INTRODUCTION
OPENING MONTAGE WITH FAST-PACED FOOTAGE / LANDSCAPES & WILDLIFE
In the continental United States, great herds of wildlife roam much of the West. However, the conditions of wildlife species have greatly changed in prehistoric and historic times.
Animals continuously evolve, and modern humans have hunted some species to near extinction before trying to bring them back. Many animals’ conditions have changed as their ecological communities have fluctuated, sometimes gradually because of natural forces, and sometimes dramatically because of people.
TRISTAN VIEWS SNOW GEESE WITH BINOCULARS
I’m Tristan Howard. As a geographer, naturalist, and wildlife filmmaker, I’ve documented and researched wild animals for much of my life. I invite you to drift with me through the American West as I examine the conditions of Western wildlife.
TRISTAN WALKING ON MOUNTAIN SLOPE WITH EPIC HIGH DESERT VISTA / TITLE MATERIALIZATION & FADE OUT (OVERLAID ON GRAND CANYON PAN)
PLAINS DWELLERS
PLAINS SCENERY / LAMAR VALLEY WITH DISTANT BISON HERD / VARIOUS BISON
Bison survive in remnant herds in western North America and are commonly called buffalo. However, technically, bison are not buffalo (Lott 2002).
CAPE BUFFALO PHOTO
Though also members of the family Bovidae, buffalo are only native to southern Asia and Africa (Encarta Reference Library DVD 2005, s.v. “Buffalo”).
VARIOUS BISON
The bison is the symbol of the U.S. Department of the Interior and emblematic of America. However, bison aren’t as American one might think. They originally evolved in Eurasia, and bison still inhabit Europe (Encarta Reference Library DVD 2005, s.v. “Wisent”). Ancestors of today’s bison entered North America from Asia by crossing the Bering Strait land bridge hundreds of thousands of years ago (Lott 2002).
During past ice ages, glaciers sometimes locked up enough ocean water in ice to cause water levels in the Bering Sea to drop far enough to reveal a region of land called Beringia. This land bridge connected Alaska to Siberia and was sometimes 600 miles wide, leaving space for wildlife migration between Asia and North America (Lott 2002).
LARGE BISON HERDS
During primitive times, bison ranged from the Great Basin of western North America to the coast of the Carolinas. At one point, an estimated 30 million bison roamed the continent. However, a significant decline of bison began because of European colonization. Bison reduction was caused by varied factors, was sometimes gradual, and occurred at different rates in different areas (Lott 2002).
HISTORICAL PHOTOS OF 1800s BISON HUNTING & RAILROADS
Nevertheless, it climaxed with a stunning slaughter on the Great Plains during the 1870s. By then, the advent of new railroads and new tanning methods created a profitable market for bison hides. Men flocked to the Great Plains, killed bison by the thousands, harvested their hides, and often left the meat to rot. The hunt for bison hides was even supported by the U.S. military, which sometimes gave hunters ammunition (Lott 2002).
HISTORICAL PHOTO OF NATIVE AMERICANS
A motive for this support was the fact that bison extermination deprived Plains Indians of their livelihoods (Lott 2002).
DISTANT BISON / YELLOWSTONE SCENERY / HISTORICAL PHOTOS
By the early 1880s, American bison were nearly extinct (Lott 2002). In 1900, only about twenty-five wild bison remained in the U.S. They lived within the protected boundaries of Yellowstone National Park (National Research Council 2002). Bison numbers have since increased through population transplants and the establishment of private herds (Lott 2002).
VARIOUS BISON
Bison continue to face problems. In the early 21st century, more than 90% of North American bison were privately owned and in the process of domestication. Also, in much of the bison’s former range, the U.S. government has reduced a once wild animal to livestock treatment status. Land managers allow very few bison to roam wild outside of parks and refuges (Lott 2002).
HAZING/QUARANTINE PHOTOS MIXED WITH BISON FOOTAGE
Furthermore, in recent decades, the state of Montana and Yellowstone National Park have slaughtered thousands of bison that have crossed Yellowstone’s northern border in winter, searching for food (National Research Council 2002; BFC c). The motivation for the slaughter is fear of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle (National Research Council 2002). Brucellosis can cause cattle, bison, or elk to abort unborn young. Both bison and elk originally contracted brucellosis from cattle (McKee 2007).
In addition to killing over 6,000 bison since the 1985/1986 winter, government agents have quarantined and heavily hazed bison to reduce their movement outside Yellowstone National Park (BFC b; BFC c). Hazing has occurred by helicopter, snowmobile, ATV, and on horseback, greatly disturbing bison and other wildlife in sensitive habitat (BFC c). Bison have also been harassed in regions where no cattle graze (BFC d).
Some environmental groups contend that brucellosis from bison is not as significant a threat as Montana’s Department of Livestock and other beef advocacy groups make it out be (Cole 2009). For example, there have been no documented cases of wild bison transmitting brucellosis to cattle (BFC a).
JACKSON HOLE SCENERY & BISON
Free-roaming bison have even mingled with cattle in Jackson Hole, Wyoming for over 45 years with no documented brucellosis transmission (BFC a).
HAZING/QUARANTINE PHOTOS MIXED WITH MONTANA SCENERY
For decades, a primary motivation for harassing and killing bison was to prevent Montana from losing its brucellosis-free status, which livestock producers claimed would be a serious economic problem (Cole 2009). Yet, Montana lost it brucellosis-free status in 2008, and the effects were not widely catastrophic (McMillon 2008; Cole 2009). In fact, the state regained brucellosis-free status in 2009, and the Montana legislature approved $2.4 million to reimburse ranchers for testing costs (Brown 2009b).
ELK
Montana’s loss of brucellosis-free status, caused by an infection in a region near Yellowstone, has been blamed on elk, but experts have not blamed bison (Struckman 2008). Elk have officially transmitted brucellosis to cattle in Wyoming (Urbigkit 2008). Yet, Montana and the National Park Service don’t give elk the harassment and slaughter treatment they reserve for bison (McMillon 2008).
QUARANTINE PHOTO / WYOMING SCENERY
According to the federal Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service, Wyoming’s brucellosis-infected status from 2004 to 2006 cost state ranchers 1% of production expenses because of additional testing. However, much of this additional expense was offset by state subsidies (Hoskins 2008).
BISON FACE CLOSE-UP / BISON CARCASS PHOTOS
Opponents of current bison management strategies have made a compelling argument that the bison brucellosis threat is intentionally overblown, so the livestock industry can more easily control wildlife and public land for their own economic gain (Hoskins 2008).
GRASSLANDS / VARIOUS PRONGHORN
The pronghorn lives in western North America’s semidesert grasslands and ranges over the Great Plains, Great Basin, Southwest, and other regions (Geist 2001). Though sometimes called antelope because of their resemblance to African antelope, pronghorn are actually not antelope. The scientific name of the pronghorn is Antilocapra Americana. This species is the sole member of the Antilocapridae family. Unlike some other grazing animals, like elk and bison, which migrated to North America from Asia, pronghorn originally evolved here in a grassland savanna that possessed more biological diversity than the savannas of present-day East Africa (Byers 1997).
WESTERN GRASSLANDS
A diverse group of megafauna populated North America’s grasslands for millions of years, but about 12,000 years ago, at the end Pleistocene epoch, many of these huge animals went extinct (Geist 2001). The Pleistocene had mammoths, camels, giant ground sloths, and various prehistoric pronghorn species (Geist 2001).
DEGARMO CANYON / GREAT PLAINS / PRONGHORN
A four-horned rock-hopping pronghorn lived in mountain regions and another four-horned species, slightly bigger than a jackrabbit, inhabited the plains (Geist 2001). Though four-horned pronghorn are now extinct, in the modern day, people occasionally report freak pronghorn that have four horns (O’Gara & Yoakum 2004). Four-horned pronghorn in the present may be evidence of prehistoric recessive genes sporadically re-asserting themselves after thousands of years of dormancy.
