5

U»U
H I

D«.i977B sjATF
I

I'M TO

#*fc4£

rOL VI — No. 1 Montana Fish and Game Department Official Publication

Le Carcajou

As stories pass through the gen-
erations, man's imagination builds
upon them until minor incidents be-
come legendary feats. Such is prob-
ably the case with Gulo, the glut-
tonous, squat, shaggy wolverine.
French-Canadians call him Carajou.

Though his ferocity and cunning
may often be overrated, there is prob-
ably no other North American animal
which could match, pound for pound,
the vicious disposition and tenacity
of the wolverine.

So impressed were the Indians
with the little, bow-legged bundle of
fury that they believed his body
housed evil spirits. Even among
many northland trappers, it was be-
lieved that only a silver bullet could
end a wolverine's life. And woe to
the trapper who found his trapline
scourged by this species for, report-
edly, the destruction of trapped ani-

mals, caches and trap sets could
mean almost total loss of a season's
work.

At present, it appears that wolver-
ines in Montana are increasing in
numbers. In the period from 1950 to
1955, 20 or more were shot or trapped
in northwestern Montana (Newby,
1955). This apparent rejuvenation of
the wolverine population follows a
period of quiescence in which it was
feared the species was nearing ex-
tinction. Very probably, the increase
in northwestern Montana is an over-
flow from animals reared in Glacier
Park and other wilderness areas.

This rare shot of a wolverine was
taken this winter by Mrs. John Fa-
bian, West Glacier, Mont., while out
driving with her husband. Mr.
Fabian is the winter caretaker of
various hotels and camps in Glacier
Park.

MONTANA FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT

r
Official ^v7--T:^: U^ Publication

»V
v

State of Montana

J. Hugo Aronson, Governor

MONTANA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION

Ralph D. Shipley, Miles City, Chairman

H. W. Black, Poison E. J. Skibby, Lewistown

John T. Hanson, Sr., Malta William T. Sweet, Butte

A. A. O'Claire, Helena, Secretary

DIVISION DIRECTORS

Walter J. Everin Deputy Director

Walter M. Allen Fisheries Superintendent

Robert F. Cooney Wildlife Restoration

M. J. Watt Chief Law Enforcement Officer

W. Kenneth Thompson Information and Education

R. H. Turnbull Chief Clerk

^i* MCKEE --=§1^3 PRINT.

^^.

C/CCl (£&0-€fl — from an original drawing by °\)ern Qraig

Inquisitive young grizzly cubs are far from being up to their specific name
Ursus horribilis. These ursine youngsters enjoy a scamper or an enthusiastic
wrestling match as much as any black bear cub.

At birth, the cubs are very small, usually weighing from 12 to 14 ounces.
Compared to their mother, the offspring are relatively the smallest mammals at
birth, or about 1/500 to 1/600 the size of the adult. The cubs remain under the
guiding influence of the mother until they are two years eld.

Although grizzlies are thought to be primarily carnivorous, like other mem-
bers of the bear family, they are vegetarians by preference.

These huge, and long unchallenged monarchs of the western ranges can
easily be distinguished from their black bear cousins by the size of their foot
prints. The track of an average grizzly measures approximately 6 to 7 inches
in width and 12 to 14 inches in length.

IfUtttaKa, TVitdUfe

Vol. VI No. 1

Mary Moore, Editor
Vernon Craig, Artist

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Le Carcajou Inside Front Cover

Flood Control Begins at Home 3

Face-Lifting for Fishing Regulations 5

Fur Production in Montana 7

Wilderness Monarch 14

Montana Sportsmen's Clubs 18

The Commission 19

The Grayling — An Endangered Species 20

Montana's Big Game Transplanting Program 22

Black Bear Boudoir Inside Back Cover

Spring Issue — 1956

"Montana Wildlife," published quarterly, may be obtained free

of charge by writing the Montana Fish and Game Department at

Helena. Contents of this magazine may be reproduced in whole

or in part if properly credited.

'Pfofo 0tectit&

Cover, Pages 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 18, 22 by Vern Craig;

Inside Front Cover, Mrs. John Fabian, West Glacier, Mont.; J

Pages 14, 16, Bob Cooney; Page 19, Ken Thompson; I

Inside Back Cover, William Shunk, Gallatin Gateway, \

Mont. J

GUEST EDITORIAL:

Flood Control Begins at Home

\ For many years our national government has been spending

S billions of dollars on flood control dams, dikes and river improvements

ito protect the unfortunate valley dwellers from destructive floods.
These costly improvements, however, are possibly hindering the solu-
S tion of this national problem.

| In the first place, what caused these floods? The original cause

) was started with the overgrazing and plowing of land that should
| never have been treated in this manner. Therefore, the land was

!* robbed of its water holding capacity.
The project of building dams on rivers to help control over-flowing
water is justified to a certain extent; but, if we would stop and think,
\ we would find the trouble begins at the watersheds, not in someone's
s flooded home. Then, the question is asked, "If the watersheds are
•• the beginning of the trouble, why are they not considered as a part
J of the problem?"

\ Let us consider a typical watershed at the head of a river system.

\ The farmer who owns this land uses it to his own selfish advantage
\ only, seldom thinking of his fellow men, particularly those thousands
\ of miles below him being flooded every spring. What can be done
\ about someone as selfish as he? There is only one apparent solution
^ and that is to try to educate him, so that he will know the wrong he
S is doing.

