From /S=M.PFEIFFER/OU1=R08F10A@mhs-fswa.attmail.com Tue May 2 22:20:06 1995 Date: Tue, 02 May 1995 12:42:00 +0000 From: /S=M.PFEIFFER/OU1=R08F10A@mhs-fswa.attmail.com To: hjarvis@acsu.buffalo.edu/RECEIPT Subject: Aboriginal Overkill and Native Burning ABORIGINAL OVERKILL AND NATIVE BURNING: IMPLICATIONS FOR MODERN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT. by Charles E. Kay, Ph.D. Natural Resource Policy Associate Institute of Political Economy Utah State University Logan, UT 84322-0725 (801) 797-2064 December 1994 ENVIRONMENTAL MYTHS Western environmental philosophy, which influences how our national parks and natural areas are managed, rests on four assumptions. First, that there is a "balance-of-nature" where ecosystems achieve a constancy or equilibrium that persists through time. Implicit in this assumption is the belief that climax vegetation was widespread in pre-Columbian times. Second, conservationists invariably assume that, prior to the arrival of Europeans, America was a "wilderness" untouched by the hand of man, and third, that this "wilderness" teemed with wildlife, especially ungulates like elk (Cervus elaphus), moose (Alces alces), and bison (Bison bison). Fourth, and finally, is the assumption that Native Americans were either poor primitive, starving savages whose numbers were too low to have any impact on the "pristine" landscape (Jobes 1991:388) or that native peoples were children of nature and original conservationists who were too wise to overuse their environment (Alvard 1993). According to this view, pre-Columbia America was a "Garden-of-Eden" filled with uncountable numbers of ungulates, wolves (Canis lupus), and other wildlife and Europeans are the evil that destroyed this idyllic state of nature (McName 1986, Rolston 1990, Noss 1991). So under this paradigm, all that is needed to restore our ecosystems to their original condition is to eliminate European influences. This is known as "letting nature take its course" and is often referred to as "hands-off" or "natural regulation" management. These beliefs are so strongly held by many ecologists that they seldom bother to consider whether they are, in fact, valid. If they are not true, then adhering to this philosophy will not lead to the protection of biological diversity or ecological integrity. That is to say, if these underlying assumptions about nature are false, then management based on those beliefs will not produce the desired result; i.e., the original ecosystems will neither be restored or protected. Although these "Garden-of-Eden" assumptions are romantically and bureaucratically appealing, unfortunately, they are also false gods. As Botkin (1990), Pielou (1991), and others (e.g., Johnson and Mayeux 1992, Pickett et al. 1992, DeGraaf and Healy 1993, Tausch et al. 1993) have recently done an excellent job debunking the "balance-of-nature" myth, I will not explore that subject further except to note that disturbance and change are the only ecosystem constants -- there certainly was no "forest primeval;" in fact, "old-growth" forests, as we know them today, were very rare in pre-Columbian times (Stout 1981, Zybach 1993, Covington and Moore 1994). Instead, I will discuss the remaining myths, namely that the Intermountain West once teemed with game, that America was a "wilderness" ca. 1492, and that Native Americans had little impact on pre-Columbian ecosystems. LACK OF GAME Historical records do not support the view that the Intermountain West once teemed with wildlife. Jacobs (1991:118) and Rasker et al. (1991:63), for instance, claimed that moose were abundant throughout the northern Rocky Mountains, numbering in the tens of thousands, before those animals were slaughtered by unregulated hunting, but early fur trappers seldom reported seeing or killing even a single moose. When Peter Skene Ogden's (1950:73) fur brigade killed three moose near present-day Philipsburg, Montana in 1825, he noted that it was the first time any of his men had seen a moose despite having spent a total of nearly 300 man-years in the West during the early 1800's. Although not as rare as moose, elk were also historically uncommon in the Rocky Mountains. Between 1835 and 1872, for example, 20 different parties spent a total of 765 days traveling through Yellowstone on foot or horseback, yet reported seeing elk only once every 18 days -- today there are nearly 100,000 elk in that ecosystem (Kay 1990, in press a). The same was true in the Canadian Rockies where early explorers reported seeing elk only once every 31 days (Kay et al. 1994, Kay and White this volume). During the 1800's, elk were also rare or absent from Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, as well as other regions of the Intermountain West (Koch 1941, Rawley 1985, Davis 1986). Based on historical and archaeological data (Kay 1990, 1992, 1994a; Kay et al. 1994), there are now more elk in the West than at any time in the last 