Part 1

MAMMALS of MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK

MERLIN K. POTTS _Assistant Park Naturalist_ and RUSSELL K. GRATER _Park Naturalist_

Copyright 1949 by Mount Rainier Natural History Association

Published by THE MOUNT RAINIER NATURAL HISTORY ASSOCIATION Longmire, Washington 1949

FOREWORD

There are few places remaining in this country today where one may observe wild animals in a natural setting, free to move about, unrestricted by bars or enclosures, and exhibiting little of the instinctive fear of man instilled through many wildlife generations by the advance and expansion of settlement and civilization.

The national parks are among the greatest wildlife sanctuaries of the world. Most wild creatures are quick to recognize the protection afforded by such a refuge, and thus become less shy and elusive than they are elsewhere. As a result of protection, it is not difficult to attain an acquaintance with these wilderness folk.

To know Nature in her various forms is to increase appreciation of the natural scene. It is for this purpose that _Mammals of Mount Rainier National Park_ has been written, the third of a series published by the Mount Rainier Natural History Association.

JOHN C. PRESTON Superintendent Mount Rainier National Park United States Department of the Interior

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writers of Mammals of Mount Rainier National Park are indebted to the following individuals for their critical assistance and encouragement in the preparation of the manuscript:

Dr. A. Svihla, _Zoology Department, University of Washington_,

Mr. Herbert Evison, _Chief of Information, National Park Service_,

Mr. Victor H. Cahalane, _Biologist, National Park Service_,

Mr. E. Lowell Sumner, _Regional Biologist, Region Four, National Park Service_.

Through their constructive suggestions the finished publication has been materially strengthened.

Photographs were obtained through the courtesy of Mount Rainier, Yellowstone, Rocky Mountain, and Glacier National Parks; and Mr. Joseph M. Dixon, Mr. E. Lowell Sumner, and Mr. F. J. McGrail.

_Merlin K. Potts_ _Russell K. Grater_

CONTENTS

_Page_ Foreword iii Acknowledgements iv Introduction 1 Wildlife Trends 2 Wildlife Problems 3 Life Zones of Mount Rainier 7 The Mammals 13 Hypothetical List 82 Bibliography 83 Index of Common Names 85 Index of Scientific Names 86

ILLUSTRATIONS

_Page_ Cascade mantled ground squirrel _cover_ Bench Lake, Hudsonian life zone _frontispiece_ Black bear 5 Forest scene, Humid Transition life zone 9 Forest scene, Canadian life zone 10 Paradise Valley, Hudsonian life zone 12 Colonnade, Arctic-alpine life zone 14 Black-tailed deer and fawns 15 New-born fawn of black-tailed deer 16 Mountain goat 22 Black bear and cubs 24 Cascade hoary marmot 28 Hollister chipmunk 31 Cascade mantled ground squirrel 33 Douglas pine squirrel 35 Cascade flying squirrel 37 Beaver 39 Yellow-haired porcupine 45 White-footed mouse 51 Coyote 64 Cascade red fox, “silver” phase 67 Marten 69 Washington weasel 72

THE MAMMALS OF MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK

INTRODUCTION

In looking back through the years during which mammal studies have been carried on at Mount Rainier, three periods stand out in which considerable field research was accomplished. The first of these was in July and August, 1897, when a party headed by Dr. C. Hart Merriam, Vernon Bailey, Dr. A. K. Fisher and Walter K. Fisher made the first field studies of the mammals of the park. Following this very important piece of work there was a lull in field activities until the summer of 1919 when a party working under the auspices of the National Park Service and the Bureau of Biological Survey conducted studies on the local bird and mammal populations. In this party were such well known scientists as Dr. Walter P. Taylor, in charge, George G. Cantwell, Stanley G. Jewett, Professor J. B. Flett, Professor William T. Shaw, Professor J. W. Hungate and Mr. and Mrs. William L. Finley. Upon the completion of this study there was again a long period in which little of a systematic nature was accomplished. The last period of note came during the years 1934-1936 when Mr. E. A. Kitchin, a member of the Wildlife Division of the National Park Service, supervised field studies in various portions of the park. Many of these studies were concerned with observational data rather than extensive collecting. For the next few years only brief observations from members of the park staff were added to the park records. Then, during the summer of 1947, special studies were begun by the Naturalist Staff on the status of the mountain goat and the problems arising from a foot disease that occurred in the deer population. It is planned that other special studies shall be carried on in future years, designed to clarify the status of other important mammalian species in the park.