J The solution to this problem then, lies in educating the general

J public. To put this thought into use, the purpose of our Terra Verde
| Project actually is to prevent floods, erosion and damage to our natural
) resources. We are practicing conservation and attempting to show [
) the public what can be saved if we conserve our resources. If all of ]
| us would take into consideration our neighbors and the future of \]
| America, we would have to worry little about what happens tomorrow. ]]
s To summarize, we feel that more of the billions of dollars spent on <

s flood control should be given to the improvement of our watersheds, i|
S and to conservation education. i

^ * Reprinted from Vol. 3, No. 3, of the, Green Hornet's Buzz, written and edited by i|

i the 8th Grade Class of Corvallis Junior High School, Corvallis, Montana. This group i

I has gained national attention for the past several years for practical application of i,

i conservation truths on their own 160-acre forest plot in Ravalli county, Montana. The

\ experimental area is named Terra Verde, or Green Earth. ,

:

S3

*h

<!

<d
fee

c

cd

Q

X>

■a
o

'pace &£tt*ty

far 'pteJittty TReycttattattd

by Charles K. Phenicie
Chief Fisheries Biologist

Did you ever take a look at the
fishing regulations for Montana and
shudder? We in the Department do
many times a year, when we write
them and each time we explain
why this or that regulation is made.

In some respects, fishing regula-
tions have charactertistics of a com-
municable disease which spreads
and spreads until it assumes epi-
demic proportions if allowed to pro-
ceed unrestrained. Montana's fishing
regulations have grown in just such a
manner, until in 1955 they filled a
63-page booklet.

Much of the detail in the fishing
regulations is there because some
group or groups of sportsmen have
requested that a regulation be made
or that an exception be provided for
some general regulation. It is only
fair to note here that we in the De-
partment are equally guilty about
inserting pet theories into the regu-
lations or in making special regula-
tions for waters of particular interest
to us. But regardless of responsibil-
ity, the regulations have grown into
a formidable document.

All will agree that fishing in Mon-
tana is a sport, a recreational outlet,
and because of this we should make
every effort to have fishing as enjoy-
able and relaxing as possible. One
aspect of this, of course, is providing

fish to catch. Don't we, however, in
our anxiety to do the right thing by
the fish populations, lose sight of the
fact that by over-regulating our fish-
eries and by making the regulations
unnecessarily complicated we are
only detracting from recreational en-
joyment of fishing?

Most fishermen find little enjoy-
ment in pondering over verbiage
prior to a fishing trip. As a conse-
quence, many go into the field with-
out knowing whether or not they are
violating a regulation. They are con-
soled mainly by the fact that, since
they have never yet been checked
by a game warden, probably they
will not be today.

The Fish and Game Commission
is making a concerted effort to sim-
plify the regulations. This year they
took a major step in this direction.
In the past, regulations have been
made by counties. The regulations
for the coming year are based on
drainage areas instead, eight of
them. Thus, in place of 56 manage-
ment areas, the regulations will have
but eight.

The fishing regulations for 1956-57
have not been altered greatly in
content. The main change has been
to rewrite the previous year's regula-
tions in the new drainage form, re-
sulting in simplification. And the
change will result in a monetary

saving. It cost approximately $15,000
to print the 1955-56 regulations, and
the estimated cost for printing this
year's regulations is $5,000, a saving
of $10,000.

Have you ever considered why we
have regulations? Considering the
regulations and laws we have, it
appears that they were adopted for
five main reasons: 1. To prevent
over-fishing a population of fish and
to provide the most equitable distri-
bution of available fishes among the
fishermen; 2. to cause fishermen to
use sporting means of taking fish
and to prevent these fishermen from
being a nuisance to other anglers;
3. to protect a fishery from being
ruined by introduction of undesirable
fish; 4. for purpose of public health
and safety; and 5. for purposes of
psychological response.

Most often when a regulation is
proposed, we envision that it will
make fishing better or prolong good
fishing. (No. 1 above: To prevent
over-fishing a population of fish and
to provide the most equitable distri-
bution of available fish among the
fishermen.)

Almost without exception, such
regulations are, whether recommend-
ed by Department personnel or by
sportsmen, made purely on a hunch
or on an opinion that they will do
some good. Exceptions to this state-
ment are seasonal closures of some
streams tributary to a lake which are
used for spawning. Look through the
regulations and see how many of
the entries are made for reason No.

1. We would be hard-pressed to
justify most of these.

The object is to simplify the regu-
lations as much as possible and to
keep them as simple as possible.
But on the other hand, we want to
take adequate steps to insure that
fishing will remain good. Too often,
however, when fishing success either
declines or appears to decline, we
blame overfishing and propose either
a new regulation or a plant of hatch-
ery fish. More often than not, there
is another cause — the true cause.
This goes undisclosed and uncor-
rected, and fishing either gets poorer
or stays poor.

What we are proposing is this, that
we all start looking at the fishing
regulations intelligently for what they
can accomplish and not as one of
the two great cure-alls to fishing ills.
Since the monies we have available
for research and investigations to de-
termine what really is needed are
very limited, it will still be necessary
to use the regulations somewhat to
test an informed guess. But if each
of us will be alert to the needs which
regulations can fill, we will have
simpler and more adequate regula-
tions.

In addition to this, and even more
impoitant, if each of us will be alert
to the natural requirements of fish,
the true cause of fishing ills can be
determined; and well-guided efforts
will see our streams and lakes re-
maining in such a state of natural-
ness that excellent and sustained
fisheries will be guaranteed.