10,000 years. Moreover, deer (Odocoileus hemionus and O. virginianus), antelope (Antilocapra americana), and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) were also rare or absent when the Rocky Mountains were first visited by Europeans. Accounts of starvation and killing horses for food are common in early journals (Kay in press a). Except for the Snake River Plains and surrounding areas, few bison were ever seen west of the mountains. Today in Yellowstone National Park there are an estimated 4,200 bison, but between 1835 and 1872, early explorers encountered bison only three times despite spending 765 days in the ecosystem (Kay 1990). The Columbia Plateau and the Great Basin were particularly devoid of game at historical contact (Daubenmire 1985, Grayson 1993). Berry production data also suggest that historical ungulate populations were low. Ethnographic accounts and archaeological studies reveal that Native Americans routinely consumed large quantities of berries such as serviceberries (Amelanchier alnifolia) and chokecherries (Prunus virginiana) (e.g., Lowie 1909, Chamberlin 1911). In September 1869, for instance, the Cook-Folsom-Peterson Expedition met Native Americans who were gathering and drying large quantities of chokecherries at the mouth of Tom Miner Creek just north of Yellowstone Park. "Here we found a wickiup inhabited by two old squaws who were engaged in gathering and drying choke-cherries ... they had two or three bushels drying in the sun" (Haines 1965:16). The Washburn Expedition of 1870 reported that near Yellowstone Park "we crossed a small stream bordered with black cherry trees [chokecherries], many of the smaller ones broken down by bears, of which animal we found many signs" (Langford 1972:13). Since shrubs have to be at least 2 m tall before branches are commonly broken down by feeding bears, chokecherry plants in 1870 not only produced abundant berries, but were also very large. Conditions today are vastly different. Serviceberry and chokecherry plants in Yellowstone are now less than 50 cm tall and they produced virtually no berries because the plants are repeatedly browsed by elk and other ungulates (Kay in press b) (see Table 1). Resource-limited ungulate populations and large quantities of berries are mutually exclusive on western ranges. Even moderate numbers of ungulates curtail berry production because those shrubs provide highly preferred forage, especially in winter. The fact that historic and prehistoric peoples in the West consumed large quantities of berries means that ungulate numbers were low and those animals were not limited by food. The unbrowsed condition of vegetation seen in early historical photographs also indicates that few ungulates inhabited our western ranges during the 1700 and 1800s (Chadde and Kay 1991, Kay and Wagner in press). Moreover, archaeological data reveal that ungulate populations were low in pre-Columbian times as well (Kay 1990, 1992, 1994a, Kay et al. 1994). ABORIGINAL OVERKILL Carnivore predation and native hunting are two factors that could once have limited ungulate numbers. The age of their respective kills, however, indicates that Native Americans were more efficient predators than wolves (Temple 1987).The more difficult it is for a predator to capture a particular prey, the more that predator will take substandard individuals and young. So, if two or more predators are preying upon the same species, the least efficient predator will tend to kill fewer prime-age animals (Okarma 1984). While wolves and other carnivores kill primarily young-of-the-year and old animals, Native Americans killed mostly prime-age ungulates (Figure 1). Since ungulates recovered from Intermountain archaeological sites invariably exhibit mortality profiles dominated by prime-age animals, this suggests that Native Americans were more efficient predators than wolves or other carnivores. Killing mostly prime age animals, though, runs contrary to any maximum sustained yield strategy (Hastings 1983, 1984) and indicates that Native Americans could have had a major impact on pre-Columbian ungulate populations. This is even more true when one considers that Native Americans killed primarily females (Kay 1994a). As I have presented my Aboriginal Overkill hypothesis elsewhere (Kay 1994a, in prep), I will not elaborate on its details here except to note that Native American preferences for prime age females runs counter to any conservation strategy. It is often claimed, however, that Native Americans' religious belief systems prevented those peoples from over-utilizing their resources (e.g., Speck 1939, Nelson 1983). Native Americans tended to view wildlife as their spiritual kin where success in the hunt was obtained by following prescribed rituals and atonement after the kill (Feit 1987). A scarcity of animals or failure in the hunt were not viewed as biological or ecological phenomena, but rather as a spiritual consequence