Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

man who devoted his attention to that it would be looked upon as a propaganda business, and we have that to fight in the executive.

Mr. Sisk. Due to the testimony that the committee has found over Alaska, I have felt there is woefully lacking any public relations between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the citizens of Alaska and that that probably is the great contributing factor to this feeling that exists. As you probably know, it is rather severe in some places, just like this cattle industry. Sure, it is in its infancy, but many of its people have dreams and visions and aspirations, which I appreciate. This is a pioneering area and it does have a great potential

. Certainly it is too bad, it seems to me, that you can't bring about a little better understanding of some of these mutual problems.

Mr. Rhode. I think that is true. Actually our relations on wildlife matters are for the most part pretty good. We have excellent law observance here on most of our regulations, better probably than any State. And most people take the attitude this game belongs to them and they want to protect it, and they are very strong forces on the side of conservation.

On the fisheries, of course, that is a very potent and explosive thing, and we are part of the same group. So when you mention fish and wildlife we take part of the blame for any antagonism toward that.

As you say, in a local area like Kodiak there is that feeling, and at Palmer. You certainly run into two places where there has been a conflict between wildlife and people, much of which probably could have been eliminated with enough attention to explaining the situation and let them know we do care and we will do what we can. They sometimes feel we just don't give a darn.

Mr. CHENOWETU. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Sisk. Yes,

Mr. CHENOWETH. Would it be safe to say that the income from sportsmen, hunters, tourists that come up primarily for your wildlife advantages is one of the major industries of Alaska?

Mr. RHODE. Yes.
Mr. CHENOWETH. How would it rank with the others?
Mr. RHODE. I think it probably ranks second right now. It does.
Mr. CHENOWETH. Would fisheries be the first?

Mr. RHODE. Yes; and I envision the time not too far away when it will be the major.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Do you think it will outdo the fisheries?
Mr. RHODE. Yes; I do, definitely,

Mr. CHENOWETH. That certainly would be a shortsighted policy that would in any way tend to eliminate the game and wildlife which make Alaska less attractive to huntsmen and sportsmen from the States to come in here. It would destroy one of the major industries.

Mr. RHODE. I think that is right. I think people sooner or later must recognize that, too. That is one thing we can count on here. Our countty is suitable for that, and it is not nonproductive. When you have a herd of 10,000 moose out there, you can't say that is idle nonproductive land. That is producing.

Mr. CHENOWETH. They are bothering some people who are farming. Is that it? Mr. Rhode. Yes; and that is the only place we have any substantia]

RHODE amount of farming, in that one area.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Mr. BARTLETT. I should like to say, Mr. Sisk, if Mr. Rhode did not already occupy a more responsible position, Í could think of an ideal man for that public-relations spot.

Mr. UTT. Before you dismiss Mr. Rhode, you say we have found some spots where they are troubled. I might say in Point Barrow no one complained about polar bears. So you are free at that point.

Mr. RHODE. It just happened the ice floe was offshore.
Mr. Urt. No; it was right on the shore.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Rhode, one or more of the witnesses at Kodiak complained that the law required that if a bear killed cattle and the rancher went out after the bear he must actually identify the bear that made the kill. And they said there was a little trouble about that identification at times. Do you have any comment to make on that?

Mr. RHODE. I think those are things that they have brought up as possibilities, that we might look askance at something they did. We actually haven't-as long as they have killed bears in the area where they have their cattle we have not made any issue of it to date, and I don't expect we will. We will object if they start back in the middle of the island hunting down bears. We are going to object violently to that.

Mr. BARTLETT. But if a bear named Joe was half a mile from the ranch and another bear named Al nearby made the kill, would you object if they killed Joe?

Mr. RHODE. No; I don't think we would. We did go a little further in studying the bears there. We marked some bears.

Mr. BARTLETT. How?

Mr. RHODE. We did it with ink. First, with a crossbow we shot them with an explosive that would mark them with a big green dye. We had a little trouble with that. In fact, we lost most of our recruits that used the crossbow. So we set up an overhead baited affair where the bear would bite at it or hit it, and it would dump the dye on him. In one instance it was all red dye, and then we would watch for the occurrence of that bear and see how far they would

go.

That was before the bear-cattle controversy. We found in some instances they did travel a considerable distance but mostly back and forth between favored fishing areas where they could get a fall run of cohos, and they would move over there at that time.

Mr. BARTLETT. I have a few more questions which I will put to you verbally, but in view of the lateness of the hour, unless my colleagues should deem it otherwise advisable, perhaps you would answer by written statement.