Fur Production in Montana

by Fletcher Newby, Fur Biologist
Wildlife Restoration Division

While most Montanans know
something of the part played by trap-
pers and fur traders in the explora-
tion and settlement of the wilderness
that became Montana, probably few
have realized that the fur trade still
is a small but important part of the
state's economy.

Fur animals constitute a renewable
resource worth millions of dollars to
the people of Montana. Results of
the economic survey conducted each
year by the Montana Fish and Game
Department show that 312,000 pelts,
worth nearly one and one-half mil-
lion dollars, were taken during the
last four trapping periods.

An investment of more than eight
million dollars, capitalized at four
percent would have been required to
produce a comparable average an-
nual income of $335,250.00. This di-
rect cash return to the trapper places
fur animals in a unique position
among our wildlife resources.

Four species — beaver, mink, musk-
rats and marten — produced over 90
percent of the pelts and nearly all
the income, reflecting current market
trends.

Last trapping period, November,
1954 through April, 1955, was the
most successful of the four year pe-
riod. Improved management plans
and relaxed regulations in many

areas permitted a better harvest of
fur animals. During the winter of
1955, interest in trapping was further
stimulated by unusually active fur
markets. After several years of de-
clining prices, pelt values for some
fur animals rose considerably.

A glance at the three regions of
Montana (Fig. 1) and the table shows
that these areas differ considerably
in several important characteristics.
Management plans for the various
parts of the state must necessarily
take into account these essential dif-
ferences.

Western Montana

This area of Montana had always
produced the most fur. As a basis
for comparison, western Montana,
during the 1954-55 trapping period,
produced 28 pelts per township while
the central and eastern areas pro-
duced 21 and 16 pelts per township,
respectively.

Until the 1953-54 trapping period,
trappers in western Montana were
most interested in taking muskrats.
That year, because of a sharp drop
in muskrat prices, many trappers lost
interest in muskrats and spent more
effort in taking mink. This resulted
in very high trapping pressure on
mink in some areas. In view of this
situation, measures were taken in
the 1954-55 period to reduce this

rial 1954-1955 Fur Harvest

1467 TRAPPERS
83,481 PELTS
8522,076 INCOME

Table 1

GEOGRAPHIC COMPARISON OF
SOME IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS

Western Central Eastern

Total Area 33%* 27% 40%

Total Forest Area 79% 18% 3%

Origins of Stream Flow 65% 25% 10%

Human Population (1950 Census) 44% 34% 22%

Winter Unemployment 48% 33% 19%

Total No. of Trappers 48% 26% 26%

Total No. of Pelts 42% 27% 31%

*(A11 percentages on basis of 100% for entire state.)

pressure by diverting it to other spe-
cies and other areas. Where fall
trapping previously had consisted
largely of mink trapping, trappers
were given muskrats and beaver to
trap as well. In addition, more lenient
muskrat and beaver seasons else-
where attracted some trappers to
other areas. Results of these meas-
ures were generally satisfactory, with
the exception that the muskrat take
remained too low, due to continuing
poor prices. A spring muskrat season
would have increased the catch con-
siderably since the market improved
during the winter. Unfortunately, ex-
perience has shown that active
spring muskrat trapping in the west-
ern portion of the state usually re-
sults in the accidental and illegal
trapping of too many mink. This can
be damaging when the fall harvest
of mink has been all that the popula
tion will stand without reducing the
breeding stock.

Fig. 2. Composition of Fur Catch in West-
ern Montana, 1954-55.

A different mink-muskrat situation
arose in the present 1955-56 trapping
period where unfavorable weather
conditions during the fall months
held the catch of mink and muskrat
below the desired harvest. In this
case it was felt that spring trapping
of muskrats would not endanger the
welfare of mink populations.

Beaver were not the problem in
western Montana that they were in
some other portions of the state. As
a result, the 1954-55 beaver catch
was held at about the same level as
the previous year in order to produce
the maximum allowable harvest. At
the same time, an adequate breeding
stock was retained to produce an-
other crop for the next season.

Central Montana

Interest in trapping in central Mon-
tana was not as great as in the west-
ern areas. Although numbers of
trappers had increased during the
past four years, trapping pressure
was not too heavy. As a result, man-
agement plans for 1954-55 did not
aim at reductions in trapping. To the
contrary, setting a number of "No
Limit" beaver trapping areas in cen-
tral Montana stimulated most types
of trapping.

Although central Montana is al-
most as large as western Montana
and has nearly as many people,
there are only three-fifths as many
mink trappers. Interest in mink trap-
ping has increased steadily, as it
has elsewhere in the state, with ap-
proximately 50 percent more trap-
pers in the field during the 1954-55
season than in 1951-52.

Muskrat trapping in this portion of
the state also increased slightly.
More trappers took muskrats as a
sideline to beaver trapping but the
average catch per trapper fell slight-
ly from the level of the previous year,
indicating poor interest. The net re-
sult, however, was to increase the
total catch by about one-tenth. A
larger catch of muskrats would have

Fig. 3. Composition of Fur Catch in Central
Montana, 1954-55.

been desirable, but as in western
Montana, a spring muskrat season
after a large fall catch of mink would
have resulted in the undesirable cap-
ture of too many mink. Because of
the bad weather and small catch of
both mink and muskrats in the fall
of 1955, a spring muskrat season has
been set for 1956.