of social events or circumstances. If a Native American could not find any game, it was not because his people had overharvested the resource, but because he had done something to displease his gods. Since Native Americans saw no connection between their hunting and game numbers, their system of religious beliefs actually fostered the over-exploitation of ungulate populations. Religious respect for animals does not equal conservation. Instead, all native hunters are essentially opportunistic and tend to take high-ranking ungulates regardless of the size of the prey populations or the likelihood of those animals becoming extinct. Native Americans had no concept of maximum sustained yield and did not manage ungulate populations to produce the greatest offtake. In addition, human predation and predation by carnivores are additive and work in concert to reduce ungulate numbers (Walters et al. 1981). Moreover, competition from carnivores tended to negate any possible conservation practices (Kay 1994a). Because Native Americans could prey-switch to small animals, vegetal foods, and fish, they could take their preferred ungulate prey to low levels or extinction without having any adverse effect on human populations. In fact, once Native Americans killed off all the ungulates, human populations actually rose (Hawkes 1991, 1992, 1993). There are, however, exceptions to aboriginal overkill. According to predator-prey theory, prey populations will increase if they have a refugium where they are safe from predation (Taylor 1984). So, ungulates that could escape aboriginal hunters in time or in space should have been more abundant. Moreover, refugia do not have to be complete to be effective. Partial refugia will also enable prey populations to survive. This explains why there were larger numbers of ungulates on the Great Plains and in the Arctic. By undertaking long-distance migrations, bison and caribou (Rangifer tarandus) were able to outdistance most of their human and carnivorous predators (Kay 1994a). Ungulates were also able to survive in buffer zones between tribes that were locked in mortal combat (Hickerson 1965). Lewis and Clark (1893:1197), for instance, noted that, "With regard to game in general, we observe that the greatest quantities of wild animals are usually found in the country lying between nations at war." NATIVE BURNING Besides keeping ungulate numbers low, Native Americans also had a major impact on ecosystems by repeatedly firing the vegetation. They did this to modify plant and animal communities for human benefit. In California, for instance, native peoples had at least 70 different reasons for firing the vegetation (Lewis 1973, Timbrook et al. 1982), and even in northern Canada, where the vegetation is less diverse, Native Americans still set fires for at least 17 different reasons (Lewis 1977, 1980a, 1982b, 1985, 1990a; Ferguson 1979; Reid 1987; Lewis and Ferguson 1988). While aboriginal burning has been widely reported in the anthropological literature (e.g., Lewis 1980b, 1982a, 1990b; Boyd 1986; Turner 1991; Anderson 1993; Pyne 1993; Gottesfeld 1994), those data have largely been ignored by land managers, especially in our national parks and wilderness areas (Lewis 1992, Martinez 1993). In Yellowstone, for example, the Park Service contends that aboriginal fires were unimportant, and that most fires were historically started by lightning (Loope and Gruell 1973:434, Romme and Despain 1989). This position, though, is not supported by available ecological evidence. Instead, most fires were started by Native Americans, especially in montane habitats. Prior to park establishment, Yellowstone's northern range had a fire-return interval of once every 25 years (Houston 1973, 1982). Yellowstone has had a "let burn" policy for nearly 25 years, yet during that period, lightning-caused fires have burned practically none of the northern range. In 1988, fire did burn approximately one-third of the area, but according to agency definitions, that was "unnatural" because the fire was started by man, not lightning. Besides, the 1988 fires are thought to be a 100-300 year event (Schullery 1989a, 1989b), so similar fires could not have caused the original 25 year fire frequency. Despite a series of droughts, why has Yellowstone's northern range remained virtually unburned? Park biologists contend that this is because "lightning has chosen not to strike very often on the northern range" (Despain et al. 1986:109). That assertion, though, is not supported by data from the Bureau of Land Management's Automatic Lightning Strike Detection System which shows that, on average, lightning strikes the northern range 4 times per km_2_/year (Kay 1990:136-137). So lightning strikes, but why doesn't the range burn? The answer is that when most lightning strikes occur, the herbaceous vegetation is too green to carry a fire. Repeat photographs and fire history studies indicate that