend in Lamar Val-ley: one of the many "wolf jams" thatoccurred this spring as visitors watchedthe wolves in action.

News & notes

Yellowstone Science18

observations of wolf behavior.While the wolves appear well adjusted

to their new surroundings, the fate of thewolves and the reintroduction project isthe subject of debate. Montana SenatorConrad Burns has announced his inten-tion to cut off all funding for wolf recov-ery, and Montana Congressman Pat Wil-liams has responded by promising to de-

fend that funding on the grounds thatallowing the program to continue will inthe long run be the most efficient way toensure control of the wolves. As reportedin previous issues of Yellowstone Sci-ence, three lawsuits are pending on vari-ous aspects of the wolf reintroductions inYellowstone and Idaho, and these caseswill be heard later this year. Now that

there are actual wolves running loose,being observed, and being photographed,public enthusiasm for the project seemsto be higher than ever. With all thisattention and controversy, the futurepromises to be interesting if not enter-taining. Stay tuned.

And, by the way, the puppies have blueeyes.

NPS photos

The capture and transport of wolf 9F and her pups from near Red Lodge, Montana, to Rose Creek in the park was a dramaticepisode in the wolf project. Upper left: Prior to her transport, NPS Wildlife Veterinarian Mark Johnson collects a blood samplefrom 9F, while U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Biologist Joe Fontaine completes a physical examination. Upper right: NPS WolfProject Biologist Doug Smith (left) and Mark Johnson preparing the puppies for the flight. Lower left: After the flight, the puppieswere placed in knapsacks for the short hike to the pen. Lower left: Yellowstone Research Administrator Wayne Brewster andWolf Project Leader Mike Phillips placing the pups in artificial "den" in the Rose Creek pen.

&notesNEWS

Summer 1995

editor, Mark Johnson was an associateeditor, Sarah Broadbent was technicaleditor, and several other staff membersprovided additional assistance.

The volume is available from the IBAfor $45.00, for which price you also re-ceive the separate monograph Density–dependent population regulation of black,brown, and polar bears, edited by MitchellTaylor. The proceedings and monographmay be ordered from Michael R. Pelton,Department of Forestry, Wildlife & Fish-eries, University of Tennessee, Knox-ville, TN 37901.

Mobility of Conference Participants

As reported in our previous issue, theproceedings of our 1991 plant confer-ence, “Plants and Their Environments,”were published earlier this year. Becausealmost 3.5 years had passed since theconference, we attempted to check allparticipant addresses before sending eachperson a copy of the proceedings. In theprocess, we were able to produce someprimitive demographics.

Of approximately 175 people attend-ing this conference, 120 were entitled toa copy of the proceedings as paid regis-trants; most of the rest were attending atthe student rate (which did not include theproceedings) or were park staff or otherlocal support (it seemed best not to in-clude students in this analysis anyway,because they are by definition mobile).Of the 120 participants entitled to a copy,we did not learn the addresses of 23, thosebeing coauthors of presented papers orposters who received their copy from usthrough their senior author. This left uswith 97 identifiable, known-address par-ticipants. Of these 97, 28 (29%) hadmoved since registering for the confer-ence in 1991. Of the 28, 12 had moved toanother state, and 2 had moved to anothercountry.

Already being well out on an analyticallimb with such a small, accidental sample,we did not hesitate to reach a little furtherand compare it to national averages.According to a U.S. Bureau of Censusreport for 1994, 14.1 percent of Ameri-cans with graduate or other professionaldegrees moved during the most recentlystudied year. If it took 3.5 years for 29percent of our participants to move (we

Proceedings of 1992 Bear ConferenceAvailable

Bears—Their Biology and Manage-ment, A Selection of Papers from theNinth International Conference on BearResearch and Management, has just beenpublished by the International Associa-tion for Bear Research and Management(IBA). The conference, held in Missoula,Montana, February 23-28, 1992, producedthe largest number of papers of any in thisimportant conference series, and resultedin this 587-page volume, which contains68 papers and abstracts related to bearsand bear management worldwide.

Several papers deal with greater Yel-lowstone, including “Grizzly bear use ofarmy cutworm moths in the Yellowstoneecosystem,” by Steve French, MarilynnFrench, and Richard Knight; “The repro-ductive biology of female grizzly bears inthe Northern Continental Divide Ecosys-tem with supplemental data from the Yel-lowstone Ecosystem,” by Keith Aune,Richard Mace, and Daniel Carney; “Chro-matographic (TLC) differentiation of griz-zly bear and black bear scats,” by HaroldPicton and Katherine Kendall; “Evalua-tion of an aversive conditioning tech-nique used on female grizzly bears in theYellowstone ecosystem,” by Colin Gillin,Forrest Hammond, and Craig Peterson;“Bear management in Yellowstone Na-tional Park, 1960-1993,” by KerryGunther; and “Insights into the economicvalue of grizzly bears in the Yellowstonerecovery zone,” by Cindy Swanson,Daniel McCollum, and Mary Maj. Manyother papers relate to issues important tobear conservation in Yellowstone and thenorthern Rockies.