Increased beaver trapping in cen-
tral Montana was encouraged in sev-
eral areas by setting long "No Limit"
seasons. Previous harvests in these
areas had been inadequate and seri-
ous conflicts with farming and ranch-
ing activities had developed. In other
parts of central Montana where

proper management required only
removal of a crop of beaver pelts,
limits and more restrictive regula-
tions served to prevent overtrapping.
The total 1954-55 beaver catch in
central Montana was 50 per cent
more than the 1953-54 take.
Eastern Montana

Eastern Montana is the largest of
the three divisions but has the small-
est population. Density of the human
population averages slightly more
than two persons per square mile
while western Montana averages
well over five people per square
mile.

Interest in trapping in eastern
Montana increased greatly in the last
four years as the result of more
lenient regulations and longer sea-
sons. In the 1951-52 period, one per-
son in 650 held a trapper's license;
by 1954-55 this rose to one in 340,
an increase of almost 90 percent.
Management plans for this area thus
have encouraged greater use of the
fur resource.

Fig. 4. Composition of Fur Catch in Eastern
Montana, 1954-55.

10

Regulations affecting the take of
mink have remained practically the
same through the years; however,
increase in trapping interest through
changes in beaver and muskrat sea-
sons also caused a rise in the take
of mink. Mink trappers in the 1954-55
period were more than double the
number in 1951-52, and the average
catch per trapper also was more
than doubled. The end result of these
increases was a total catch in 1954-55
nearly four times that of 1951-52. This
same upward trend also was present
in the muskrat take.

Interest in muskrat trapping fell in
central and western Montana when
prices for muskrat pelts declined.
While eastern Montana trappers did
not trap as hard individually after
the price drop, the increasing number
of trappers kept the total take rising.
In the 1954-55 season the average
catch per trapper regained the level
of the 1951-52 season, indicating a
recovery of interest in muskrat
trapping.

Management practices applied to
eastern Montana have resulted in
increased use of the fur resource.
While the present harvest appears to
be satisfactory, it will be necessary
to keep careful watch on the situation
to prevent over-trapping, especially
mink. It is of primary importance to
maintain an adequate breeding stock
in all areas suitable for fur pro-
duction.

Irrigation districts in eastern Mon-
tana were the worst beaver problem
areas in the entire state. Beaver

trapping under Landowner Permits
was completely inadequate to har-
vest even the annual increase of
populations in this area, much less
to reduce the breeding stock. New
legislation in 1953 gave the Montana
Fish and Game Department the
means to correct this situation.

Although large limits doubled the
take in the 1953-54 period, continuing
damage complaints and field obser-
vations indicated that much heavier
trapping would be needed to reduce
beaver populations in areas of in-
tensive agriculture. As a result, dur-
ing the 1954-55 beaver season, all
areas where serious agricultural con-
flicts were known to exist were de-
clared "No Limit" areas. Catch fig-
ures and counts of beaver colonies
showed that these measures were
much more effective in obtaining the
desired take. The catch in the Milk
River area, for example, was more
than three times that of the previous
year and seven times that of 1952-53
(see Table 2). Beaver trappers in
eastern Montana were very active
under the lenient regulations of the
1954-55 season, taking an average
catch of 47 beaver per trapper as
compared with averages of 38 and
20 beaver per trapper for central and
western Montana.

State Summary

Although the number of active
trappers in the 1954-55 period did
not change much from the previous
year, the regional distribution shift-
ed considerably (see Table 3).

11

TABLE 2. Beaver Take in Milk River Area.

1952-53 1953-54 1954-55

Landowner Permits 592 427 295

General Season Permits...... 820 3998

Total Take 592 1247 4293

Ratio of Take 1 2 7

In western Montana, however,
where pressure on mink had possibly
become excessive, a slight decrease
was obtained. In eastern Montana,
en the other hand, where undertrap-
ping had been the case before, a
sizeable increase in the number of
mink trappers was noted. The mink
catch in these areas followed a sim-
ilar pattern.

A small rise in the statewide musk-
rat take over the 1953-54 low showed
slightly greater interest in this ani-
mal. Actually, the increase occurred
entirely in central and eastern Mon-
tana. Management measures which
might have similarly increased the
take in western Montana had to be
avoided in order to safeguard mink
populations against the accidental
and illegal spring trapping of mink.
Although trappers may legally trap
muskrats in the spring in eastern

Montana, more emphasis is placed
on fall trapping. As a result, the
problem of spring mink trapping is
not as serious.

Beaver are Montana's most im-
portant and controversial fur ani-
mals. The 1954-55 catch of more
than 25,000 beaver was worth over
$300,000. This size of this take can
be better appreciated when it is
pointed out that this catch was larger
than that of any other state or Alaska.
In addition, water storage by beaver
often improves an area for other
forms of wildlife and contributes to
water and soil conservation. On the
other hand, this ability of the beaver
to change his surroundings often re-
sults in damage to water control
structures, culverts and bridges, trees
and other streamside cover. This is
particularly true when beaver are
not properly harvested.

'i
'i
'i
h
'
'i

1
1
'

<

TABLE 3. Number of Active Trappers.*

West Central East

1943-54 696 325 222

1954-55 568 349 320

* Trappers who caught at least one fur animal.

