MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL PARKS AND SANCTUARIES.

Forest and Bird, Issue 36, 1 May 1935, Page 10

MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL PARKS AND SANCTUARIES.

Nature’s Balance Must be Kept.

It is well known that some disastrous blunders have been made in the importation of certain creatures into New Zealand; but it is not so well known that mischief can be done by the transfer of native birds from one part of the Dominion to another.

This subject is treated very impressively by Mr. Joseph Grinnell, of Berkeley University, California, in an article, “ Natural Balance for Wild Life in National Parks and Its Maintenance,” in the January issue of the “ Journal of the Society for the Preservation of Fauna of the Empire.” A perusal of this article shows that the writer’s reasoning supports the policy of the Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand with regard to the transferring of native birds to sanctuaries and other reservations where they have never been known to exist. It is perhaps, however, only natural that those with a limited knowledge of wild birds as wild birds should in their zeal to save some apparently threatened species or for other reasons seek to apply methods to wild birds which are more applicable to the domestic fowl. Ftere are some very important passages of Dr. Grinnell’s article: —

The functions of the National Park Service have been stated in ideally concise wording by Director Mather, quoted by Mr. Albright, as follows: “To preserve National Park areas in as nearly as possible their natural condition and at the same time to make them accessible to the people for study, for recreation, and for play.” It is implied clearly, I think, in this statement that all of the natural features included within said areas, animate as well as inanimate, animal as well as vegetable, are equally to be conserved. Granting therefore that animal life within the borders of National Parks is valuable in stimulating the human senses of far-seeing and far-hearing, in furnishing objectives requiring recreational exercise of both mind and body to bring them within ken, in furnishing an aesthetic appeal of a high type and an intellectual motif of infinite resource, then how can this asset best be treated from an administrative standpoint? The present writer’s experience, over a period of years, has brought some degree of familiarity with the animal life and the conditions bearing upon it in certain parts of the Pacific district. The accumulation of detailed facts and reflections making up

this knowledge has led to the formation of certain definite opinions as to the best way to conserve animal life in National Parks. These opinions have been arrived at gradually, and in some cases amount now to seemingly well-grounded convictions, the important ones of which I will proceed to discuss.

Since, by definition, National Parks are essentially preserves, for purposes of serious study as well as recreation, then the administrator’s guard must continually be exercised against any pollution of the native fauna, any perversion of it from what it was, here in the West, up till somewhat less than a century ago. First and foremost, any and all wow-native animals must rigidly be denied admission. Dogs and cats are now banned, and properly so, from, I think, all National Parks. Quite as proper is it to stand firmly against all suggestion that alien animals of any other sorts be introduced into National Parks. No non-native kinds of quail, or pheasants or wild turkeys, of beaver or deer belong in any park where such animals did not originally exist. For example, elk have no place in Yosemite.

This dictum I should apply quite as rigorously with respect to species and even sub-species which happen to be near-related to native ones. It would be a biological indiscretion to plant eastern squirrels, which are of other races, in Yosemite Park, simply for the reason that the native Grey Squirrel is, for the time being, at a low ebb of population numbers. According to well-known biological law, the introduction of any non-native species, if successful, is bound to be followed by disappearance of some native species with which, to be successful, the alien competes. No two kinds of animals of the same requirements for food and shelter can long occupy the same place; one of them will disappear. Not only one, but a series of native species may be affected by the establishment of just one alien species; the whole balanced inter-relation originally obtaining may be upset. A continental fauna is already full, in the sense that all the ecologic niches are occupied. To repeat, there is no possibility of adding a new animal without affecting the interests of one or more native ones.

The full native complement of animal life should be left absolutely undisturbed, save to the extent incidental to making the park accessible to the visiting public. I mean exactly this, that no so-called “vermin,” such as wildcats, coyotes, weasels, hawks or owls should as a rule ever be killed inside of National Park boundaries. Within large parks such as Yosemite and Sequoia, not even the mountain lion should be disturbed. All these animals belong to the territory, have been there from time immemorial, as parts of the perfectly normal biotic complex.

to the presence of which the population of every other native animal is, by reason of its long-established and wholly adequate rate of reproduction, adjusted. Fluctuations in the numbers of each are to be expected. The numbers of one species may now be below normal, or above normal; but experience shows that, in the latter case and through natural causes, a downward swing will shortly occur, so that the population of carnivore and of herbivore tends to maintain a mean ratio from one period to another. In final analysis the total quantity of animal life in a locality is controlled by the total production of plant life there.