The first is that the cattle ranchers or some of the ranchers told the committee that the big game guides always took the hunters far away from those sections where the cattle are being raised for their hunting. In other words, their contention was that those particular areas are of no consequence for big game hunting, and that if all the bears were eliminated thereabouts the big game hunting wouldn't be hurt at all

That is the first statement that was made to us.

There was another statement made to us at an informal hearing one evening in Anchorage where some people from Homer appeared. That testimony will not appear in the printed material because it was not recorded, but it was to the effect that the moose preserve on Kenai

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Peninsula is altogether too big, is a detriment to homesteaders, and
ought to be abolished in whole or in part. I wonder if you would be
good enough at a later date to make replies to those assertions!

Mr. Rhode. I would be very happy to.
(The material referred to follows:)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,

OFFICE OF REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

Juneau, Alaska, October 10, 1955. CHAIRMAN, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIAL AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CHAIRMAN: We are pleased to furnish additional comments on the questions raised by your committee at Juneau, Alaska, on September 28, 1955.

1. The matter of guides on Kodiak Island taking nonresident hunters to locations remote from the cattle ranches and thus not harvesting animals which might be involved in bear predation on cattle.

This Service would prefer to have more bears taken near the ranches which is off the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. Resident hunters (of resident and nonresident status) actually do take bears in the ranch areas close to Kodiak. This accounts for about 5 to 9 percent of the total take on the island. Naturally, a guide will take his hunter to a location where he has the best chance to take trophy animals and the ranch area, by comparison, is a poor place for trophies.

From a bear-management standpoint it is probably more effective to control the bear population over the entire island than to attempt it on a piecemeal basis. We are continuing to explore ways to alleviate the bear problem on the ranch areas and have presently in mind a proposal to allow a longer hunting season on the Kodiak end of the island. This might divert some additional hunting pressure to the area in question.

As stated in my testimony before the committee, we feel the Kodiak brownies constitute a valuable public resource and it is our responsibility to conserve the bear on the Kodiak National Refuge, the only location under the American flag where habitat has been set aside for this unique animal.

I wish also to reiterate that bear predation on cattle has been of relatively minor importance in overall losses. Losses of cattle to bear in the past 20 years average about 6 per year

In the year 1953, mortality to cattle consisted of 4 known bear kills, 17 from natural causes such as malnutrition and accidents, and 28 missing. Comparable figures for 1954 were 5 bear kills, 48 from natural causes, and none missing.

In the years 1949 to 1954, inclusive, the total kill of bears has been 1,053, an average of 190 per year.

Our most recent (1953) compilation of data on cattle ranching shows approximately 650 head of cattle on the Chiniak Peninsula of Kodiak Island, run by 7 ranchers.

There is an area of 310,224 acres open to grazing leases on Chiniak Peninsula of which only 165,507 is under lease, at a total leasing revenue to the Government of $1,282. Although cattle raising started in about 1932, many have since given up in despair. The soil map is not encouraging.

2. Complaint by Homer residents that the Kenai National Moose Range is too large and a detriment to farming.

It is yet to be shown, in spite of several decades of costly attempts, that the lands within or near the Kenai Moose Range offer real opportunity for a flourishing farming enterprise. Neither has it been shown that failures can be attributed to moose interference.

The Service is operating under the assumption that the millions of United States citizens who own a share in the two to three thousand moose on the Kenai should have more consideration than those few persons having a few cattle. Much of the better potential farmland on the Kenai Peninsula has been available for farming and we are not aware of any serious conflict of moose and farmers. The Kenai by and large is most suitable for wildlife and recreation as a product of the forest and water.

It should be mentioned the promising agricultural areas were excluded from the moose range or made available for such purposes in the original Executive order. Comparatively large areas are required to provide summer and winter range for moose.

This is a "management" area, different than a sanctuary. Hunting, fishing, trapping, and recreational use is allowed and encouraged. The Service has

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

built campground facilities and roads for recreational use. The Kenai Peninsula is rapidly becoming known as the recreation center for central Alaska. It was necessary to have the land withdrawn as a moose habitat in order the Service could carry on controlled burning and other projects to guarantee a winter food supply for the moose and to prevent thoughtless development projects which would destroy the habitat.

Much of the moose range is now under lease for oil exploration. In the process of exploration and in any subsequent production, it will be the purpose of the Service to safeguard the habitat to the greatest extent possible. Special permits are granted for timber cutting, campsites, and other uses.

Wildlife is an extremely valuable crop in Alaska yet comparatively small areas have been dedicated for this purpose. In these areas wildlife is managed for the enjoyment and use of the public. While this might apply to the remainder of the Territory, these withdrawn areas are the only places where protection of habitat can guarantee the future for selected species. Sincerely yours,

CLARENCE J. RHODE, Wildlife Administrator. Mr. TAYLOR. You have not mentioned either the caribou or the reindeer herds. Are there evidences of poaching in either one of these cases, or in mountain sheep, any 1 of these 3 ?