7

s

!i
ii

ii
||

State

1243
1237

12

Beaver management requirements
differ greatly in various parts of the
state. In most of the western area,
where interest in trapping has al-
ways been good, serious over-popu
lation was less prevalent than in
some sections of the central and
eastern areas. As a result, beaver
trapping in western Montana has
been carefully regulated by restric-
tive limits. This also has been the
case in certain parts of central Mon-
tana. In other central areas, and in
nearly all of eastern Montana, bea-
ver trapping has been actively en-
couraged by fewer restrictions in an
effort to reduce breeding populations
to more reasonable levels. Build-up
of beaver populations in these areas
had progressed for several years due
to declining prices and legislative
iestrictions on trapping. When these
populations have been reduced to
satisfactory levels, future manage-
ment plans will only call for removal
of an annual sustained crop.

Montana trappers are among the
more fortunate in the United States.
Because of the small human popula-
tion, the large land area and the
presence of good numbers of fur ani-
mals, the income per trapper is one
of the highest in the country, averag-
ing about $350.00 for the 1954-55 sea-
son. Obviously, many professional
trappers make much more than this
and trappers who spend less time
afield may make considerably less.

The Fur Resources section of the
Montana Fish and Game Department
has as its management objective the
wise use of the fur resource through
seasons and regulations based on
factual information gathered by care-
ful study. Reliance upon facts, with-
out reference to sentiment or preju-
dice will insure that the people of
the state will continue to reap the
benefits to be derived from the fur
resource of Montana.

Fig. 5. Total Value of Fur Catch for Mon-
tana, 1954-55.

Fig. 6. Total Fur Catch for Montana, 1954-55.

13

WILDERNESS MONARCH

by Robert F. Cooney, Coordinator
Wildlife Restoration Division

It is difficult to believe that the
grizzly bear in the United States is
moving dangerously close to extinc-
tion. Until the appearance of white
men upon this continent, this huge,
self-reliant animal had met no seri-
ous challenge to his supremacy.
Since that time, however, a continu-
ous battle with guns, traps and dogs
has been waged against this silver-
tipped monarch over much of our
western country.

Early Records

Legend and fact are inseparably
intermingled in the history of this

great bear. Vague references about
bear were made as far back as the
period when the Spanish were carry-
ing out explorations into the south-
west in the early sixteenth century.
Later, the employees of the Hudson's
Bay Company and others of the early
fur trade undoubtedly saw grizzlies
in the Canadian West. Their journals
mention a "gray bear" much larger
and more ferocious than the black.
Indian legend spoke often of this
bear. To them to kill one was a feat
of valor comparable to that of van-
quishing a human adversary.

This paper was used in "Our Endangered Wildlife'' published by the National Wildlife
Federation for National Wildlife Week.

14

It was left, however, for Lewis and
Clark during their famous explora-
tion into the headwaters of the Mis-
souri and Columbia Rivers in 1805-06
to bring to the world the first scien-
tific description of the grizzly.

Description

Many estimates of weight and size
are found in the early discussions of
the grizzly. Some were fanciful,
others undoubtedly authentic. Be-
tween four and six hundred pounds
has been given as a fair average
for a mature animal. Records of
considerably larger bear are, how-
ever, available.

Even the earliest descriptions
pointed out marked differences in
temperament between the grizzly and
black bear. Physical differences were
also described. A somewhat concave
facial profile, long slightly-curved
claws on the front feet, a decided
hump over the shoulders, coupled
with a frosted appearance of the hair
on the back and sides left little doubt
in the mind of the early explorer that
he was in the presence of a grizzly.
A species which has since been rec-
ognized as one of the most famous
and respected of big game through-
out the world.

Historic Range

In order to better judge the present
status of the grizzly it would be of
interest to view for a moment his
historic range. During centuries of
adjustment this bear had become
adapted to a vast variety of habitat.
He was found throughout western
North America from Mexico to the
Brooks Range of Northern Alaska.

This original homeland extended
eastward through what is now
Texas, Nebraska, Kansas and the
Dakotas and the Canadian province
of Saskatchewan and the Territories
of MacKenzie and the Yukon.

Alaska

The present range of the grizzly in
Alaska, although somewhat lessened
from that described by the earlier ex-
plorers, is still comparatively exten-
sive. A recent well-authenticated re-
port indicates that exclusive of
brown bear, there are somewhat
more than 10,000 grizzlies in Alaska
today. The estimated harvest by
hunters last year was 200. Looking
toward the future, the Alaska Game
Commission this year (1955-56) re-
duced the limit from two to one
brown or grizzly bear per hunter in
all the Territory except the panhan-
dle. The spotting of grizzly from the
air and then alighting nearby to ob-
tain a trophy is illegal. As this type
of operation is most common in the
Anchorage area during the spring,
some thought is being given to clos-
ing the season at that time until this
problem has been overcome. It is
encouraging to note that the Game
Commission has taken definite steps
to prevent over-hunting and that pub-
lic attitudes toward the grizzly are
more favorable now than they were
in the past.

Canada

The grizzly range in Canada has
retreated westward. An abundance
of rugged wilderness-type territory
still remaining in that area, however,

15

presents a natural protection for a
substantial number of grizzlies.