Yellowstone Center for Resources staffplayed a central role in the production ofthis volume. Paul Schullery was co–

are assuming they have only moved once),then an average of about 8.3 percentmoved per year. Whether this means thatYellowstone-related research is condu-cive to greater job stability, or that Yel-lowstone-related researchers are in a rut,or that Yellowstone-related research ismeaningless background noise in a de-pressed job market, or something else, orabsolutely nothing, we cannot determine.We sincerely hope that subsequent con-ference proceedings are published toopromptly for us to repeat this exercise.

Those interested in obtaining a copy ofthe proceedings may do so by sending$20.00 to the Yellowstone Association,P.O. Box 117, Yellowstone National Park,WY 82190.

Keynote Speakers Named forPredator Conference

19

Most of the keynote speakers for thisSeptember’s “Greater Yellowstone Preda-tors” conference have been announced.Presenting the Leopold Lecture Tuesdaynight will be L. David Mech, one of theworld’s leading authorities on wolf ecol-ogy and conservation. Mech, a longtimeadvisor in Yellowstone wolf restorationefforts, is the author of many papers andarticles, as well as several important book-length works, including The Wolves ofIsle Royale, The Wolf: Ecology and Be-havior of an Endangered Species, andThe Arctic Wolf: Living with the Pack.Mech is with the National BiologicalService, and is also on the faculty at theUniversity of Minnesota. The LeopoldLecture is named in honor of the late A.Starker Leopold, who for many years wasan important force in national park sci-

&notesNEWS

Yellowstone Science20

&notesNEWS

ence and management.The address at the Superintendent’s

International Luncheon will be presentedby Stephen Herrero. Herrero is a leadingcarnivore ecologist from the Universityof Calgary, and is author of many impor-tant papers on bears and other carnivores.His 1985 book, Bear Attacks—TheirCauses and Avoidance, was most oftennamed in a recent survey of bear special-ists as the outstanding contribution tobear literature in the past 25 years. TheSuperintendent’s International Luncheonprovides an opportunity for a leadingfigure to provide a global perspective ona topic of importance in research andresource management.

Two of the conference’s three dayswill feature opening keynotes. One willbe delivered by Steve French, cofounderwith Marilynn French of the Yellow-stone Grizzly Foundation. In the pastdecade, the foundation’s work has beenrecognized as contributing significantlyto our understanding not only of bearbehavior in Yellowstone but elsewhere,and more recently the Frenches and theircolleagues have undertaken broad-rang-ing genetic analyses of the bears of theworld. Steve will speak about the resultsof recent mitochondrial DNA researchthat relates to bear research and conser-vation worldwide.

The other opening keynoter and theconference summarizer will be announcedlater.

The conference, “Greater YellowstonePredators: Ecology and Conservation ina Changing Landscape,” will be heldSeptember 24-27 at the Mammoth HotSprings Hotel, Yellowstone NationalPark. For additional information on reg-istration, contact the Conference ProgramCommittee, Yellowstone Center for Re-sources, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone Na-tional Park, WY 82190.

Helping the Wolves

The beginning of wolf restoration inYellowstone continues to draw great at-tention and interest, and now that manypeople have actually observed free-rang-ing wolves in Yellowstone, excitementover the reality of wolves has likewiseincreased greatly. Public enthusiasm forthe wolves has expressed itself in many

Before it became famous for its wild-life and other ecological features, theYellowstone region’s world fame wasbased on its geological characteristics,especially the extraordinary collection ofgeysers, springs, and other hot-water fea-tures protected in Yellowstone NationalPark. Most visitors to the park are un-aware that in the big picture, the geysersand springs are just surface expressions

ways, including a number of unsoliciteddonations from individuals, and a num-ber of inquiries from people wanting tomake such donations. A procedure hasbeen established through which tax-de-ductible donations may be made; allmoney will go directly to supporting wolfrestoration. Checks should be made pay-able to the Yellowstone Wolf RecoveryFund, and sent to the Yellowstone Asso-ciation, P.O. Box 117, Yellowstone Park,WY 82190.

Obsidian Conference Scheduled forSeptember

"Obsidian Studies inthe Central andNorthern Rockies" isthe subject of a sym-posium being pre-sented at the SecondBiennial RockyMountain Anthropo-logical Conference inSteamboat Springs,Colorado, September27-30. For more than

a century, a variety of researchers haveworked to sort out the complex use pat-terns and distribution of western obsid-ian, the most notable source of which hasbeen Obsidian Cliff in Yellowstone Na-tional Park. The Steamboat Springs con-ference will provide an overview of pastand present research, consider a numberof methodological issues (including theblood residue analysis reported in theSpring 1995 issue of Yellowstone Sci-ence), and discuss issues relating to howobsidian studies provide information onobsidian sources. The conference prom-ises to provide a great deal of interestinginformation and dialogue on current top-ics relating to this important resource.The proceedings will be published.

Those wishing further informationshould contact the conference organizerCal Jennings, Department of Anthropol-ogy, Colorado State University, FortCollins, CO 80523, (303) 491-7360,email caljenn@lamar.colostate.edu.