STARTLED PRONGHORN / AFRICAN LION & CHEETAH PHOTOS / PRONGHORN
Daunting prehistoric predators evolved to take advantage of the Pleistocene’s rich variety of prey (Geist 2001). Wolves, bears, jaguars, lions, saber-toothed cats, hyenas, and cheetahs all prowled the plains (Byers 1997). Pronghorn evolved in this harsh climate of lethal mammalian adversaries (Geist 2001). The two cheetah species that once inhabited North America were perhaps the most dangerous threat pronghorn faced. These cheetahs were well-adapted for running, as is the pronghorn (Byers 1997). Biologists consider pronghorn the fastest land mammals on the continent (O’Gara & Yoakum 2004).
SLOW-MOTION PRONGHORN RUNNING MONTAGE
VARIOUS PRONGHORN / CUT-AWAYS TO CHEETAH PHOTOS & SLOW-MOTION PRONGHORN
Pronghorn can maintain estimated speeds of thirty to forty miles per hour for several miles (O’Gara & Yoakum 2004). Their top speed is about sixty miles per hour (Byers 1997). Cheetahs are the fastest land mammals on the planet, and their top speed is around seventy miles per hour (NGS). The modern cheetah of Africa is actually adapted to chase down and kill animals that are approximately the same size as pronghorn. So, cheetahs were likely the main predators that influenced the evolution of pronghorn speed adaptations. These adaptations included the development of long, slender, light legs, and also a large heart and large lungs. Powerful cardiovascular capacities allow pronghorn to take in huge amounts of oxygen, which help sustain their rapid speeds (Byers 1997).
PRONGHORN FACE CLOSE-UPS / BALD EAGLE
Pronghorn also have excellent eyesight, which is comparable to what people see while looking through binoculars. Pronghorn possess large, protruding eyes, and their vision helps them spot distant dangers in their open habitat (O’Gara & Yoakum 2004). In prehistoric times, pronghorn’s perceptive eyes assisted them in detecting huge birds of prey. Even in modern times, golden eagles sometimes attack young and adult pronghorn (Geist 2001).
VARIOUS PRONGHORN / PRONGHORN WITH ROAD, IRRIGATION WHEEL LINE, AND BARBED WIRE FENCE
During pre-Columbian times, 35 million or more pronghorn wandered the West. However, during the second half of the 1800s, pronghorn declined by 99% because of hunting and habitat alteration caused by agriculture and other human activities. Nevertheless, in the early 1900s, many forces initiated pronghorn recovery. These forces included changing public attitudes and the efforts of conservationists and government wildlife agencies. By 1984, more than 1 million pronghorn inhabited the continent. However, by 1997, pronghorn numbers had decreased by approximately one-third. In 2000, about 800,000 pronghorn lived in North America (O’Gara & Yoakum 2004).
Pronghorn continue to face problems. For example, in Wyoming, increasing natural gas exploration is threatening pronghorn migration corridors and displacing the animals from suitable habitat (Madson 2006).
WATERFOWL
WETLANDS WITH DISTANT DUCKS
Numerous species of waterfowl live in wetlands across the West.
WATERFOWL MONTAGE / VARIOUS WATERFOWL SPECIES
Waterfowl includes wild ducks, geese, and swans (Todd 1996). North American waterfowl faced unfavorable conditions with the arrival of white hunters and the advent of the shotgun. The ability to quickly spray flying birds with lead pellets significantly increased waterfowl harvests. Before the development of shotguns, weapons like longbows and falcons were often used to kill waterfowl. Shotguns proved more effective, and they grew more sophisticated throughout the 1800s (Baldassarre & Bolden 2006).
HISTORICAL PHOTOS OF RAILROAD AND HUNTING MIXED WITH WATERFOWL FOOTAGE
New railroads also expanded into the West during the 1800s, and their influx of people and weaponry helped kill waterfowl. In the 1800s, there were virtually no restrictions on waterfowl hunting. Legal practices included hunting in the spring and using live ducks as decoys. As a result of sophisticated weapons and few regulations, market hunting took off as a substantial economic activity in North America. Hunters slaughtered waterfowl by the thousands and sold them for food. For example, in just the winter of 1893-1894, one market hunter in Arkansas sold 8,000 mallards (Baldassarre & Bolden 2006).
WATERFOWL FOOTAGE / HISTORICAL PHOTO OF WATERFOWL LAW ENFORCEMENT
By the early 1900s, a growing environmental movement and increased concern over dwindling numbers of wildlife caused the formation of important new laws (Encarta Reference Library DVD 2005, s.v. “Birding”). In 1918, the U.S. government passed the landmark Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which intended to put an end to market hunting and provide protection to all migratory birds. This law put restrictions on waterfowl bag limits, shooting hours, gun size, and ammunition (USFWS a).
The initiation of the duck stamp program in 1934 was another important development in protective legislation for waterfowl. Duck stamps are licenses that the government requires hunters to buy to legally hunt waterfowl. 98% of the profits from the sale of federal duck stamps go toward direct purchasing or leasing of wetland habitat for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System (USFWS d).
WILDLIFE REFUGE SIGNS / NON-GAME SPECIES IN REFUGES
This system consists of a series of protected lands set aside to benefit wildlife and preserve the environment (USFWS b).
In 1937, the U.S. government passed the Pitmann-Robertson Act, which puts an 11% federal excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment, along with a 10% tax on handguns (State of Connecticut 2007).
VARIOUS WATERFOWL
The tax revenues from this law go toward wildlife conservation-related projects, such as management, research, and habitat acquisition (USFWS c).
North America has less than half of its original waterfowl habitat. With European colonization of the continent, settlers sometimes viewed wetlands as obstacles and often drained them to make more land available for economic development. Loss of wetlands continues, but the rate of loss has decreased (Baldassarre & Bolden 2006). Nevertheless, waterfowl still face significant threats, including human-accelerated climate change (NWF 2005).
COASTAL WETLANDS / HIGH DESERT WETLANDS
Waterfowl may lose coastal habitat because of sea level rise caused by ice melt. Wetland habitats have also been drying up because of increased drought conditions (NWF 2005).
MOUNTAIN RIVER / CLARK’S NUTCRACKER / MOOSE / ELK / YELLOWSTONE RIVER’S LOWER FALLS / GRAND TETONS / BARRONNETTE PEAK
Now that we’ve examined the conditions of wildlife on the plains and in the wetlands, let’s journey to mountain country.
PREDATORS
GRIZZLIES / WILDERNESS SCENERY
The legendary grizzly bear lives here in the northern Rocky Mountains. Grizzlies once ranged across the West from the Great Plains to the beaches of the Pacific and from northern Mexico well into Canada (Dalrymple 1985). Up to 50,000 grizzlies once roamed the Western U.S., but the bear now occupies less than 2% of its historic range (Brown 2009a). While still fairly abundant in parts of Canada and Alaska, grizzlies in the continental U.S. now only survive in remote reaches of the Rockies (Dalrymple 1985).
Western settlers eradicated grizzlies from much of the continent. Settlers feared grizzlies because they sometimes attacked people and fed on livestock. In addition to direct killing by humans, habitat loss has also harmed grizzlies. Grizzly bears need vast regions of remote wilderness that provide the many resources their enormous bodies require for survival (Dalrymple 1985).
GRIZZLY GNAWING ON BISON CARCASS / GRIZZLY IN MEADOW
While grizzlies can kill large animals, they are opportunistic omnivores, and among many other things, eat berries, fish, and grass (Dalrymple 1985). They may also scavenge dead animals, like the bison seen here.
GRIZZLY IN MEADOW / GLACIER NATIONAL PARK MOUNTAINS / DISTANT GRIZZLIES OVERTURNING ROCKS IN APLINE TERRAIN
Grizzlies use their long claws to retrieve army cutworm moths, which feed on alpine wildflower nectar during summer. By late summer, these moths possess body weights that are 72% fat. Grizzlies overturn rocks in the high country to access the calorie-rich moths, which help the bears gain fat for winter hibernation. Some grizzlies may eat up to 40,000 moths per day (Chadwick 2001).