western aspen (Populus tremuloides) communities burned frequently in the past, yet experience has proven that aspen is extremely difficult to burn (Brown and Simmerman 1986). Terms such as "asbestos type" and "firebreak" are often used to describe aspen (DeByle 1987:75). Even raging crown fires in coniferous forests seldom burn adjacent aspen communities (Fechner and Barrows 1976). At current rates of burning, "it would require about 12,000 years to burn the entire aspen type in the West" (DeByle et al. 1987:73). Something is clearly different today than it was in the past. Research has shown that aspen communities will readily burn only when aspen is leafless and when understory plants are dry, conditions that occur only in early spring and late in the fall (Brown and Simmerman 1986). Prior to May 15th and after September 15th, however, there are few lightning strikes and virtually no lightning fires in the West (Figure 2). So, if aspen stands burned at frequent intervals in the past as data indicate they did, including those on Yellowstone's northern range, then the majority of those fires were most likely set by Native Americans. Determining how fires started is critical because, "fires set by hunter-gatherers differ from [lightning] fires in terms of seasonality, frequency, intensity, and ignition patterns" (Lewis 1985:75). Most aboriginal fires were set in the spring, between snowmelt and vegetation greenup, or late in the fall when burning conditions were not severe. Unlike lightning fires, which tend to be infrequent high-intensity infernos, native burning produced a higher frequency of lower-intensity fires. So, aboriginal burning and lightning fires create different vegetation mosaics, and in many instances, entirely different plant communities (Anderson 1993, Blackburn and Anderson 1993). Moreover, aboriginal burning reduces or eliminates the number of high-intensity, lightning-generated fires (Pyne 1982, 1989, 1991, 1993; Reid 1987:34). Once aboriginal fires opened up the vegetation, then subsequent lightning fires behaved like those set by Native Americans. CONCLUSIONS Most national parks, wilderness areas, and nature reserves are supposedly managed to represent the conditions that existed in pre-Columbian times; i.e., so-called natural or pristine conditions. But what is natural? If Native Americans determined the structure of entire plant and animal communities by firing the vegetation and by limiting ungulate numbers, then that is a completely different situation than what we have today (Martinez 1993, Wagner and Kay 1993). A "hands-off" or "natural regulation" approach by modern land managers will not duplicate the ecological conditions under which those communities developed (Wagner et al. in press). Since aboriginal predation and burning created those communities, then the only way to maintain what we call "natural areas" today is to duplicate aboriginal influences and processes (Martinez 1993, Wagner et al. in press). Prior to the early 1800's, for example, millions of beaver (Castor canadensis) occupied lush riparian zones throughout the West. Beaver were so abundant that in 1825, Peter Skene Ogden's party was able to trap 511 beaver in only five days on Utah's Ogden River, while in 1829, Ogden reported that his fur brigade took 1,800 beaver in a month on Nevada's Humboldt River (Kay 1994b). Yellowstone too once contained large numbers of beaver, but that species is now ecologically extinct on the park's northern range (Chadde and Kay 1991). Without native hunters, the park's burgeoning elk population has destroyed the willow (Salix sp.) and aspen communities beaver need for food and dam building materials (Chadde and Kay 1991; Kay and Chadde 1992). So, "natural regulation" management has not maintained Yellowstone's ecological integrity nor reestablished the ecosystem's original conditions. Moreover, the idea that North America was a "wilderness" untouched by the hand of man prior to 1492 is a myth, a myth created, in part, to justify appropriation of aboriginal lands and the genocide that befell native peoples (Denevan 1992, Gomez-Pompa and Kaus 1992, Simms 1992, Martinez 1993). North America was not a "wilderness" waiting to be "discovered," but instead was home to more than 100 million Native Americans before European-introduced diseases decimated their numbers (Dobyns 1983, Ramenofsky 1987). Native Americans were the ultimate keystone species, and their removal has completely altered ecosystems, not only in the Intermountain West but throughout North America (e.g., Neumann 1984, 1985, 1989; Birkedal 1993). Setting aside an area as "wilderness" or a national park today, and then managing it by "letting-nature-take-its course," will not preserve some remnant of the past but instead create conditions that have not existed for the last 10,000 years. That is to say, the Americas as first seen by Europeans were not as they had been crafted by God, but as they had been created by native peoples (Hallam 1975, Schule 1990, Martinez 1993). Unless the importance of aboriginal land management is recognized and modern management practices changed accordingly, our ecosystems will continue to loose the biological diversity and ecological integrity they once had. LITERATURE CITED Alvard, M.S. 1993. Testing the "ecologically noble savage" hypothesis: Interspecific prey choice by Piro hunters of Amazonian Peru. Human Ecol. 21:355-387. Anderson, K. 1993. Indian fire-based management in the sequoia-mixed conifer forests of the central and southern Sierra Nevada. Final contract report submitted to Yosemite Research Center, Yosemite National Park, CA. Cooperative Agreement Order No. 8027-2-002. 