What Was Studied in Yellowstone LastYear?

Robert Lindstrom, management assis-

tant in the Yellowstone Center for Re-sources and coordinator of the park's re-search permit system, reports that 222research projects were underway in Yel-lowstone National Park in 1994. Of these,71 were in the physical sciences, 60 werein wildlife topics, 34 were in microbiol-ogy, 32 in forestry/range/plant ecology,21 in fire, and 20 in archeology and socialsciences. This is a decline from the 1991total of 308 projects

Out of a reported $5,932,033 spent onthis research, National Park Service fund-ing totaled $986,255. Other federal agen-cies provided a total of $3,716,051: stateagencies provided $435,059, universitiesprovided $418,208, nonprofit organiza-tions provided $234,265, and all otherfunding (for example, personal funds pro-vided by researchers for their own work)totaled $133,195.

Volcanic and Tectonic Hazards ofYellowstone

Summer 1995 21

of far larger processes of greater interestto most geologists. The Yellowstonecaldera’s magmatic system—the moltenrock and crustal structure upon which thepark rests—has continued to exercise itsauthority over the region’s topography,and at some time in the future will pro-duce additional massive eruptions on thescale of the many past eruptions thatgeologists have tracked across the west-ern United States and into the presentpark. As a part of the ongoing studies ofthis system, a team of U.S. GeologicalSurvey (USGS) scientists with a longinterest in Yellowstone have recentlymade some guarded predictions aboutvolcanic hazards of life here.

Daniel Dzurisin, Kenneth M.Yamashita, and Jack Kleinman, writing

in the Bulletin of Volcanology (1994)56:261–270, reported on uplift caused bymagmatic activity below the Sour CreekDome, just north of Yellowstone Lake.The dome rose an average of about 14mm per year from 1923 to 1976, andabout 22 mm per year from 1976 to 1984.From 1985 until 1993 it subsided at a rateof about 19 mm per year.

The researchers concluded that none ofthis indicates a “significant short-termincrease in volcanic hazard” (that is, anactual eruption, as with lava on the sur-face of the earth), but that the Yellow-stone area does continue to face highprobability of other activity: “The great-est short-term hazards are posed by mod-erate to large . . . regional earthquakes andsmall hydrothermal explosions. Damag-

ing earthquakes, with the potential todisrupt infrastructure and trigger locallyhazardous hydrothermal events withinYellowstone National Park, should beexpected to recur every few decades. Thehuman impact of such earthquakes can bemitigated by an effective earthquake re-sponse plan.”

Though it is not possible to predict theprecise location of hydrothermal explo-sions, the researchers said that “the smallareas affected combined with low visita-tion rates to large parts of the park meanthat this is not a serious problem. Muchlarger hydrothermal explosions, of thescale responsible for the formation ofMary Bay, Indian Pond, and several othersimilar features in Yellowstone . . . arepossible but much less likely.”

Ecology and Conservation in a Changing Landscape

Third Biennial Scientific Conferenceon the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

September 24-27, 1995 Mammoth Hot Springs HotelYellowstone National Park

Greater Yellowstone PredatorsThe conference will take a broad look at predators and predation. Though several important projectsrelating to large predators have been significantly advanced in recent years, the conference aims to reachbeyond those species, and consider all predatory species, whether mammal, bird, fish, or invertebrate. Youwill hear many papers in fields traditionally associated with wildlife ecology, but also will hear from otherdisciplines, such as sociology, economics, and environmental history. As in the past, this conference willnot focus on policy, but on basic contributions in the biological and social sciences, that meet the highestprofessional standards. The proceedings will be published, but attendance at the conference will allow allparticipants to engage in the formal and informal dialogues that make such meetings so valuable.

GREATER YELLOWSTONE PREDATORS:

&notesNEWS

Late News: Soda Butte group of wolves have at least one puppy

As we were packing up this issue of Yellowstone Science to take it to the printer, we received word that the SodaButte group of wolves, who have been spending most of their time in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area a fewmiles north of the park (see page 17), have also produced at least one puppy. Wolf Project Leader Mike Phillips, ona flight over that area on the morning of June 16, spotted an adult wolf with one puppy. At this point, we have no wayof knowing if more, or how many more, pups might have been nearby but out of sight, but average litter size in wolvesis five to seven, and the observation of the single pup suggests the possibility that there may be others. The latest newsconfirms that at least two pairs of wolves bred successfully in their acclimation pens last winter.

BU

LK

RA

TE

POST

AG

E &

FE

ES

PAID

Nat

iona

l Par

k Se

rvic

eD

ept o

f Int

erio

rP

erm

it N

o. G

-83

Yel

low

ston

e Sc

ienc

eY

ello

wst

one

Cen

ter

for

Res

ourc

esP.

O. B

ox 1

68Y

ello

wst

one

Nat

iona

l Par

k, W

Y 8

2190

A Journey Toward the Center of theEarth4

Yellowstone Science Interview: L.David Mech8

Black-throated Sparrow in Yellowstone14

Two Little-Known References to theYellowstone Country from the1860s15

Book Review17

News & notes19