VARIOUS GRIZZLIES / HISTORICAL PHOTO / YELLOWSTONE SCENERY
The U.S. government listed Yellowstone grizzlies as threatened on the endangered species list in 1975 when less than 200 individuals existed. By 2007, about 600 grizzlies roamed the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. This region (consisting of Yellowstone National Park and surrounding public lands) hosts the largest grizzly population in the continental U.S. Grizzlies were removed from the endangered species list in 2007 (Boxall 2007). However, in 2009, a federal judge ordered grizzlies back on the list because of concerns with threatened food supplies and recently increased mortality from human encounters (Brown 2009a).
BLACK BEARS IN FORESTS & HIGH MEADOWS
Black bears share much of the grizzly’s habitat and quickly retreat when they detect the presence of their larger relative. Like grizzlies, black bears are often loners. Unlike grizzlies, black bears lack a hump over their shoulders. They have shorter claws, which make them better tree climbers. Black bears live in forested lands throughout the West and are much more common and adaptable than grizzlies (Dalrymple 1985).
In the past, hide hunting, the killing of bears that took livestock, and forest clearing have reduced black bear numbers. Despite their name, black bears aren’t always black and come in a variety of colors, including brown, blonde, and cinnamon. Black bears are extremely opportunistic omnivores and eat a variety of foods. While they may tear apart logs to eat ants, black bears also often graze on grass (Dalrymple 1985).
AUTUMN FORESTS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA / VARIOUS BOBCATS
Named after their bobbed tails, bobcats range across many habitats in the western U.S. These reclusive wildcats tend to live in densely vegetated regions. Bobcats are skilled climbers, but usually stay on the ground. Nevertheless, bobcats will climb trees if chased by dogs or charged by deer (Sunquist and Sunquist 2002).
Bobcats are carnivores and may ambush their prey or chase it down. Bobcats sometimes wait for prey along game trails and may wait for hours at rodent burrow entrances. In addition to small mammals and other prey, bobcats eat birds and deer (Sunquist and Sunquist 2002).
BOBCAT CHEWS DEER CARCASS / DEER FAWN / LIMPING BUCK / BOBCAT RELAXING IN FOREST
Here, a bobcat feeds on leftover deer remains discarded by a hunter. Bobcats can kill adult deer, but more often prey on fawns. Bobcats take down deer by latching onto them and quickly biting at their throats. Bobcat attacks don’t always immediately kill deer, and accounts exist of deer running with bobcats still grabbing onto them (Sunquist and Sunquist 2002).
In the 1970s, trade of certain endangered wildcat furs was internationally banned. As a result, bobcat harvest for furs greatly increased to compensate for the banned products (Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). World demand for bobcat fur rose along with its price (Woolf and Hubert, Jr. 1998; Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). However, by the early 21st century, biologists generally viewed bobcat numbers as stable or increasing (Sunquist and Sunquist 2002).
SLOW-MOTION BOBCAT WALKS TOWARD VIEWER
MOUNT SHASTA & COYOTOE HOWLS / COYOTE TROTS THROUGH MEADOW / VARIOUS COYOTES
Coyotes sometimes kill bobcats and may limit their distribution in some regions (Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). Unlike many other wildlife species, coyote populations experienced a boost from Western settlement (Meinzer 1995).
GRAY WOLVES IN YELLOWSTONE’S LAMAR VALLEY
With poisons and steel traps, settlers eradicated gray wolves from the western U.S. and much of the continent (Meinzer 1995).
VARIOUS COYOTES / GRAY WOLF PHOTO
However, the extremely adaptable coyote expanded its range to fill in habitat and ecological niches left vacant by its larger competitor (Meinzer 1995).
HISTORICAL PHOTOS OF DEAD PREDATORS / SCENERY / COYOTE CROSSES RIVER
Fearing predation on livestock and fueled by a culture of predator hatred, people have been trying to eradicate the coyote for over a century. The U.S. government has been spending taxpayers’ money to kill predators, and especially coyotes, since at least 1909 (Bauer 1994; Meinzer 1995). Government eradication efforts toward coyotes and other predators have been ruthless (Bauer 1994).
VARIOUS COYOTES / GOPHER DIGGING
For example, in 1962, a reported 200,000 predators were killed, ranging from possums to black bears. Yet, in the same year, the government also used 1,400,000 pounds of poison and 350,000 deadly gas cartridges to kill rodents (Bauer 1994).
VARIOUS COYOTES / SLOW MOTION COYOTE FACE CLOSE-UPS / NORTHERN CALIFORNIA MEADOWLANDS
If the government had let more predators live, they would have had more natural rodent control. Government agencies have spent billions of dollars on predator control projects, but scientific studies indicate massive predator control is more harmful than helpful (Bauer 1994). Predator poisons also harm other wildlife, people, and pets (Stark 2009).
Varied entities helped kill about 20 million coyotes in less than a century (Meinzer 1995). However, humans have grandly failed to eradicate the species. Instead, coyotes, which originally only lived in western North America, expanded in all directions and now range from coast to coast and from arctic Alaska down to Guatemala (Meinzer 1995; Bauer 1994).
Mass coyote-killing efforts have prompted coyotes to evolve more adaptability. Widespread killing in certain regions causes coyotes to breed earlier and have more pups as compensation (Bauer 1994).
Each year, coyotes kill millions of dollars worth of livestock. For example, in 1995, coyotes caused 1.6% of total cattle losses. However, health problems and weather killed six to seventeen times more cattle than coyotes. Predation can be significant for ranchers with slim profit margins, but is a relatively minor cause of livestock loss for the entire industry (Mitchell, Jaeger, and Barrett 2004).
Many ranchers indiscriminately kill coyotes, which isn’t always effective because alpha coyotes (which are most likely to attack livestock) are the most resistant to nonselective predator control. Thus, people kill many coyotes that have never attacked livestock (Mitchell, Jaeger, and Barrett 2004).
DEER FAMILY
ROCKY MOUNTAIN SCENERY / RUTTING ELK
Here, elk engage in breeding behavior. Bulls bugle to advertise their presence, thus attracting mates or intimidating rivals (Geist 1991).
SCENERY CORRELATING TO LISTED REGIONS
Elk live in the Southwest, in the Pacific Northwest, in California’s Coast Ranges and Central Valley, and in the Rocky Mountains (RMEF; Geist 1991).
VARIOUS ELK / COASTLINE WAVES / PLEISTOCENE MEGAFUANA PAINTING
Elk evolved in Eurasia. Thousands of years ago during the Pleistocene epoch, they inhabited Beringia, which connected Alaska to Siberia. However, 12,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age, Beringia flooded because of sea level rise caused by melting glaciers. As a result, Asia and North America separated and so did the continents’ elk populations. With megafaunal extinctions occurring during the same time period, elk spread through North America with relatively little competition compared to the recent past when species like mammoths grazed the land. Elk still live in Siberia (Geist 1991).
HISTORICAL PHOTOS MIXED WITH ELK FOOTAGE
During U.S. settlement of the West in the 1800s, elk numbers were drastically reduced as settlers shot the animals for their meat and hides (Dalrymple 1985). By the beginning of the 1900s, elk were nearly extinct and gone from about 90% of their historic habitat (Dalrymple 1985; Geist 1991). Yellowstone National Park was one of the few places in the U.S. that still had elk. In the early 1900s, conservationists transported elk from Yellowstone and released them across the continent. Elk have now been restored to much of their former range (Geist 1991).