426 pp. Birkedal, T. 1993. Ancient hunters in the Alaskan wilderness: Human predators and their role and effect on wildlife populations and the implications for resource management. Pages 228-234 in Brown, W.E., and S.D. Veirs, Jr., eds. Partners in stewardship: Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Research and Resource Management in Parks and on Public Lands. The George Wright Society, Hancock, MI. 479 pp. Blackburn, T.C., and K. Anderson, eds. 1993. Before the wilderness: Environmental management by native Californians. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, CA. 476 pp. Blitz, J.H. 1988. Adoption of the bow in prehistoric North America. N. Amer. Archaeol. 9:123-145. Botkin, D.B. 1990. Discordant harmonies: A new ecology for the twenty-first century. Oxford University Press, NY. 241 pp. Boyd, T. 1986. Strategies of Indian burning in the Wilamette Valley. Can. J. Anthropol. 5:65-86. Brown, J.K., and D.G. Simmerman. 1986. Appraisal of fuels and flammability in western aspen: A prescribed fire guide. U.S. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-205. 48 pp. Chadde, S.W., and C.E. Kay. 1991. Tall willow communities on Yellowstone's northern range: A test of the "natural regulation" paradigm. Pages 231-264 in Keiter, R.R., and M.S. Boyce, eds. The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Redefining American's wilderness heritage. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 428 pp. Chamberlin, R.V. 1911. The ethno-botany of the Gosiute Indians of Utah. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 2(5):331-405. Covington, W.W., and M.M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa forest structure: Changes since Euro-American settlement. J. For. 92:39-47. Daubenmire, R. 1985. The western limits of the range of the American bison. Ecology 66:622-624. Davis, G.P. 1986. Man and wildlife in Arizona: The American exploration period 1824-1865. Arizona Game and Fish Dept., Phoenix, AZ. 231 pp. DeByle, N.V., C.D. Bevins, and W.C. Fisher. 1987. Wildfire occurrence in aspen in the interior western United States. West. J. App. For. 2:73-76. DeGraaf, R.M., and W.H. Healy. 1993. The myth of nature's constancy -- preservation, protection and ecosystem management. Trans. N. A. Wildl. & Natur. Resour. Conf. 58:17-28. Denevan, W. 1992. The pristine myth: The landscape of the Americas in 1492. Association of American Geographers Annals 82:369-385. Despain, D., D. Houston, M. Meagher, and P. Schullery. 1986. Wildlife in transition: Man and nature on Yellowstone's northern range. Roberts Rinehart Inc., Boulder, CO. 142 pp. Dobyns, H.F. 1983. Their numbers become thinned: Native American population dynamics in eastern North America. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN. 378 pp. Fechner, G.H., and J.S. Barrows. 1976. Aspen stands as wildfire fuel breaks. Eisenhower Consortium Bull. 4:1-26. U.S. For. Ser. Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Sta., Ft. Collins, CO. Feit, H.A. 1987. North American native hunting and management of moose populations. Swedish Wildlife Research (Supplement 1):25-42. Ferguson, T.A. 1979. Productivity and predictability of resource yield: Aboriginal controlled burning in the boreal forest. M.A. thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 145 pp. Fritts, S.H., and L.D. Mech. 1981. Dynamics, movements, and feeding ecology of a newly protected wolf population in northwestern Minnesota. Wildl. Monogr. 80. 79 pp. Gomez-Pompa, A., and A. Kaus. 1992. Taming the wilderness myth. Bioscience 42:271-279. Gottesfeld, L.M.J. 1994. Aboriginal burning for vegetative management in northwest British Columbia. Human Ecology 22:171-188. Grayson, D.K. 1993. The deserts' past: A natural prehistory of the Great Basin. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 356 pp. Haines, A.L. 1965. Valley of the upper Yellowstone. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. 79 pp. Hallam, S.J. 1975. Fire and hearth. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, Australia. 