been able to exterminate them. I think they have their place in the scheme of things, and perhaps it is best that it has not been done. The CHAIRMAN. I take it there is a certain romance attached to the existence of predatory animals, such as mountain lions and other large predatory animals, and even the coyote is attractive to tourists. But as a matter of the preservation of other forms of wild life extermination might be desirable. What is the view of your department on that?

Mr. CAMMERER. The coyote in the Yellowstone is being pursued very persistently, and every one that can be killed is killed. Take the antelope for instance, and we have not any too many in the Yellowstone, the last census shows there were 417. Three years or so back snow conditions caused the loss of almost half of the band. They have very sharp hoofs, and in running from a coyote they get in places where there is a hard crust of snow and they break through and stick there, while the coyote can walk on top of the hard snow and thereby get the animal.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you cooperate with the Bureau of Biological Survey in the extermination of predatory animals?

Mr. CAMMERER. Yes, sir; they cooperate with us on our request. We also secure the cooperation of the Bureau of Entomology in the control of beetle infestation, etc. We have some serious problems at the present time along that line.

The CHAIRMAN. There is perhaps a difference of opinion between the park commission and the Bureau of Biological Survey as to what animals are predatory. For instance, in the case of the bear, the park commission are in favor of preservation of bear, are they not?

Mr. CAMMERER. Yes, sir; we protect the bear.

24

The CHAIRMAN. I am not certain, but I think the Biological Survey regards the bear as a predatory animal, and is interested in the extermination of bear outside of parks. Do you know about that? Mr. CAMMERER. I did not know that, and I could not say whether that is a fact or not.

Senator SPENCER. Does not the bear very readily become a partially domesticated animal?

Mr. CAMMERER. They become very tame, but a bear is always dangerous. In the Yellowstone when the bear become tame, people go along motoring and stop their cars and feed them. In fact, we have what are known as 76 Jesse James" bears there that go out and hold up their paws and stop cars, and the motorists give them candy and other sweets. If they tease a bear he is liable to scratch them. Tourists can not be too careful about that matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there many instances of accidents in the Yellowstone from bears?

Mr. CAMMERER. People are scratched almost every year; but it is their own fault.

The CHAIRMAN. Do bears prey on other wild life as well as on domestic animal life?

Mr. CAMMERER. I do not know about that. I understood recently, though, that a lot of charges made against bears have been

43213-25-PT 2--2

found to be untrue in that regard. But I am not a bear expert, and I have not followed that matter very closely. I think the question of what constitutes a predatory animal is one that is discretionary with any Secretary depending upon the facts in a particular case. On the north rim of the Grand Canyon we have a peculiar kind of squirrel, and hawks swooped down on those squirrels and practically exterminated them. I think under those circumstances the hawk would be termed predatory.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I should think so.

Mr. CAMMERER. And, of course, every once in a while a grizzly bear runs amuck, and it is up to us to kill the bear under those conditions. I have a case of that kind in mind: A grizzly got into one of the hotels in the Glacier National Park some time ago and did several thousand dollars damage before they got him. He got frightened, I suppose, and being penned up was willing to do almost anything to get away. He becomes quite a dangerous animal under such conditions. But for that matter, here in the city if a dog develops the rabies you would have to do the same thing with him.

The CHAIRMAN. You are aware that Congress has appropriated large sums of money for the extermination of predatory animals. I think in the recent session of Congress an appropriation of something like $560,000 was made to the Bureau of Biological Survey for the purpose of extermination of predatory animals. And it is not only recently that Congress has been making such appropriations, but for many years it has made them. The Federal Government is cooperating with the various States in which predatory animals live, and the States are probably contributing more than the Federal Government is for that purpose. Are not the results of their efforts less effective because of the national parks becoming the refuge for predatory animals? Of course, extermination is problematical, although as to the large wolf it has been successfully accomplished in particular localities.

Mr. CAMMERER. I was not aware of these large appropriations, because that is a matter that does not come within my bailiwick. But I do know that in our national parks there are game sanctuaries as such, and our superintendents have control of such matters there and try to control them. In connection with their other duties they have charge of predatory-control work. It is just an incidental matter, not a problem. In various instances that have come to my attention we have asked the Biological Survey hunters to cooperate with us in several parks where our own rangers were not sufficient in numbers to take care of the work.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it probable that in time the national parks will become overstocked with wild life?

Mr. CAMMERER. We have always held, Senator, that the protection of game in the national parks, if it results--as it doubtless will, under the laws of nature-in an increase, is one of the best methods of providing game outside of the park boundaries. Oregon, where the Crater Lake National Park is located, has recently passed some bear-protection legislation. I have not the facts with me, but our

argument has been by protecting bears in the national parks, as we do, if they are prolific they will naturally distribute themselves to the outside for hunting purposes.