PACIFIC NORTHWEST SCENERY / COLUMBIAN BLACK-TAILED DEER
These are Columbian black-tailed deer. They mainly live in coastal mountains from California to southern British Columbia (Bauer 1995). Over the course of millions of years, black-tails evolved from white-tailed deer living along the West Coast (Geist 1990). Columbian black-tails are well-adapted to hiding and can be elusive in their thickly vegetated forest habitat (Atwater, Gerlach, and Schnell 1994; Bauer 1995). However, black-tails helped give rise to a deer commonly found in open country (Geist 1990).
DAKOTA BADLANDS / PIT RIVER CANYON / MOUNT LASSEN WITH DISTANT DEER HERD
MULE DEER FAWN HOPPING SEQUENCE / CUT-AWAYS TO FEEDING DEER & BLACK-TAILED DEER AND WHITE-TAILED DEER PHOTOS
Mule deer live across western North America in mountain foothills and other uneven terrain. Genetic evidence indicates that mule deer originated during the end of the last ice age around 10,000 years ago. With specialized predators and competitors going extinct, North America’s opportunistic deer species (the Columbian black-tailed deer and the white-tailed deer) were given a chance to greatly expand both their ecological niches and geographic ranges. Because of the extinction of megafauna, plant communities expanded, burned more from wildfires, and thus created more favorable deer habitat with new sprouting of plants deer feed on (Geist 1990).
White-tailed deer spread westward from the East and black-tailed deer spread eastward from the West. DNA evidence indicates that where these two species met, they crossbred, and their hybrid offspring became the mule deer we know today (Geist 1990).
VARIOUS MULE DEER / CALIFORNIA SUNSET / DEER ON HAYSTACK
During Western settlement, market and hide hunting greatly depleted mule deer populations, but they later recovered (Dalrymple 1985). In the early 20th century, mule deer populations increased in much of the West. For example, in California, mule deer numbers grew from less than 300,000 to more than one million by the late 1940s. As a result, California mule deer overpopulated. Deer damaged their food plants and birthrates declined (CDFG 2000).
In 1956, California allowed more doe hunting in order to control populations. In response, more fawns were born because less deer decreased competition, which increased nutrient levels for remaining deer. The large 1957 fawn cohorts contributed to record buck harvests in 1959 and 1960. Public opposition eventually ended doe hunting in California, even when it was biologically justified (CDFG 2000).
In the early 1960s, deer numbers in California and other parts of the West began to drop. In the 1940s, some biologists had predicted the decrease and they attributed it to both habitat maturation and habitat damage caused by deer overpopulation (CDFG 2000).
Mule deer have continued to decline for the last several decades (deVos). Substantial evidence implies that this decline is largely caused by loss of forage plants that grow in the aftermath of logging and forest fires (CDFG 2000).
FORST FIRE / FIREFIGHTING HELICOPTER / VARIOUS MULE DEER
Forage plants are an important food supply for deer, and fire often enhances deer habitat. Modern fire suppression has decreased deer habitat, as have brush control practices (CDFG 2000). For instance, timber companies often replant logged mountainsides with monocultures of conifers instead of allowing natural succession of brush and other deer-friendly forage species. Naturally, less habitat results in fewer deer.
MOUNTAIN CLIMBERS
BARRONETTE PEAK / MOUNTAIN GOATS
Mountain goats live in rugged alpine country above timberline. Native mountain goat habitat includes portions of the Northern Rockies, the Northern Cascades, and mountains in northwestern Canada and southern Alaska (Dalrymple 1985).
Mountain goats have amazing climbing capabilities, which are aided by sponge-like, convex pads under their hooves that help the animals gain traction on steep, rocky surfaces (Chadwick 1995; Dalrymple 1985). Mountain goats are such confident climbers that when they’re near steep escape terrain and spot predators, they’ll intentionally move closer to their enemies to keep an eye out for danger (Chadwick 1995).
Mountain goats’ inhospitable habitat has also protected them from humans (Dalrymple 1985). Yet, they are some of the least well-known hoofed mammals on the continent, and lack of knowledge has contributed to their decline in the recent past. Mountain goats are the only hoofed mammals in North America that have been wiped out from significant portions of habitat because of managed sport hunting. For instance, as recently as the 1960s, mountain goats vanished from parts of southwestern Alberta because of overhunting (Côté and Festa-Bianchet 2008).
Wildlife managers made faulty assumptions about mountain goat population dynamics and took a while to learn that mountain goats are more vulnerable to population loss caused by hunting than comparable animals. Mountain goats have slow population recruitment, and deaths from hunting appear to be additive, rather than compensatory. Biologists now conservatively manage native mountain goat populations. Important factors for future mountain goat conservation include habitat protection and preventing disturbance from motorized vehicles, like snowmobiles and ATVs (Côté and Festa-Bianchet 2008).
OREGON RIMROCK / ENERGETIC BIGHORN MONTAGE / WILD LANDSCAPES
Wild sheep inhabit some of the most rugged and scenic regions of western North America (Geist and Toweill 1999).
PHOTOS OF ALASKA WILDERNESS, DALL’S SHEEP, & STONE’S SHEEP
White Dall’s sheep and the darker Stone’s sheep live in the wilderness of northwestern Canada and Alaska, and bighorn sheep are found here in the western U.S. (Geist and Toweill 1999).
SCENERY CORRELATING WITH HABITAT LIST
Bighorns inhabit: rimrock, deep canyons, weathered badlands, deserts, and high alpine mountains (Geist and Toweill 199).
VARIOUS BIGHORNS / BIGHORN PETROGLYPHS
Despite their name, not all bighorns have large horns. Ewes have smaller horns than the rams, which sometimes grow massive, curling horns (Geist and Toweill 1999).
Bighorns aren’t as abundant as other North American big game animals and occur in scattered, isolated populations (Dalrymple 1985; Gildart 1997). Bighorn sheep were once much more numerous. In the 1800s, during U.S. settlement of the West, frontiersmen severely hunted bighorns for their meat that many considered delicious (Dalrymple 1985). Hunters also killed bighorns for trophies (ODF 2003). People often shot bighorns when the sheep were vulnerable at locations like winter ranges or water holes. In some regions, bighorns also had to compete with domestic livestock for forage. However, livestock diseases (especially from domestic sheep) were more devastating to bighorns than competition for food (Geist and Toweill 1999).
SLOW-MOTION DOMESTIC SHEEP / CUT-AWAYS TO BIGHORNS & SCENERY
With Western settlement, shepherds herded domestic sheep over vast stretches of bighorn habitat (ODFW 2003). During the 1800s, contact with domestic sheep significantly contributed to bighorns’ decline (Geist and Toweill 1999). Among other diseases, pneumonia has been particularly devastating. Healthy domestic sheep can carry types of bacteria that infect bighorns with pneumonia, which can kill the wild sheep within 3 to 7 days (Wehausen 2003; ODFW 2003).
For decades, biologists have recommended the separation of domestic sheep from bighorns. Over the years, research (including experiments involving wild sheep penned with domestics) has verified that when bighorns interact with domestic sheep, large percentages of bighorns often die (Hoffman 2007). Some bighorn populations have completely died off with domestic sheep contact being the presumed cause. These populations include herds that, in the 1980s, lived in Lava Beds National Monument and California’s Warner Mountains (Geist and Toweill 1999).
In recent years, conflicts have arisen over the issue of individual sheep ranchers running thousands of domestic animals on public land at the expense of native wildlife. Many environmental groups want domestic sheep removed from portions of bighorn habitat, and some sheep ranchers want to continue with business as usual (Hoffman 2007).
While bighorns have sparked economic concerns among ranchers, they can also generate tremendous revenues through the expenditures of wildlife watchers and hunters (ODF 2003). For instance, bighorn hunting permits have been auctioned at prices as high as $20,000 to $400,000. Often, much of the auction revenue goes toward bighorn restoration efforts (ODF 2003). Luckily for bighorns, population restoration has been successful across much of the West (Geist and Toweill 1999). Wildlife management agencies have reintroduced bighorns to many mountain ranges (Foster 2005; Geist and Toweill 1999).
ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORNS / DAKOTA BADLANDS / MONTANA ROCKIES / YELLOWSTONE RIVER / WILLIAM CLARK’S SIGNATURE
Biologists have generally recognized five main subspecies of bighorn sheep in North America (Geist and Toweill 1999; USFWS 2007). In historic times, a type of wild sheep known as the Audubon’s bighorn lived in the badlands and river canyons of the Dakotas, Montana, Nebraska, and Wyoming (Geist and Toweill 1999). These bighorns probably arrived in their high plains habitat from the Rocky Mountains after migrating along the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers and their tributaries (French 2004). In 1806, on his return journey, Captain William Clark of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, saw about forty of these bighorns near the Yellowstone River in southern Montana. He also shot four bighorns after carving his name in the sandstone of Pompey’s Pillar (French 2004).
William Clark and others helped pave the way for U.S. settlement of the West, which caused the extinction of the so-called Audubon’s bighorn. For years, it’s been lamented as a lost subspecies, but after more complete examinations of Audubon’s bighorn remains, biologists now believe the sheep were not significantly different from bighorns living in the Rockies and thus never warranted separate subspecies classification (French 2004). In the 20th century, biologists transplanted Rocky Mountain bighorns (seen here) to refill vacant habitat in the badlands (Geist and Toweill 1999).
CANADIAN ROCKIES / ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORNS
Rocky Mountain bighorns are the most abundant bighorn subspecies and live throughout the Rocky Mountains from Alberta and British Columbia down to Arizona and New Mexico (Gildart 1997; Geist and Toweill 1999). Rocky Mountain bighorn rams have thicker and tighter-curling horns compared to other bighorn subspecies (Geist and Toweill1999). They are also the largest of the bighorns with exceptional rams reaching 300 pounds (Gildart 1997; Toweill and Geist 1999).
HIGH DESERT / CALIFORNIA BIGHORNS / SCENERY
California bighorns live west of the Rocky Mountains. They inhabit arid rimrock, mountain, and canyon country that stretches from the northern Great Basin to other high desert regions east of the Cascades (Geist and Toweill 1999). Viable populations of California bighorns no longer live in California, though they used to inhabit the northeastern part of the state (Meintzer; Geist and Toweill 1999). While biologists have considered California bighorns a distinct subspecies for years, skull examinations and genetic evaluations have caused scientists to conclude that California bighorns are indistinguishable from Rocky Mountain bighorns, at least in terms of subspecies labeling criteria (Wehausen and Ramey II 2000).
California bighorns usually look slightly different than their Rocky Mountain relatives, but habitat seems a more likely explanation than genetics. California bighorns often live in lower elevations and feed on drier, less abundant vegetation. As a result, California bighorns are typically leaner and smaller. Rams usually weigh about 180 to 200 pounds. California bighorn rams also have horns that are usually smaller and wider-flaring than those of Rocky Mountain bighorns. Hunting and disease wiped out California bighorns from virtually the entire continental U.S. by around 1900. In the 1950s, biologists began reintroducing populations to the U.S. (Geist and Toweill 1999).
SIERRA NEVADA MOUNTAINS / SIERRA BIGHORNS
Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep live in the central and southern Sierra Nevada Mountains of eastern California. Once classified as California bighorns, biologists have since recognized bighorns in the Sierra as a unique subspecies based on skull examinations and DNA analysis. Sierra bighorns gained federal endangered species status in 2000 after suffering population declines caused by a combination of factors (USFWS 2007).
VARIOUS SIERRA BIGHORNS / MOUNTAIN LION PHOTO
In the 1970s and 1980s, mountain lion predation on Sierra bighorns increased and is likely what caused them to stay at high elevations during winter through much of the 1980s and 1990s. At higher elevations, more sheep died because of lower nutrient availability and a harsher environment. For example, on Wheeler Ridge, a snow avalanche killed twelve bighorns in the winter of 1995. By that year, only about 100 bighorns remained in the Sierra. Since then, Sierra bighorn numbers have greatly increased with the help of biologists and mountain lion monitoring and control efforts (USFWS 2007). Sierra bighorns live in some of the most remote alpine country in the continental U.S. and observing them can be very difficult.
GRAND CANYON / MOJAVE DESERT / LIZARD / DESERT BIGHORN RAM PHOTO
VARIOUS DESERT BIGHORNS
Desert bighorn sheep inhabit the southwestern U.S., northern Mexico, and the Baja Peninsula. Desert bighorn populations are considered relict, which indicates habitat change isolated them. Biologists believe desert bighorns are leftover from bighorn populations that inhabited climates more like the Rockies. However, thousands of years ago, glacial retreat and desert formation stranded desert bighorns in isolated, arid mountain ranges. These bighorns have since adapted to hot climates (Geist and Toweill 1999).
Compared to other bighorns, they are leaner, have reduced hair insulation, and have a longer breeding season. Desert bighorns are also adept at fulfilling moisture requirements from plants. They can go for up to six months without drinking, but they may drink every two to three days if they have access to water. Desert bighorns sometimes compete for water, and ewes have longer horns compared to other bighorn subspecies. These longer horns may be beneficial in interspecies confrontations over resources. Desert bighorns may also have to compete for scarce food and water with livestock and non-native feral animals, like wild horses (Geist and Toweill 1999).
Desert bighorn lamb mortality is usually high because of stress, predation, and limited forage (Geist and Toweill 1999). While desert bighorn lambs face problems, that doesn’t stop them from kicking up their hooves on cold winter mornings.
DESERT BIGHORN LAMB FROLICKING MONTAGE
CONCLUSION
CALIFORNIA SUNSET / ROCKIES / BISON / BIGHORNS / ELK
From the mighty bison of the plains to the majestic bighorns of the mountains, we’ve now explored the conditions of wildlife across the West.
WILDLIFE MONTAGE WITH EXEMPLARY FOOTAGE
SWAN BONES / VARIOUS WILDLIFE / VELOCIRAPTOR REPLICA IN MUSEUM
Human actions can be catastrophic to wildlife or dramatically helpful. Our planet now rotates at a critical juncture with unprecedented global threats and the fastest species extinction rate since dinosaurs disappeared sixty-five million years ago (Brown 2008).
CANADA GOOSE / SLOW-MOTION BOBCAT STEPPING THROUGH BARBED WIRE FENCE / RED FOX ON ROAD / WILD TURKEYS ON PAVEMENT / MULE DEER WITH PIVOT LINES
Much of America’s Western wildlife is threatened by many factors, including fossil fuel extraction, climate change, competition with livestock, and human-caused habitat alteration. Not all these issues affect wildlife in the same ways, nor are they bad for all species. However, these factors do cause serious harm.
MULE DEER NEARLY GET HIT BY SUV / FADE TO PAINTING OF PRESHITORIC HUMANS ATTACKING WOOLLY MAMMOTH / HISTORICAL PHOTO OF TOURISTS IN YELLOWSTONE
Earth’s unprecedented human population is intensifying and accelerating all these factors. Relatively gradually, over the course of thousands of years, humanity surpassed 1 billion people by 1800 (Haub). By 1900, there were 1.7 billion people (USCB).
URBAN REGIONS IN CALIFORNIA
Since then, population has exploded to about 6.8 billion people at present (PRB a). Most population growth now occurs in poorer, developing countries (PRB b). Yet, wealthy countries in the northern hemisphere carry out the majority of humanity’s unprecedented resource consumption. And many people in poorer countries understandably desire the more comfortable but non-sustainable lifestyles of wealthy countries. These factors contribute to resource extraction trends that are often devastating to wildlife (Brown 2008).
FLOATING GOSLING CARCASS / RAVEN LANDS ON DEER CARCASS / URBAN LANDSCAPES
Slowing population growth and reducing resource consumption to sustainable levels can make a substantial ecological difference on many fronts (Brown 2008). Effectively accomplishing these goals takes global cooperation that may not materialize anytime soon.