United States

A far different condition is evident
in the United States. Complete extinc-
tion of the grizzly has taken place
throughout the majority of its historic
range. This bear has long been gone
from Texas, Arizona, New Mexico,
Oregon, Utah and the Dakotas. Cali-
fornia, with the grizzly bear on its
state flag, and an early history of
perhaps the heaviest concentration
of grizzlies anywhere in the United
States, has had no record of a living
bear of that species since 1922. The
State of Washington indicates that
one or more grizzlies may still remain
within their boundaries. Colorado,
with perhaps ten grizzlies left, in the
San Juan Mountains, in the south-
western section of the state, has de-
clared that area as a Grizzly Bear
Management Unit in which this rap-
idly vanishing species is given com-
plete protection.

Idaho indicates that 60 grizzlies
may remain within the borders of the
state. They have had no open season
on this bear for several years.

The State of Wyoming, with a vivid
history of grizzlies, now lists not more
than 50. Although of great interest
to many as a game animal, the
grizzly is still carried with the black
bear as a predator under an old law.
Spring hunting is in effect along with
the legalized use of bait. The grizzly
bear in Wyoming is still suffering
from an early-day reputation as a
menace to livestock.

ii mni iim

Downed log is reduced to kindling by griz-
zly searching for grubs and ants to eat.

Montana lists 439 grizzlies exclu-
sive of the national parks. Spring
hunting was discontinued a number
of years ago. A large grizzly bear
closed area was in effect in Montana
between 1942 and 1955. The hunting
regulations distinguish between the
grizzly and the black bear, the former
being given special consideration
and legally hunted during the season
open to elk. Estimates for Glacier
National Park indicate 100 grizzlies
and for Yellowstone National Park,
125.

Thus, there appears to be some-
what less than 800 grizzly bear still
remaining within the United States.
Approximately one-fourth of these
are found within the boundaries of
two of our national parks. The re-
mainder are scattered thinly through-
out four states. Except for Montana
and the national parks, the present
status of the grizzly bear south of
the Canadian boundary appears pre-
carious. Even in Montana further re-
ductions in wilderness habitat could
cause a serious decline in the grizzly
population.

16

What, then, has caused the ex-
termination of this big bear through-
out much of its former range, and
what chance is there for its survival?

The Problem

Since the very beginning of the
livestock industry in the West, the
grizzly has been under suspicion as
a killer of cattle and sheep. Its exact
standing in regard to this accusation
could be endlessly debated. Al-
though omnivorous in feeding habits,
there is no doubt that meat often
makes up an important part of its
diet. Before the coming of the white
men, wild game amply filled this
need. The domestic animals which
took the place of the buffalo, deer
and other game on much of the
grizzly range presented a tempting
target for its food-gathering activities.
Serious predation was probably con-
fined, however, to a small segment
of the bear population. But all re-
ceived the blame. Livestock interests
throughout much of the West marked
the grizzly as a distinct hazard to
their business and carried out an
active campaign of eradication. Kill
for sport may well have influenced
this decline in some areas.

An additional factor which is felt
to be of particular importance today
is the rapid change of the environ-
ment in which the grizzly lives. In
this regard, wilderness-type range
represents the most important re-
quirement of present-day grizzly hab-
itat. The rapid shrinking and virtual
disappearance of this type of country
throughout much of the West has

brought about the most serious con-
dition the grizzly bear has yet en-
countered in its struggle for survival.

The Future

In facing the problem squarely, we
must admit that valuable as the
grizzly bear is, it cannot be perpetu-
ated in substantial numbers in close
proximity with important agricultural
activities. Its future, therefore, will
depend upon our success in retaining
a reasonable amount of wilderness
range. In this regard Yellowstone
and Glacier National Parks are play-
ing a vital role.

The Wilderness Area program
throughout the West represents an
additional important factor. A good
example of this is the Bob Marshall
Wilderness Area in Montana. This
mountainous region covers approxi-
mately a million acres, plus a sub-
stantial fringe of roadless country be-
yond its borders. This wilderness
area, accessible only by trails, repre-
sents the most important single factor
in the maintenance of the largest
grizzly bear population left in the
United States.

It is obvious that we cannot re-
store the grizzly to anything like its
former numbers or range. We must,
in fairness to the animals and to the
economy of the West, consider the
grizzly as a wilderness species. It is
upon the preservation of these wil-
derness areas that the future of the
grizzly in the United States will
depend.

17

1952

j-Cotintj S|)orisiiit'ii 's -\ssnii
f/IBERSHIP CARD

! ,'!

M E M BERSB IP

Chinook Rod and Gun Club

W 2590

fi&*vt

ll<D^>Jl

> ,

2880

■

iiajrstcni ffloutaun
if isfi anfi tfuinr association

j\'^[-ti>

Montana Sportsmen's Clubs

The voices of Montana sportsmen have been heard in the past
and will always be an important factor in the future management
of the state's wildlife resources. Organized as the Montana Wild-
life Federation, approximately 66 clubs, representing more than
25,000 members, are joined together with the objective of promot
ing hunting and fishing.

At one time, most sportsmen's clubs devoted their time to
"getting their share" of hatchery fish and game farm pheasants,
or pushing for game seasons of advantage to their own hunting
region. But not any more — Montana's progressive clubs are now
thinking in terms of state and national problems. They have
become concerned with preservation of clear, running water,
wilderness areas and game habitat.

The more advanced groups are reguesting more research as
a solution to game problems rather than the personal guess of
a hunter or fisherman. Many of the clubs are promoting solid
educational projects so that they and fellow members will under-
stand the basis for modern game management practices.

Others are attempting to solve their No. 1 problem — a place
to hunt and fish — by working to improve farmer-sportsmen rela-
tionships.