Because of the extensive data that have slowly accumulated through the years since the 1919 survey, the need for a publication to bring all information up to date has become increasingly apparent. This booklet is designed to answer that need.

The sequence of species used brings many of the larger animals ahead of the smaller and more obscure kinds, and thus does not in many cases follow in systematic order. However, it is felt that the order used best meets the needs in a publication of this type. Common names selected are those most generally accepted for the animals in question.

WILDLIFE TRENDS

When the first wildlife survey was made in 1897 it is likely that the conditions of that year came nearest to representing the original status of the various species—a status that has changed drastically in many instances in the years that have followed. At that time the park was little known and the faunal relationships were relatively undisturbed. In the years since 1900, however, the region has experienced radical changes. Trappers have reduced the fur bearers in large numbers, logging activities in the valleys and on the mountain slopes near the park have entirely changed the ecology of the region. Many important predators, such as the wolf and wolverine, either became extinct or virtually so, while the changing forest scene due to fires and logging brought new species into prominence, such as the porcupine and coyote. Recently elk, released in the nearby valleys, have entered the park and are now firmly established, promising still new changes in the mammal picture as time goes on. In many respects Mount Rainier has become a biotic island in a region where the original conditions no longer exist except in the park. The smallness of this biotic island makes it impossible for even an undeveloped area of this type to represent really primitive conditions. Thus the park today cannot be considered as representing the original wilderness as seen by the first white men to enter the region. It is merely as near the original wilderness as it has been possible to keep it in the midst of all the changes brought about by man.

However, by the preservation of the natural environment, the National Park Service does much to conserve the wildlife as well. In many instances the national parks are among the last remaining refuges for rare and vanishing species of wildlife. The wolverine, the grizzly bear, and the wolf, now extinct over much of their range in North America, may still be found in these sanctuaries, and, along with other species, these creatures of the remote wilderness are fighting their battle of survival in the only areas left to them.

Extirpated species, those native forms which are known to have existed in some areas, but which have since disappeared, are being restored where possible. The muskrat, formerly present in Mount Rainier National Park, now not known to occur, is an example of an extirpated species which should be restored.

WILDLIFE PROBLEMS

Since the establishment of the National Park Service in 1916, it has become increasingly obvious that the occupation of the national parks by man and wildlife must inevitably result in wildlife problems. The act creating the National Park Service is specific in its language; it says that the Service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the areas by such means and measures necessary “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”

The apparent inconsistency presents itself immediately. Natural features must be conserved and protected, they must not be impaired, yet provision must be made for their enjoyment by the millions of visitors who come to the national parks each year. The course that must be followed, then, is one of permitting modification of the natural scene only to the degree required to provide for perpetual enjoyment of “the scenery, the natural and historic objects and the wildlife.”

The relations between man and the wildlife of the national parks are complex. Both occupy the parks, with equal rights to that occupancy. It can scarcely be argued that man is not a part of the natural scene; certainly there is nothing essentially unnatural in the progress of our civilization from the dawn of history to the present. In the national parks, however, the _unimpaired_ values to be preserved are those of the _primitive natural scene_. Man can strive to maintain these values, unimpaired, because he has the power of reason. Through that power he can recognize the effect of his conflict with nature, and so prevent the destruction of the primitive natural scene by a proper regulation of his acts.

Specifically, the wildlife problems now readily recognized in Mount Rainier National Park are those which have developed because of relations between man and mammals. The deer, bear, and raccoon are outstanding examples. In the developed areas of the park many of these animals have become so accustomed to the proximity of man that they no longer exhibit timidity in his presence. They are essentially “wild” animals, yet because of close association with man for several wildlife generations, they may be practically considered as “semi-domestic” animals.