OPTIMISTIC WILDLIFE FOOTAGE
That leaves us as individuals. What can we do to help Western wildlife species and mitigate some of the threats they face? We could join conservation organizations, stay up-to-date on current wildlife issues, and make some political decisions based on the health of Western eco-systems.
Of course, we can also make a difference just in how we live. Eating less livestock products, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, recycling more often, not using herbicides in our yards, placing our land under conservation easements: many possibilities abound. All of us have our own preferences and the choice is up to you.
We always have the choice of doing nothing, but if conservation-minded politicians, ranchers, farmers, hunters and fishermen, and other wildlife enthusiasts did nothing a century ago, we wouldn’t enjoy the numbers of Western wildlife that we see today.
What wildlife will be in the West a century from now? Every one of us can influence the answer to that question. By embracing ecological and political awareness and combining that with personal responsibility, we could all make a difference in improving the conditions of Western wildlife.
END CREDITS
References
Note: I included embedded citations for most of my script information. The non-cited content is either implied from previous material, relatively obvious, or derived from my personal knowledge.
Atwater, Sally, Duane Gerlach, and Judith Schnell, eds. 1994. Deer. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books.
Baldassarre, Guy A., and Eric G. Bolen. 2006. Waterfowl ecology and management: Second edition. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
Bauer, Erwin A. 1994. Wild dogs: The wolves, coyotes, and foxes of North America. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.
——. 1995. Mule deer: Behavior, ecology, conservation. Stillwater, MN: Voyageur Press, Inc.
Boxall, Betina. 2007. Grizzlies no safer than average bears. Los Angeles Times. March 23. http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/23/nation/na-bears23 (accessed February 16, 2009).
Brown, Lester R. 2008. Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to save civilization. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.
Brown, Matthew. 2009a. Molloy: Feds must restore protection for grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park. The Missoulian. September 21. http://www.missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_68b062d2-a6df-11de-b051-001cc4c002e0.html
Brown, Matt. 2009b. Montana declared free of livestock disease. Billings Gazzette. July 9. http://www.billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_e92334ac-6cac-11de-942d-001cc4c002e0.html (accessed January 16, 2010).
Buffalo Field Campaign (BFC a). Why are the Yellowstone National Park bison being slaughtered? http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/faq/whyslaughter.html (accessed January 16, 2010).
—— (BFC b). How many buffalo have been slaughtered? http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/faq/slaughtercount.html (accessed January 16, 2010).
—— (BFC c). Does hazing disturb other wildlife? http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/faq/hazingdisturb.html (accessed January 16, 2010).
—— (BFC d). But there are no cattle in the West Yellowstone area, right? http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/faq/nocattle.html (accessed January 16, 2010).
Byers, John A. 1997. American pronghorn: Social adaptations & the ghosts of predators past. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG). 2000. Guide to Hunting Deer in California. By John Higley. Sacramento. [govt. doc.]
Chadwick, Douglas H. 1995. On the edge of earth and sky. National Geographic, April.
——. 2001. Grizz. National Geographic, July.
Cole, Ken. 2009. An article about the ill-conceived bison quarantine program that will likely be turning the majority of the progeny of these bison into privately owned livestock. http://wolves.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/homeless-on-the-range/#more-10415 (accessed January 15, 2010)
Côté, Steve D., and Marco Festa-Bianchet. 2008. Mountain goats: Ecology, behavior, and conservation of an alpine ungulate. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Dalrymple, Byron W. 1985. North American big-game animals. New York: Outdoor Life Books.
DeVos, Jim. MDF Projects: Mapping mule deer habitat: A guide to restoring habitat capacity. Mule Deer Foundation. http://www.muledeer.org/Projects/Ariz_Mapping.htm (accessed February 23, 2009).
French, Brett. 2004. The sheep that will not die: Clinging to the myth of Audubon’s bighorn. Montana Outdoors, November-December.
Geist, Valerius. 1990. Mule deer country. Minocqua, WI: NorthWord Press, Inc.
——. 1991. Elk country. Minocqua, WI: NorthWord Press, Inc.
——. 2001. Antelope country: Pronghorns – The last Americans. Iola, WI: Krause Publications.
Geist, Valerius, and Dale E. Toweill. 1999. Return of royalty: Wild sheep of North America. Missoula, MT: Boone and Crockett Club and Foundation for North American Wild Sheep.
Gildart, Bert. 1997. Bighorn sheep: Mountain monarchs. Minocqua, WI: NorthWord Press, Inc.
Haub, Carl. How many people have ever lived on Earth? http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx (accessed December 27, 2009)
Hoffman, Nathaniel. 2007. Sheep vs. sheep: A legal battle over Hells Canyon grazing could determine the future of wild sheep and sheep ranching across the West. High Country News. October 1. http://www.hcn.org/issues/355/17251 (accessed March 4, 2009).
Hoskins, Robert. 2008. The true coast of brucellosis. New West. March 7. http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/the_true_cost_of_brucellosis/C38/L38/ (accessed January 15, 2010).
Lott, Dale F. 2002. American bison: A natural history. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Madson, Chris. 2006. Gas fields and wildlife. Wyoming Wildlife, September.
McKee, Jennifer. 2007. Cattle disease zoning splits ranchers. Billings Gazette. October 29.
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/10/29/news/state/22-cattle.txt (accessed January 26, 2008).
McMillon, Scott. 2008. Second brucellosis case found. Bozeman Daily Chronicle. June 9. http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2008/06/10/news/10brucellosis.txt (accessed January 16, 2010).
Meintzer, Kyle M. Bighorn sheep? In northeastern California? http://www.cafnaws.org/projects. htm (accessed March 7, 2009).
Meinzer, Wyman. 1995. Coyote. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press.
Mitchell, Brian R., Michael M. Jaeger, and Reginald H. Barrett. 2004. Coyote depredation management: Current methods and research needs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32, no. 4: 1209-1218.
National Geographic Society (NGS). Animals: Cheetahs. http://kids.nationalgeographic.com/Animals/CreatureFeature/Cheetah (accessed February 2, 2008).
National Research Council. 2002. Ecological dynamics on Yellowstone’s northern range. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10328&page=92 (accessed January 26, 2008).
National Wildlife Federation (NWF). 2005. News & views: Global warming a threat to waterfowl. http://www.nwf.org/news/story.cfm?pageId=7C28ADA8-65BF-09FE-BA5E60 EA98E 1DE5A (accessed February 23, 2008).
O’Gara, Bart W., and Jim D. Yoakum. 2004. Pronghorn: Ecology & management. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2003. Oregon’s Bighorn Sheep & Rocky Mountain Goat Management Plan. By Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem. [govt. doc.]
Population Reference Bureau (PRB a). World Population Clock, 2009. http://www.prb.org/Articles/2009/worldpopulationclock2009.aspx (accessed December 27, 2009)
—— (PRB b). 2009 World Population Data Sheet. http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2009/2009wpds.aspx (accessed December 27, 2009).
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF). Elk facts: Elk range. http://www.rmef.org/AllAbout Elk/ElkRange/ (accessed February 17, 2009).
Stark, Mike. 2008. Dog died at cyanide trap set in off-limits area. The Denver Post. June 1. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9433796 (accessed March 9, 2009).
State of Connecticut: Department of Environmental Protection. Federal funding for fish & wildlife: Federal aid in wildlife restoration. http://www.ct.gov/dep /cwp/ view.asp?a= 2723&q=326164 (accessed February 20, 2008).
Struckman, Robert. 2008. Sick cow costs Montana its brucellosis-free status. NewWest Bozeman. June 9. http://www.newwest.net/city/article/sick_cow_costs_montana_its_brucellosis_free_status/C396/L396/ (accessed January 16, 2010).
Sunquist, Mel, and Fiona Sunquist. 2002. Wild cats of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Todd, Frank S. 1996. Natural history of the waterfowl. Vista, CA: Ibis Publishing Company.