While Montana still has a few of the "eat-burp-cuss out the
Department and go home" clubs, they are becoming fewer every
year. The thinking members in many clubs are asking guestions
and getting answers and results, not only on a local level but
on a state and national basis.

Unfortunately there are not enough people carrying the load
in the sportsmen's groups. Progress that has been made is the
result of the efforts of a few who have gained benefits for all.
With more than 200,000 hunters and fishermen in Montana, the
organized sportsmen could be the strongest single group in the
state.

Sportsmen are considered the "voice of the people" in matters
of wildlife conservation. If you are not part of that voice, let
us urge you to join your sportsmen's club and work to make it
strong and effective.

f&e @ammi4,&taw

Policy makers behind Montana's
multi-million dollar fish and game
business are five commissioners, ap-
pointed by the Governor for four-
year terms. Appointees are selected
from each of the five Commission
Districts, and since terms are stag-
gered, the Commission always has
a majority of men familiar with the
complex operations of the Montana
Fish and Game Department.

The Commission meets in Helena
for two days each month to decide
policy matters, rule on fishing and
hunting regulations and carry out
other department business.

Fish and Game Commission mem-
bership is an honorary position with-
out salary. Commissioners draw
only a per diem of $15.00 on the
days they meet. It is a job fraught
with the problems of mediating be-
tween all groups interested in wild-
life.

The Commission is charged by law
with "supervision over all the wild-
life, fish, game and non-game birds,
and waterfowl and the game and fur-
bearing animals of the state." Theirs
is the responsibility of maintaining
adequate populations of wild game
while being ever mindful of the effect
of the animals upon other economic
interests in the state.

The man responsible for carrying
out the Commission's program is the
Department Director who is also Sec-
etary to the Commission. He super-
vises all activities of the organization
with the aid of the Assistant Director.
These men direct the field activities
of approximately 200 employees, are
responsible for three and one-half
million dollars in capital assets and
are accountable for nearly two mil-
lion dollars of Department funds each
year.

Taking time out from consideration of big game regulations, Montana's 1956-57 Fish and
Game Commission sits for the cameraman: William T. Sweet (front) Butte, was recently
re-appointed to a second term as Commissioner from District 2; (around table clockwise)
John T. Hanson, Sr., Malta, the newest member of the Commission, will serve as Commissioner
from District 4: Commission Chairman Ralph D. Shipley, Miles City, District 5; H. W. Black,
vice-chairman. Poison, represents District 1; Deputy Department Director W. J. Everin;
Department Director A. A. O'Claire; Mrs. Effie Cutler, recording secretary; and E. J.
Skibby, Lewistown, Commissioner from District 3.

19

The Grayling --An Endangered Species

by Perry Nelson
Fisheries Biologist

When Lewis and Clark journeyed
through Montana they made refer-
ence to the abundance of a particu-
lar fish in the Missouri River drain-
age. From a description by Captain
Lewis, this was later recognized as
the Montana grayling.

Since then the distinctive charac-
teristics of this fish have become
known to many. The adult averages
from 12 to 14 inches, with the most
outstanding feature being a large
sail-like dorsal fin which has alter-
nate black and orange-colored hori-
zontal lines with green and orange
spots. The body has large scales
and is brilliant purplish-gray with
bronze reflections and a concentra-
tion of black spots near the head.

Originally, the grayling was abun-
dant in Montana and Michigan, the
only states where this species was
native in the United States. It has
become extinct in Michigan and de-
clined in numbers in Montana until
it now occurs over only a small frac-
tion of the original range, which was
all of the Missouri River drainage
above Great Falls, Montana.

The grayling began to decline with
the introduction of exotic fish and
the advent of siltation and pollution.
Originally, it occurred in the com-
pany of whitefish and cutthroat trout
in the upper Missouri drainage.
These three game fishes are still com-

patible where they occur together.
But where other species have been
introduced, both the grayling and
cutthroat trout have suffered. Present
successful grayling waters include
those which are free of introduced
trout such as the eastern brook, rain-
bow and brown trout, and undesir-
able fish such as carp and Utah
chub. Since grayling require cold,
clear water and are less tolerant of
pollution and siltation than trout, the
coming of civilization with its human
sewage, industrial wastes and poor
land-use practices, has also contrib-
uted measurably to their decline.

Today grayling are rarely taken
within their original range except in
a few lakes and in two places where
small remnants of the once large
population remain in the upper trib-
utaries of the Beaverhead and Big
Hole Rivers of Montana. In the latter
area they have been maintained
largely through artificial propaga-
tion. The upper Beaverhead River
drainage in the Red Rock Lakes area
still remains in as much like its
original condition as when Lewis and
Clark found it, and grayling, while
reduced in number, are still main-
taining themselves naturally. This
area was selected by the Montana
Fish and Game Department as a
grayling sanctuary where manage-
ment studies might be carried out.

This paper was used in "Our Endangered Wildlife" published by the National Wildlife
Federation for National Wildlife Week.

20

A large portion of this lies within the
Red Rock Lakes National Waterfowl
Refuge which is famous as a last
stronghold of the once-nearly-extinct
trumpeter swan. The objective of the
study was to develop a plan to pre-
serve grayling in at least this one
portion of its original range in Mon-
tana, and to determine practices
which could be applied in restoring
this fish in the remainder of the state.