This “semi-domesticity” is a problem in itself. First, it is not in keeping with the primitive natural scene. The true wildlife picture is not one of a deer eating from a visitor’s hand; that is scarcely more natural than seeing the animal within the fenced enclosure of a zoo. The artificial feeding of any form of wildlife is objectionable for several other reasons. Such feeding encourages an unnatural concentration of the animals in restricted localities, thus increasing the danger of the spread of any contagious disease or infection. In the case of deer, feeding affects, often disastrously, the normal habit of migration to lower elevations in winter. Deer encouraged by feeding to remain at Longmire, for example, encounter difficult times during the winter months. Natural forage is buried beneath the snow, migratory routes to the lowlands are blocked, and starvation is not unusual.

In every instance, experience has shown that when animals are hand-fed, petted, and tamed, the results have been detrimental to both the animals and to man. The “tamed” animals are often dangerous, or may become so. Even the harmless appearing deer may, and do, inflict severe injuries by striking with the fore feet or hooking with the antlers, and bears often strike or bite, once they have lost their instinctive fear of man. When any animal becomes dangerous, the only solutions are to eliminate the danger by killing the animal, or to live-trap and remove it to a more isolated section of the park. The latter is often a temporary expedient because the animal is likely to return almost at once to its original home.

That many park visitors are entirely unaware of the concept of presenting wildlife in its natural setting is exemplified by the man who dashed excitedly into the Chief Ranger’s office and breathlessly exclaimed, “Hey, one of your bears is loose!” Park animals are not “zoo animals.” They have simply adapted themselves to man’s presence, and although their habits have been materially changed in many instances, they retain the wild instinct to fight when cornered, to strike back against a real or fancied danger, to quarrel with anything which seeks to rob them of food. It seems hardly necessary to emphasize the futility of attempting to argue the right to possession of a choice morsel with a three-hundred-pound bear.

Bears are often condemned as nuisances because they rob the camper’s food cache, even to the extent of forcing open locked cupboards or entering automobiles. Raccoons may make a shambles of food stores, if the larder is left unprotected. That these things are nuisances is true, but had the animals not been encouraged to expect food, it is unlikely that they would go to such lengths to obtain it. The original approach was undoubtedly made by man, not by the animal, and man has little reason to condemn, under the circumstances. The sad sequence, however, is that it is all too often the unsuspecting innocent who suffers. One party entices a bear into camp today, feeds the animal, and moves on. Tomorrow another camper receives a rude shock when bruin moves in and appropriates his food supply.

It appears then, that these wildlife problems, which have developed through man’s influence upon the animals, have been brought about by man’s failure to employ his power of reason, his failure to recognize the effect he may have upon the natural scene. Indeed, it would seem, in many instances, that man is the problem, not the animals. They have adapted themselves to a condition at variance with their nature; man has failed to do so.

These problems, and others which are similar, are not impossible of solution. Of the many phases of wildlife management that are a part of the adjustments to be made in our relations with the animals of the parks, these of living together must be approached by our recognition of the need for such adjustment. The late George M. Wright has well expressed the goal to be attained:

“These problems are of such magnitude that some observers have concluded that only the childish idealist, pathetically blind to the practical obstacles, would attempt to accomplish the thing. There are others who believe the effort is warranted. Much of man’s genuine progress is dependent upon the degree to which he is capable of this sort of control. If we destroy nature blindly, it is a boomerang which will be our undoing.

“Consecration to the task of adjusting ourselves to natural environment so that we secure the best values from nature without destroying it is not useless idealism; it is good hygiene for civilization.

“In this lies the true portent of this national parks effort. Fifty years from now we shall still be wrestling with the problems of joint occupation of national parks by men and mammals, but it is reasonable to predict that we shall have mastered some of the simplest maladjustments. It is far better to pursue such a course though success be but partial than to relax in despair and allow the destructive forces to operate unchecked.”

LIFE ZONES OF MOUNT RAINIER

Life zones, as defined in relation to plant and animal life, are areas inhabited by more or less definite groups of plants and animals. The classification of these zones which is accepted by many biologists was devised by Dr. C. Hart Merriam, who named six zones; the Arctic-alpine, Hudsonian, Canadian, Transition, Upper Sonoran and Lower Sonoran. If one travels from the Southwestern United States into the high country of the Rockies or the Pacific Northwest, he will pass through all six of these zones, beginning with the Lower Sonoran, or low desert zone, through the Upper Sonoran, or high desert, and so on through the others until the highest, or Arctic-alpine Zone is reached. The area immediately adjacent to Puget Sound, for example, falls within the Transition Zone. Moving inland toward Mount Rainier, one passes from the Transition into the Canadian Zone, usually a short distance inside the park boundaries, and the major portion of Mount Rainier National Park is within the upper three zones.