158 pp. Hastings, A. 1983. Age-dependent predation is not a simple process. I. Continuous time models. Theor. Pop. Biol. 23:347-362. Hastings, A. 1984. Age-dependent predation is not a simple process. II. Wolves, ungulates, and a discrete time model for predation on juveniles with a stabilizing tail. Theor. Pop. Biol. 26:271-282. Hawkes, K. 1991. Showing off: Tests of a hypothesis about men's foraging goals. Ethol. and Sociobiol. 12:29-54. Hawkes, K. 1992. On sharing and work. Curr. Anthropol. 33:404-407. Hawkes, K. 1993. Why hunter-gatherers work. Curr. Anthropol. 34:341-361. Hickerson, H. 1965. The Virginia deer and intertribal buffer zones in the upper Mississippi Valley. Pages 43-65 in Leeds, A., and A.P. Vayda, eds. Man, culture and animals: The role of animals in human ecological adjustments. Amer. Assoc. for the Adv. of Sci. Pub. 78. Houston, D.B. 1973. Wild fires in northern Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 54:1111-1117. Houston, D.B. 1982. The northern Yellowstone elk: Ecology and management. MacMillan Pub., NY. 474 pp. Jacobs, L. 1991. Waste of the West: Public lands ranching. Privately published by Lynn Jacobs, Tucson, AZ. 602 pp. Jobes, P.C. 1991. The greater Yellowstone social system. Conser. Biol. 5:387-394. Johnson, H.B., and H.S. Mayeux. 1992. Viewpoint: A view on species additions and deletions and the balance of nature. J. Range Manage. 45:322-333. Kay, C.E. 1990. Yellowstone's northern elk herd: A critical evaluation of the "natural regulation" paradigm. Ph.D. Dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, UT. 490 pp. Kay, C.E. 1992. Book review -- The Jackson Hole elk herd: Intensive wildlife management in North America. J. Range Manage. 45:315-316. Kay, C.E. 1994a. Aboriginal Overkill: The role of Native Americans in structuring western ecosystems. Human Nature 5:359-398. Kay, C.E. 1994b. The impact of native ungulates and beaver on riparian communities in the Intermountain West. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues 1:23-44. Kay, C.E. In prep. Aboriginal Overkill: The role of Native Americans in structuring western ecosystems. Oxford University Press. Kay, C.E. In press a. An alternative interpretation of the historical evidence relating to the abundance of wolves in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Paper presented at the Second North American symposium on wolves: Their status, biology, and management. University of Alberta, Edmonton. August 25-27, 1992. 27 pp. Kay, C.E. In press b. Effects of browsing by native ungulates on shrub growth and seed production in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Implications for revegetation, restoration, and "natural regulation" management. Paper presented at the Symposium on Wildland Shrub and Arid Land Restoration, Las Vegas, NV. October 19-21, 1993. 41 pp. Kay, C.E., B. Patton, and C. White. 1994. Assessment of long-term terrestrial ecosystem states and processes in Banff National Park and the central Canadian Rockies. Resource Conservation, Parks Canada, Banff National Park, Banff, AB. 405 pp. Kay, C.E., and F.H. Wagner. In press. Historic condition of woody vegetation on Yellowstone's northern range: A critical test of the "natural regulation" paradigm. Paper presented at: Plants and their environments -- First biennial scientific conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Yellowstone National Park, Mammoth, WY. Sept. 16-17, 1991. 40 pp. Kay, C.E., and S.W. Chadde. 1992. Reduction of willow seed production by ungulate browsing in Yellowstone National Park. Pages 92-99 in Clary, W.P., E.D. McArthur, D. Bedunah, and C.L. Wambolt, eds. Proceedings -- Symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities. U.S. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289. 232 pp. Koch, E. 1941. Big game in Montana from early historical records. J. Wildl. Manage. 5:357-370. Langford, N.P. 1972. The discovery of Yellowstone Park. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE. 125 pp. Lewis, H.T. 1973. Patterns of Indian burning in California: Ecology and ethno-history. Anthropological Papers No. 1. Ballena Press, Ramona, CA. 101 pp. Lewis, H.T. 1977. Maskuta: The ecology of Indian fires in northern Alberta. Western Canadian Journal of Anthropology 7:15-52. Lewis, H.T. 1980a. Indian fires of spring. Natural Hist. 89(1):76-83. Lewis, H.T. 1980b. Hunter-gatherers and problems for fire history. Pages 115-119 in Stokes, M.A., and J.H. Dieterich, eds. Proceedings of the fire history workshop. U.S. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-81. 142 pp. Lewis, H.T. 1982a. Fire technology and resource management in aboriginal North America and Australia. Pages 46-67 in Williams, N.M., and E.S. Hunn, eds. Resource managers: North American and Australian hunter-gatherers. AAAS Selected Symposium No. 67. 267 pp. Lewis, H.T. 1982b. A time for burning. University of Alberta Boreal Inst. for Northern Studies Occ. Pub. 17. 23 pp. Lewis, H.T. 1985. Why Indians burned: Specific versus general reasons. Pages 75-80 in Lotan, J.E., B.M. Kilgore, W.C. Fischer, and R.W. Mutch, eds. Proceedings -- symposium and workshop on wilderness fire. U.S. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-182. 434 pp. Lewis, H.T. 1990a. Traditional ecological knowledge of fire in northern Alberta: Something old, something new, something different. Pages 222-227 in McCormack, P.A., and R.G. Ironside, eds. Proceedings of the Fort Chipewyan and Fort Vermilion Bicentennial Conference. 319 pp. Lewis, H.T. 1990b. Reconstructing patterns of Indian burning in southwestern Oregon. Pages 80-84 in Hannon, N., and R. Olmo, eds. Living with the land: The Indians of southwestern oregon. Southern Oregon Historical Society, Medford, OR. 153 pp. Lewis, H.T. 1992. The technology and ecology of nature's custodians: Anthropological perspectives on aborigines and national parks. Pages 15-28 in Birckhead, J., T. Delacy, and L. Smith, eds. Aboriginal involvement in parks and protected areas. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra, Australia. 390 pp. Lewis, H.T., and T.A. Ferguson. 1988. Yards, corridors and mosaics: How to burn a boreal forest. Human Ecol. 16:57-77. Lewis, M., and W. Clark. 1893. The history of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Edited by E. Coues, originally published by Francis P. Harper, NY. Republished by Dover Publications, NY. Vol. I:1-352, Vol. II:353-820, Vol. III:821-1364. Loope, L.L., and G.E. Gruell. 1973. The ecological role of fire in the Jackson Hole area, Northwestern Wyoming. Quart. Res. 3:425-443. Lowie, R.H. 1909. The northern Shoshoni. American Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers 2(3):165-306. Martinez, D. 1993. Managing a precarious balance: Wilderness versus sustainable forestry. Winds of Change 8(3):23-28. McName, T. 1986. Putting nature first: A proposal for whole ecosystem management. Orion Nature Quart. 5(4):3-15. Nelson, R.K. 1983. Make prayers to the raven. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 292 pp. Neumann, T.W. 1984. The opossum problem: Implications for human-wildlife competition over plant food. N. Amer. Archaeol. 5:287-313. Neumann, T.W. 1985. Human-wildlife competition and the passenger pigeon: Population growth from system destabilization. Human Ecol. 4:389-410. Neumann, T.W. 1989. Human-wildlife competition and prehistoric subsistence: The case of the eastern United States. J. Middle Atlantic Archaeol. 5:29-57. Noss, R.F. 1991. Wilderness recovery: Thinking big in restoration ecology. Environmental Professional 13:225-234. Ogden, P.S. 1950. Peter Skene Ogden's Snake country journals, 1824-25 and 1825-26. Rich, E.E., and A.M. Johnson, eds. Hudson's Bay Record Society Pub. 8. 283 pp. Okarma, H. 1984. The physical condition of red deer falling prey to the wolf and lynx and harvested in the Carpathian Mountains. ACTA Therlogica 29:283-290. Pickett, S.T.A., V.T. Parker, and P.L. Fiedler. 1992. The new paradigm in ecology: Implications for conservation biology above the species level. Pages 65-88 in Fiedler, P.L., and S.K. Jain, eds. Conservation Biology, Chapman and Hall, NY. 507 pp. Pielou, E.C. 1991. After the Ice Age: The return of life to glaciated North America. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 366 pp. Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America: A cultural history of wildland and rural fire. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 654 pp. Pyne, S.J. 1989. The summer we let wild fires loose. Natural History 98(8):45-49. Pyne, S.J. 1991. Burning bush: A fire history of Australia. Henry Holt and Co., NY. 520 pp. Pyne, S.J. 1993. Keeper of the flame: A survey of anthropogenic fire. Pages 245-266 in Crutzen, P.J., and J.G. Goldammer, eds. Fire in the environment: Its ecological, climatic, and atmospheric chemical importance. John Wiley and Sons, NY. Ramenofsky, A.F. 1987. Vectors of death: The archaeology of European contact. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. 300 pp. Rasker, R., N. Tirrell, and D. Kloepfen. 1991. The wealth of nature: New economic realities in the Yellowstone region. The Wilderness Society, Bozeman, MT. 64 pp. Rawley, E.V. 1985. Early records of wildlife in Utah. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Pub. 86-2. 102 pp. Reid, D.K. 1987. Fire and habitat modification: An anthropological inquiry into the use of fire by indigenous peoples. M.A. Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 169 pp. Rolston, H. 1990. Biology and philosophy in Yellowstone. Biol. and Phil. 5:241-258. Romme, W.H., and D.G. Despain. 1989. Historical perspective on the Yellowstone fires of 1988. Bioscience 39:695-699. Schule, W. 1990. Landscapes and climate in prehistory: Interaction of wildlife, man and fire. Pages 273-319 in Goldammer, J., ed. Fire in the tropical biota. Springer-Verlag, NY. 497 pp. Schullery, P. 1989a. Yellowstone fires: A preliminary report. NW. Sci. 63:44-54. Schullery, P. 1989b. The fires and fire policy. Bioscience 39:686-694. Simms, S.R. 1992. Wilderness as a human landscape. Pages 183-201 in Zeveloff, S.I., L.M. Vause, and W.H. McVaugh, eds. Wilderness tapestry. University of Nevada Press, Reno, NV. 306 pp. Simpson, T. 1984. Population dynamics of mule deer. Wyoming Archaeologist 27(1-2):83-96. Speck, F.G. 1939. Aboriginal conservators. Bird Lore 40:258-261. Stout, B.B., ed. 1981. Forests in the here and now: A collection of writings by Hugh Miller Raup, Bullard Professor of Forestry, Emeritus, Harvard University. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 131 pp. Tausch, R.J., P.E. Wigand, and J.W. Burkhardt. 1993. Viewpoint: Plant community thresholds, multiple steady states, and multiple successional pathways: Legacy of the Quaternary? J. Range Manage. 46:439-447. Taylor, R.J. 1984. Predation. Chapman and Hill, NY. 166 pp. Temple, S.A. 1987. Do predators always capture substandard individuals disproportionately from prey populations? Ecology 68:6699-674. Timbrook, J., J.R. Johnson, and D.D. Earle. 1982. Vegetation burning by the Chumash. J. Calif. Great Basin Anthropology 4:163-186. Turner, N.J. 1991. Burning mountain sides for better crops: Aboriginal landscape burning in British Columbia. Archaeology in Montana 32:57-73. Wagner, F.H., and C.E. Kay. 1993. "Natural" or "healthy" ecosystems: Are U.S. national parks providing them? Pages 257-270 in McDonnell, M.J., and S.T. Pickett, eds. Humans as components of ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, NY. 364 pp. Wagner, F.H., R. Foresta, R.B. Gill, D.R. McCullough, M.P. Pelton, W.F. Porter, and H. Salwasser. In press. Wildlife policies in the U.S. national parks -- [An independent review originally commissioned by The Wildlife Society]. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Walters, C.J., M. Stocker, and G.C. Haber. 1981. Simulation and optimization models for a wolf-ungulate system. Pages 317-337 in Fowler, C.W., and T.D. Smith, eds. Dynamics of large mammal populations. John Wiley and Sons, NY. Zybach, B. 1993. Native forests of the northwest, 1788-1856: American Indians, cultural fire, and wildlife habitat. Northwest Woodlands 9(2):14-15, 31. FIGURES Figure 1. Age structure of ungulates killed by wolves and Native Americans. (a) Age of white-tailed deer (O. virginianus) killed by wolves in Minnesota (Fritts and Mech 1981). Wolves and other North American carnivores generally take a disproportionate number of very young and very old animals. (b) Age of mule deer (O. hemious) unearthed from the 4200 year old Dead Indian Creek archaeological site in northwest Wyoming just east of Yellowstone Park (Simpson 1984). Unlike carnivores, Native Americans killed a predominance of prime-age ungulates -- an indication that Native Americans were more efficient predators. This also suggests that aboriginal peoples had a greater impact on prey populations than carnivores, especially given the fact that natives killed mostly females. Moreover, these deer were killed with spears or atlatls which are less efficient than the bow and arrow that came into use around 1,500 years ago (Blitz 1988). Clearly, native hunters have been able to kill all sex and age classes of North American ungulates at will for the last 10,000 or so years. Birkedal (1993) even reported that Native Americans armed with no more than spears and hunting dogs once kept grizzly bear populations at very low levels. Figure 2. Temporal distribution of lightning strikes on Yellowstone's northern range and in Wyoming's Jackson Hole (Kay 1990:138). When aspen communities are normally dry enough to burn in early spring, prior to green-up, or late autumn, after aspen leaf-fall, there are few lightning strikes and virtually no lightning fires. So if aspen burned frequently in the past as data indicate they did, then the vast majority of those fires were most likely started by Native Americans. Table 1. The effect of ungulate browsing on berry production in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. The number of berries produced by plants protected from browsing inside ungulate-proof exclosures compared with the number of berries produced by the same species outside the exclosures. The Lamar-West and Mammoth exclosures are in Yellowstone Park while the Uhl Hill and Camp Creek exclosures are in Jackson Hole. This also explains why Yellowstone's grizzlies (Ursus arctos) do not consume large quantities of berries, unlike bears in other ecosystems. From 1977 to 1992, over 10,000 grizzly bear scats were collected and analyzed in Yellowstone, yet chokecherries were only reported in one scat, serviceberries in two, and buffaloberries (Shepherdia canadensis) in 51. Adapted from Kay (in press b). Number of Berries per 100 Plants Exclosure-species Inside Outside p Camp Creek Serviceberry 133,307 7 <.001 Lamar-West Serviceberry 111,047 0 <.001 Chokecherry 212,178 0 <.001 Uhl Hill Serviceberry 10,468 0 <.001 Chokecherry 6,508 0 <.001 Mammoth Buffaloberry 119,146 250 <.001 Total 592,654 257 <.001