Turbak, Gary. 1996. The bizarre life of the harlequin duck. National Wildlife, December/January.
Urbigkit, Cat. 2008. Twenty elk test positive for disease. Casper Star-Tribune. January 31. http://www.trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_5423c5f8-a0ca-59ee-80f0-2c7ac1de7e9f.html (accessed January 16, 2010).
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). World population profile: 1998 – Highlights. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/wp98001.html (accessed December 27, 2009)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS a). A guide to the laws and treaties of the United States for protecting migratory birds. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/intrnltr/ treatlaw.html (accessed February 20, 2008).
(USFWS b). America’s National Wildlife Refuges. http://www.fws.gov/refuges/generalInterest/factSheets/FactSheetAmNationalWild.pdf (accessed February 20, 2008). [govt. doc.]
—— (USFWS c). Federal Aid Division: The Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. http://www.fws.gov/southeast/federalaid/pittmanrobertson.html (accessed February 20, 2008).
—— (USFWS d). The federal duck stamp program. http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps/Info/ Stamps/stampinfo.htm (accessed February 20, 2008).
——. 2007. Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. By John D. Wehausen, et al. Sacramento. [govt. doc.]
Wehausen, John D., and Rob Roy Ramey II. 2000. Cranial morphometric and evolutionary relationships in the northern range of Ovis canadensis. Journal of Mammology 81, no. 1 (February): 145-161.
Woolf, Alan, and George F. Hubert, Jr. 1998. Status and management of bobcats in the United States over three decades: 1970s-1990s. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26, no. 2 (Summer): 287-293.
Prairie Dogs (Cut Scene)
DAKOTA PLAINS / VARIOUS PRAIRIE DOGS
Prairie dogs live in many of the same regions as pronghorn and bison (Graves 2001). These sociable rodents live in colonies called towns. Some prairie dog towns host thousands of individuals (Encarta Reference Library DVD 2005, s.v. “Prairie Dog”).
Prairie dogs make significant contributions to biodiversity, plant nutrients, and soil chemistry (USFWS 2004). They subsist by grazing on grass, and their cropping creates shorter grass, which is more nutritious and attractive to bison (Lott 2002).
Prairie dogs use self-dug underground tunnels to escape danger (Lott 2002). However, the little rodents often failed to escape humanity’s ravages. At one point, approximately 5 billion black-tailed prairie dogs scurried across the land. However, in 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated the number of black-tailed prairie dogs at approximately ten to twelve million. Since 1924, human encroachment has slashed prairie dog numbers by about 98%. In the early 1900s, largely because of inaccurate government data, agricultural interests saw the prairie dog as a pest that significantly competed with livestock for grass (Graves 2001).
Recently, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service acknowledges that livestock-prairie dog relationships are complex and not fully understood. They also acknowledge that cattle have preferentially grazed in prairie dog towns and that quote: “direct dietary competition between prairie dogs and cattle for the same plants may not be significant” (USFWS 2004).
In the early 1900s, attitudes were different, and massive government-supported poisoning campaigns began. Government agents mixed strychnine and cyanide with grain for effective poison baits. In the 1960s alone, the Bureau of Land Management placed over 6,400,000 poison baits on public land (Graves 2001).
In the early 21st century, prairie dog numbers and habitat have declined and government poisoning has continued (Graves 2001).
References
Graves, Russell A. 2001. The prairie dog: Sentinel of the plains. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press.
Lott, Dale F. 2002. American bison: A natural history. Berkeley: University of California Press.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Black-tailed prairie dog removed from candidate species list. http://www.fws.gov/ mountain-prairie/PRESSREL/04-57.htm (accessed February 17, 2008).
Harlequin Ducks (Cut Scene)
MOUNTAIN RIVERS / HARLEQUIN DUCKS / CUT-AWAYS TO SCENERY
These are harlequin ducks. This species is named after a 1500s Italian theater clown (Grisak & Schyler 2006). Harlequins are classified as sea ducks and spend much of their time on the ocean. However, each spring, they migrate inland to nest by mountain streams (Turbak 1996).
Harlequins mainly live in the Pacific Northwest. The Pacific Northwest harlequin population winters from Alaska’s Aleutian Islands down to the California coast. During their breeding season, they may also migrate as far east as Wyoming (Turbak 1996).
One of the harlequin duck’s signature characteristics is its tolerance for rushing water. Harlequins often feed in the middle of rapids. They can dive to the bottom of surging streams by holding in their wings and pumping their feet. Harlequins navigate stream bottoms for about twenty-five seconds with fish-like movements as they feed on aquatic invertebrates (Turbak 1996).
Harlequins also use swift streams for predator evasion. Upon detecting danger, adult harlequins often swim to turbulent water and let the current carry them out of harm’s way (Turbak 1996).
In late spring, harlequins deposit approximately six eggs in a carefully hidden streamside nest. Harlequin reproduction is fairly slow for a variety of reasons. After females lay eggs, drakes return to the sea. Their absence prevents re-nesting if the original eggs are damaged (Turbak 1996). Harlequins also don’t breed until they are two years old or older, and only 50% of females nest (Turbak 1996; Grisak & Schyler 2006). Predators are a threat to harlequin ducklings, but more young probably die from cold temperatures or dangerous waters (Turbak 1996).
By late September, most harlequins have returned to coastal wintering areas, where they face some of their most significant threats, including oil spills (Turbak 1996).
Inland habitat damage caused by logging, dams, and coal mining can also threaten harlequins by decreasing water clarity and increasing insect mortality (Grisak & Schyler 2006). Poaching is another threat. For example, in Washington, poachers have captured live adult harlequins for the captive animal trade. In Europe, harlequin duck pairs have sold for as high as $5,000. Disturbance from human recreation has also negatively impacted harlequins (Turbak 1996).
Harlequins are one of the least studied birds on the continent. The scope and remoteness of their habitat has contributed to the duck’s mysterious aura. Harlequins have experienced significant localized declines. For instance, harlequin populations in Colorado and the northern Sierra Nevada Mountains went extinct decades ago. The Forest Service lists harlequins as a sensitive species. Harlequin conservation has been limited by a lack of information and lack of funding, which often goes to more popular animals (Grisak & Schyler 2006).
References
Grisak, Amy, and Krista Schyler. 2006. Harlequin romance. National Parks, Spring.
Turbak, Gary. 1996. The bizarre life of the harlequin duck. National Wildlife, December/January.
California Sea Lions (Cut Scene)
PACIFIC OCEAN SCENERY / DISTANT SEA LIONS ON ROCKS / VARIOUS SEA LIONS
Some of the wettest wetlands of the West are along the Pacific coast. This area hosts a variety of marine mammals, including California sea lions. These sea lions range from Canada’s Vancouver Island down to Baja California (Whitaker 1996). There’s also a population near the Galápagos Islands (NGS). California sea lions are playful, sociable, and intelligent (MMC 2002).
They can dive as far as 450 feet and stay underwater for twenty minutes while employing sonar for navigation and food detection (Whitaker 1996). These sea lions slow their heart rate during dives to help them stay underwater longer (NGS). California sea lions typically hunt from 85 to 240 feet underwater. They feed on more than fifty fish species in addition to squid, octopus, and abalone (Whitaker 1996). California sea lions may also eat small sharks (MMC 2002). These sea lions often sleep on islands during the day and mostly hunt at night. California sea lions are quicker than any other sea lions or seals and can swim up to twenty-five miles per hour (NGS; Whitaker 1996).
Sharks and killer whales occasionally hunt California sea lions, but humans have also been substantial threats. In the past, people killed California sea lions for blubber oil and for their meat, which was processed into dog food. In modern times, gill nets placed by fishermen lead to sea lion entanglement and drowning. Sea lions can also die from getting netting or other plastic material wrapped around their necks. Plastic can cut sea lions as their bodies grow around it (Whitaker 1996). California sea lions are currently protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (NOAA).