Temperature is the basis for the separation of these zones, and temperature, as we know, is affected by both altitude and latitude. In general a difference of 1,000 feet in altitude is equivalent to a difference of 300 miles in latitude. Variation in latitude explains the high elevation of tree line in the southern Sierra Nevada of California in relation to the comparatively low limit of tree growth in northern British Columbia or Alaska. Variation in temperature explains the tremendous difference in size and variety of tree species at 2,000 feet and at forest line, 6,500 feet, on Mount Rainier. On a very high mountain we might find all six of the life zones represented. The mountain presenting such a condition, however, would necessarily be located in a more southern latitude than Mount Rainier.

Four life zones are represented in Mount Rainier National Park: the Transition Zone, which occupies the lower elevations of the park up to 3,000 feet; the Canadian Zone, which, with the exception of the Transition area, extends from park boundaries to about 5,000 feet; the Hudsonian Zone, with an altitudinal range of from approximately 5,000 to 6,500 feet; and the Arctic-alpine Zone, from 6,500 feet to the summit of the Mountain.

As stated previously, the zones are inhabited by more or less definite groups of plants and animals, but there is no distinct line of demarcation between the various zones, and there is often considerable variation in the altitudinal distribution of plants. If temperature and moisture were uniform at a given altitude, the zones would probably be quite distinct. However, these conditions are obviously not uniform. On northern exposures, for example, there is less evaporation, consequently soil moisture is increased, and lack of sunshine results in lower temperatures. Plants which normally occur at 5,000 feet on a sunny southern exposure may be found at a lower elevation on northern slopes, and the reverse is true, of course, with a reversal of exposures.

Such variation is even more marked in the distribution of mammals and birds. Many species are characteristic of one or more life zones, depending upon the season of the year, the scarcity or abundance of food, and other factors.

For example, deer occupy the Transition or the extreme lower limits of the Canadian Zone in winter, but in summer range up to and occasionally beyond the limits of the Hudsonian Zone. Goats normally range within the upper limits of the Hudsonian and upward into the Arctic-alpine Zone in summer, but are most commonly found in the lower Hudsonian Zone in winter.

The general characteristics of the zones are as follows:

_Transition Zone_: This zone occupies that portion of the park which lies below 3,000 feet. For the most part it may be more adequately designated the Humid Transition Zone, although a limited area (roughly 4 to 6 square miles) on Stevens Creek and the Muddy Fork of Cowlitz River is characterized by a modified plant and animal population due to repeated fires in old Indian days. This burning favored the upward advance of low zone elements, the destruction of the original forest cover by fire opened the forest stand, accomplished a marked change in conditions of temperature and moisture, thus creating a drier, warmer site.

The Humid Transition Zone proper is one of dense, sombre forest; magnificent trees rising from a mass of shade-loving plants with a great number of fallen trees of huge size. Even on bright, mid-summer days the evergreen canopy of interlaced branches permits only a little sunlight to penetrate to the forest floor, and semi-twilight conditions exist in the peaceful solitude of this cathedral-like serenity.

Characteristic plants of this zone, though not confined to such association, include the Douglas fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, salal, Oregon grape, black cottonwood, bigleaf maple, and swordfern.

Here are found the raccoon, little spotted skunk, Oregon and Olympic meadow mice, and the mink. In this zone are seen in late spring the new-born fawns of the black-tailed deer.

_Canadian Zone:_ This zone does not become well defined until above the 3,000-foot level. There is a considerable mixture of both Transition and Canadian elements at the approximate area of separation. While still heavily forested, the trees of the Canadian Zone are noticeably smaller than those at lower elevations and the forest is more open in character. Although common tree species include the Douglas fir and western hemlock of the Transition Zone, the most typical trees are the silver fir, Alaska yellow cedar, noble fir, and western white pine. Other typical plants are the Canadian dogwood, pipsissewa, and Cascades azalea.