Mr. RHODE. Yes; there is a good deal of poaching, especially in the caribou. We have had difficulty with caribou because they are so similar to reindeer that where their range comes close together there is a tendency to kill caribou and dispose of them as reindeer. We have a good deal of trouble with that. It occurs when the caribou in their migrations come in close contact with the reindeer. Fortunately there are not too many of those areas now. The reindeer business is at fairly low ebb and fairly well restricted to the coastal area. If the caribou don't get within 50 miles of it, there is no problem. There is always illegal killing of caribou because caribou move constantly by nature and come to a village, and people get out and kill them whether the season is open or closed or whether it is within the limit. We are not too disturbed so long as they are utilized and so long as we can feel that they are not eating into the reserve. Our caribou are actually on the increase right now. They are in very healthy condition.

On the sheep, we are quite careful with that. Any violation on sheep. They are quite at low ebb. They are coming back in the last 4 years and have almost doubled in numbers, but they almost went out of existence in 1945.

At one time great numbers of people fed their dogs on caribou. They would kill from 60 to 70 a winter for dog food. We have almost eliminated that now except in the Arctic, a few spots in the Arctic where that still occurs.

Mrs. Prost. What caused the great depletion of sheep back in the middle forties? Mr. RHODE. I am not sure. We don't know. We don't believe it

I was entirely due to killing. In some local areas, such as the mining stampede in Shushana (?), where 3,000 people are suddenly thrown in there and are dependent on the resources, they almost eliminated the sheep. But generally we believe it was a matter of disease and we have not identified it. We don't know what caused it. It occurred almost all over Alaska simultaneously and was very severe.

Mr. CHENOWETH. What is the total number of caribou and reindeer, roughly?

Mr. RHODE. We have an estimated quarter of a million caribou. It might be 40,000 or 50,000 more than that. I mean it is pretty difficult.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

Mr. CHENOWETH. Do they have an open season on caribou ?
Mr. RHODE. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHENOWETH. How many of those are slaughtered a year!
Mr. RHODE. About 17,000 were killed last year.
Mr. CHENOWETH. Mostly by natives or outside hunters?

Mr. RHODE. I would say mostly by residents, not over 4,500 by outside hunters.

Mr. CHENOWETH. What is the reindeer situation?

Mr. RHODE. That, of course, isn't within our jurisdiction. The reindeer is classed as domesticated animal, so to speak. There is not near the reindeer we had. I don't know the total number now. It would probably be not over 10,000 outside of Nunivak Island.

Mr. CHENOWETH. They are not considered wildlife?

Mr. RHODE. No; they are not, and that brings up some problem because they range on the public domain and are very close cousin of the caribou. In fact, they will intermingle to a certain degree and used to cause us a great deal of trouble.

Mr. CHENOWETH. What is your sheep population now, roughly?

Mr. RHODE. I would say it is probably in the neighborhood of 20,000, perhaps a little less.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Are they confined to one small area or distributed widely?

Mr. RHODE. They are distributed pretty much throughout the Anchorage Range and the Chugach Mountains and Brooks Range.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Is there open season on them?

Mr. RHODE. A short season, and we require they kill only adult males, three-quarter curls.

Mr. CHENOWETH. The $50 license includes sheep?
Mr. RHODE. Yes.

Mr. CHENOWETH. How many different animals could you kill on one license?

Mr. RHODE. Black bear and brown or grizzly bear, one of each. You could kill caribou, in some areas two. Moose. Deer. I guess I mentioned sheep. All that in addition to small game.

Mr. CHENOWETH. It is a rather attractive proposition then?
Mr. RHODE. Yes: it is.

Mr. CHENOWETH. That is why you have developed your hunting as one of your major industries in this area?

Mr. RHODE. That, combined with fishing. A survey made 3 years ago

indicated that expenditures now are in excess of $14 million a year here on sport fishing.

Mr. CHENOWETH. $14 million ?
Mr. RHODE. Yes; and that is 3 years ago that study was made.

Mr. CHENOWETH. What, roughly, would you say the hunting would be?

Mr. RHODE. I think it is a little less actually because more people participate in fishing.

Mr. CHENOWETH. But it is increasing year by year?

Mr. RHODE. Yes; it is. The two combined are rapidly approaching the value of commercial fishing right now.

Mr. CHENOWETH. And eventually top it, you believe?
Mr. RHODE. I am sure it will.
Mr. CHENOWETH. That is all.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mrs. Pfost?

« AnteriorContinuar »