As of 2009, biologists estimated that the total California sea lion population was at carrying capacity (WDFW 2009a). In ecology, carrying capacity refers to the largest number of animals a habitat can support without harmful consequences (American Heritage Dictionary 2006 ed., s.v. “carrying capacity”). Since the 1970s, California sea lion populations have greatly increased, with an estimated 300,000 animals in the U.S. (WDFW 2009a).
COLUMBIA RIVER SCENERY / FISH / SEA LIONS
In the Columbia River between Oregon and Washington, California sea lions heavily feed on Chinook salmon and steelhead trout that congregate below the Bonneville Dam during their spring runs (WDFW 2009a). The Chinook salmon in this portion of the Columbia River are listed as an endangered evolutionarily significant unit under the Endangered Species Act (NOAA 2007). And the steelhead trout near the dam are listed under the Endangered Species Act as a threatened distinct population segment (NOAA 2009).
With abundant predators feeding on threatened fish, the federal government has given wildlife managers the authority to remove California sea lions from the vicinity of the Bonneville Dam. Wildlife managers have hazed and killed sea lions. However, instead of killing the animals, state agencies prefer relocating them to zoos and aquariums (WDFW 2009a). In 2009, wildlife managers removed fourteen California sea lions from the Columbia River. Two animals went to a zoo, another two went to an aquarium, and officials killed the rest (WDFW 2009b). To put this in perspective, keep in mind that a 2006 survey conducted by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife counted 1,200 California sea lions near the Columbia River’s outlet (WDFW 2009a).
VARIOUS SEA LIONS
The U.S. Navy has used trained California sea lions to retrieve objects and to detect mines and swimmers (Maron 2009). The Navy started training marine mammals in the 1960s (Leinwand 2003). The Navy uses sea lions because some of their senses are superior to modern technology (Maron 2009). For instance, California sea lions have excellent directional hearing, and they can spot objects in near-darkness. These abilities help sea lions detect the pinging sounds of mines and enable them to clamp recovery lines to objects, including enemy swimmers (Leinwand 2003). The U.S. military used sea lions in the Vietnam War. They also used the animals to clear mines in the Persian Gulf in 2003 as part of the Iraq war effort (Maron 2009).
References
Leinwand, Donna. 2003. Sea lions called to duty in Persian Gulf. USA Today. February 16. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-16-sealions-usat_x.htm (accessed January 14, 2010).
Marine Mammal Center (MMC). 2002. California sea lion. http://www.tmmc.org/learning/education/pinnipeds/casealion.asp (accessed January 14, 2010).
Maron, Dina Fine. 2009. Dolphins, sea lions to serve as marine guardians of naval base. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=navy-base-security-dolphins-sea-lions (accessed January 14, 2010).
National Geographic Society (NGS). California Sea Lion (Zalophus Californianus). http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/california-sea-lion.html (accessed January 16, 2010).
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/mmpa/ (accessed January 16, 2010).
—— . 2007. Chinook salmon. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Chinook/ (accessed January 16, 2010).
—— . 2009. Steelhead. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Steelhead/ (accessed January 16, 2010).
American Bittern (Cut Scene)
AMERICAN BITTERN NEAR WETLANDS
The American Bittern is an elusive marsh bird most active at dusk and dawn. Bitterns mainly feed on insects, amphibians, and small fish and mammals. They hunt by staying still until prey moves into striking distance (Lowther et al. 2009).
BITTERN STRETCHES NECK
Remarkably, the American bittern has evolved the ability to disguise itself as a cattail by stretching its neck, raising its beak, and compressing its feathers. This bird will even move with cattails when they billow in the wind. Bitterns stay low to the ground when quickly moving and straighten out when stopped (Benyus 1989).
BITTERN MOVES THROUGH GRASS
American bitterns are experiencing significant declines across much of the U.S. because of loss of habitat and habitat damage (Lowther et al. 2009). American bitterns have been negatively impacted by marsh draining, human disturbance, pesticides, and overgrazing of emergent vegetation by livestock (CDFG). Biologists know notably little about basic elements of American bittern biology because of the bird’s secretive lifestyle (Lowther et al. 2009).
References
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System: California Interagency Wildlife Task Group: American Bittern. By S. Granholm. (accessed March 1, 2010). [govt. doc.]
Benyus, Janine M. 1989. The field guide to wildlife habitats of the Western United States. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Lowther, Peter, Alan F. Poole, J. P. Gibbs, S. Melvin, and F. A. Reid. 2009. American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus). The Birds of North America Online. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/018doi:10.2173/bna.18 (accessed March 1, 2010).
American Coots (Cut Scene)
AMERICAN COOTS (WALKING, RUNNING, SWIMMING)
In addition to waterfowl, Western wetlands host other aquatic birds, like American coots. These coots are widely distributed and common in much of North America (Bridgman 2003). Though their appearance is comparable to ducks, coots are chicken-like and part of the Rallidae family (Brisbin, Jr. and Mowbray 2002; Bridgman 2003). Unlike waterfowl, coots have lobed toes instead of webbed feet (CLO). Coots also tend to be clumsier than waterfowl and require relatively lengthy running takeoffs to achieve flight (Brisbin, Jr. and Mowbray 2002).
American coots are opportunistic omnivores and feed on vertebrates, insects, and vegetation (Bridgman 2003; Dobkin, Ehrlich, and Wheye 1988). Coots can behave like pirates and may steal leftovers from other species or snatch food carried to the surface by aquatic birds. Young coots in groups of up to five individuals may even rob plants out of the mouths of ducks and swans (Dobkin, Ehrlich, and Wheye 1988).
Coots can be violently territorial. When confronting an intruder, a coot may charge on the water, grab its enemy with a clawed foot, make an effort to slap its adversary with another foot, and attempt to stab with its bill. Coots as young as four days old have exhibited this behavior (Dobkin, Ehrlich, and Wheye 1988).
Coots build up to nine floating vegetation structures in preparation for nesting. The birds use only one or two structures for egg laying, while the rest are used for mating, displaying, and raising offspring (Dobkin, Ehrlich, and Wheye 1988). Both male and female American coots take turns incubating eggs and both parents care for their young (Bridgman 2003).
Compared to other birds, coots are especially adept at preventing brood parasitism, even from other coots. Brood parasitism occurs when a bird lays its eggs in a nest that is not its own. Many birds can’t tell the difference between their offspring and parasite hatchlings, even when the hatchlings are a different species. Thus, victims of brood parasitism unwittingly expend effort favoring another individual’s genetics. However, American coots know how to count their eggs and recognize their own offspring. Coots even violently attack non-related coot chicks in their nests. Coot parents may forcefully peck impostor young and attempt to drown them (Mendenhall 2009).
Though abundant, coots aren’t especially popular, and some people see them as pests (Dobkin, Ehrlich, and Wheye 1988). American coots are regularly hunted, but not especially sought after (CDFG).
References
Bridgman, A. 2003. University of Michigan. Fulica americana: American coot. http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Fulica_americana.html (accessed February 24, 2010).
Brisbin, Jr., I. Lehr and Thomas B. Mowbray. 2002. American Coot (Fulica americana). The Birds of North America Online. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/697adoi:10.2173/bna.697a (accessed February 28, 2010).
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System: California Interagency Wildlife Task Group: American Coot. By M. Rigney. (accessed February 28, 2010). [govt. doc.]
Cornell Lab of Ornithology (CLO). Cornell lab of ornithology: All about birds: American coot. http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/American_Coot/lifehistory (accessed February 28, 2010).
Dobkin, David S., Paul R. Ehrlich, and Darryl Wheye. 1988. American coots. http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/American_Coots.html (accessed February 24, 2010).
Mendenhall, Matt. 2009. American Coots thwart nest invaders and kill their chicks. http://cs.birdersworld.com/brdcs/blogs/field_of_view/2009/12/15/american-coots-thwart-nest-invaders-and-kill-their-chicks.aspx (accessed February 24, 2010).