The CHAIRMAN. There will be an overflow?

Mr. CAMMERER. Yes; there will be an overflow. We are not afraid of that at all. We think it is one of the greatest boons that the sportsmen of the country can have. All of our national parks are game sanctuaries, but the overflow goes outside, and under the State game laws, which are being changed from time to time to meet conditions, the balance is pretty well maintained.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not permit any hunting within the parks!

Mr. CAMMERER. Oh, no. I mean that as a result of complete protection to the wild life within the park there is bound to be natural increase, aside from such epidemics of disease that might reduce game occasionally. The overflow naturally goes outside into the adjoining forest preserves, public lands, and State lands, and furnishes hunting under the State laws.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have control of bird refuges, particularly where reserves have been created for the refuge of water fowl? Mr. CAMMERER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. There are certain areas withdrawn for that purpose?

Mr. CAMMERER. Yes, sir. It is my understanding that those are under the Biological Survey.

The CHAIRMAN. Those come under the Biological Survey in the Department of Agriculture?

Mr. CAMMERER. I believe so. I have heard of that only indirectly in connection with my work. The national parks are, of course, complete bird sanctuaries also.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it probable that the Yellowstone Park is stocked about to capacity, so far as elk are concerned?

Mr. CAMMERER. That is a question that I would be better able to answer a month from now than at the present time, Senator, because we are just endeavoring to take a census of the elk in the northern herd. I think the count is on at this moment. A count has recently been made of the southern herd by the Biological Survey, which go outside of the park. I have not the facts as to that.

The CHAIRMAN. Has it been the policy of the park commission to stock other sections of the country with wild life from the Yellowstone Park? For instance, the shipping of elk to various parts of the country.

Mr. CAMMERER. It is not our policy to ship from any park or into any park animals that are not native to that region. Under special laws we have authority to dispose of the Yellowstone buffalo, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior. Also, I believe the law allows us to ship elk. I am somewhat embarrassed in attempting to reply to that question, because I have not the exact wording of the law here, but I believe we are permitted to ship elk to municipalities and public corporations for zoo purposes whenever we consider it desirable.

We have a surplus of buffalo in the Yellowstone Park, especially the male buffalo, and in order to maintain a balance in the herds we tried to get rid of 150 buffalo this past year. Congress gave us authority to dispose of them to applicants, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior. We advertised that fact, and as a result of the applications that we received more than 80 buffalo were sent out, the parties to whom they were consigned paying all expenses of capture and expressage. We still have a surplus of about 70 head. The time is coming when doubtless we will not be able to dispose to municipalities or private parties of the surplus of buffalo that we have in the Yellowstone, and as a measure of control, as Canada has had to do, we will have to kill them and turn them into meat.

Senator SPENCER. Why kill them? Why not let them remain as they were before? Isn't there pasture for them?

Mr. CAMMERER. There is not sufficient pasture for them. Also, there are too many males for the females in the herd.

The CHAIRMAN. And they compete, Senator Spencer, with other animals in the use or usurpation of the range. Furthermore, the males, being in excess of the required number for propagation purposes, are useless.

Mr. CAMMERER. The market for the meat is problematical. The commissioner of parks of Canada told me several years ago that they tried to create a market for buffalo meat in the east and it was not very successful, although the meat is very palatable.

Senator SPENCER. Is it tender?

Mr. CAMMERER. It is very tender if treated properly. The possibility has presented itself to us of getting an Indian encampment or two in the Yellowstone, of Indians that are natives of that region, and letting them kill those surplus buffalo and turn them into pemmican and jerked meat, and tan the hides by the old-time methods, which were excellent.

The CHAIRMAN. That would be confined to the killing of the male animals entirely?

Mr. CAMMERER. Oh, yes; I am perfectly safe in saying that. Senator SPENCER. There ought to be an excellent market for those buffalo hides, tanned as the Indians would tan them.

Mr. CAMMERER. I should think so. We think that might work

out.

For pemmican they have the June berries locally. The old-time Indian delicacy was the buffalo. We will have to come to Congress with that problem before long. We are watching what Canada is doing, because they have one herd of about 4,000. We have not quite gotten to that point yet.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have in mind the total area in the States that have been reserved for national parks and monuments?

Mr. CAMMERER. I haven't it in mind, Senator, but I will furnish the figures. The data is as follows:

EXHIBIT A

National park and monument lands administered by the National Park Service in relation to national forest lands including national monument lands, administered by the Forest Service

Includes lands acquired under the Weeks law.

July 1, 1924. Alienated lands not included.

Donated to the United States. Donations of lands in national monument area amount to 470 acres

National park and monument lands administered by the National Park Service in relation to the States and Territories in which they are located

July 1, 1924. Alienated lands not included.

Area of the islands of Hawaii and Maui on which is located the Hawaii National Park.