As a result of these studies, a num-
ber of management and protective
measures have been taken. Further
introduction and propagation of ex-
otic species have been curtailed. In
some instances beaver and beaver
dams have been removed from trib-
utaries to lakes containing grayling
so they could have ready access to
suitable spawning grounds in the
streams. To date a number of ponds
supporting undesirable fish have
been artificially poisoned so that
grayling could be restocked. A stock-
ing program for both grayling and
cutthroat trout is being carried out
in one lake. As a measure for pro-
tecting spawning grayling, irrigation
on the Red Rock Lakes Refuge has
been curtailed or delayed until after
July 1. This allows ample time for
the spawners to return to the lake
and for many of the fry to hatch and
make their way into suitable habitat.
Since sport fishing is one of the
greatest pleasures afforded by these
fish, limited harvests are allowed in
this sanctuary under a creel limit
of five fish. Those who are respon-
sible for the management of the gray-
ling believe that a limited sport
fishery will not endanger the popu-
lation where habitat is suitable.

Within two years following the ap-
plication of these management meas-
ures a marked increase in the num-
ber of young grayling has been
observed in some of the creeks

within the sanctuary. During 1955,
adult spawners were seen in three
creeks where they had not been re-
corded for many years.

Sportsmen from all over the United
States have become interested in the
grayling. Because of their rarity
many people make special trips to
the area to catch one of these fish,
which, along with the trumpeter
swan, has made the rather remote
Red Rock Lakes Refuge very popular.

Possibilities for enlarging the pres-
ent grayling range through introduc-
tions should be investigated. Some
of the virgin mountain lakes in Mon-
tana can still be reserved for gray-
ling. Certain isolated headwater
streams provide opportunity for de-
veloping grayling waters by restock-
ing after poisoning of undesirable or
competing species.

Grayling research in the Red Rock
Lakes area has resulted in definite
progress toward preserving the spe-
cies in a small part of its original
range. However, all may not be well
with the grayling. Occasionally the
conservation agencies have been
criticized for expending time and
money on the grayling program.
Usually the opposition to these ef-
forts stems from selfish interest and
a failure to appreciate that the gray-
ling is a native species and deserves
as much attention as our trumpeter
swan, whooping crane or other en-
dangered wildlife. The majority of
conservationists recognize the need
for preserving the native grayling in
numbers that will provide a limited
sport fishery. This is not a job for
conservation agencies only, but a
task that will require the steadfast
support of the conservation-minded
public. Without continued manage-
ment based on sound research, the
grayling may go down in the history
books along with the passenger
pigeon, the Labrador duck and other
extinct species.

21

— 1

22

Montana's Big Game Transplanting Program

by Jim McLucas
Wildlife Restoration Division

Generally, the big game trapping
and transplanting program in Mon-
tana has been successful in bringing
scarce species to a huntable level
in their historic habitats and also in
areas where they were few or had
been exterminated.

Although the program included
movement of deer and antelope ten
years ago, it is now confined, for
the most part, to the rarer species,
mountain sheep and goats.

Mule deer are now hunted in an
area of eastern Montana where they
were not found before 1947. Ante-
lope are being hunted in 30 areas
where native antelope were not pres-
ent at the time of transplant releases,
and are also found in nine other
areas where small numbers were
augmented by transplanting. White-
tail deer were successfully released
in seven areas of the state.

Mountain goats were released in
seven areas considered to be good
habitat, and hunting permits were
issued for the first goat plant in the
Crazy Mountains north of Livingston
in 1953. Several more goat release
sites will probably support hunting
within a few years.

Mountain sheep trapping and
transplanting was carried out on a
small scale until the last few years.
The first release of 14 sheep in the
Gates of the Mountains proved un-
successful while two later plants
in other areas were a success.

Mule and Whitetail Deer

Montana's mule and whitetail deer
transplanting program started in the
winter of 1942-43, when animals were
taken from heavy concentrations in
several areas of western Montana.
Over a 10-year period, 1,309 mule
deer and 491 whitetail deer were
released in 13 areas of central and
eastern Montana. At the time of the
releases, deer were rarely seen and
there were no open hunting seasons.

With the aid of good management
and intensified predator control, deer
populations in release areas in-
creased rapidly. Hunting progressed
to a three-day buck season in 1947
to the present 30-day either sex sea-
son, including unlimited non-resident
hunting by special $20.00 permit in
the southeastern portion of the state.

Antelope

Antelope were first transplanted
in Montana in 1945. By 1952, 3,600
antelope were released in 33 areas
where no native antelope existed,
and in nine areas to supplement na-
tive herds. Since then, 3,140 hunting
permits have been issued for the
areas previously without antelope.
Three transplants conflicted with
other land uses and the antelope
were removed after a trial period.

An annual harvest is operated on
a permit basis in the 30 release sites,
and 7,000 permits have been issued
in the areas where native herds were

23

supplemented. In 1945, 1,375 ante-
lope hunting permits were issued.
After 10 years of management, more
than 30,000 special antelope permits
have been issued in Montana.

Mountain Goats

Mountain goats were first trans-
planted in 1941 when 10 goats were
released in the Crazy. Mountains.
Since then, approximately 274 goats
have been issued since then. Sev.
this number, 170 were released in
eight suitable areas, 84 were re-
leased at trap sites for migration
studies, and 24 were traded to other
states in exchange for silver salmon
eggs and Merriams wild turkeys.

In 1943, eleven more goats were
released in the Crazy Mountains to
supplement the first plant. These
animals developed into a huntable
herd by 1952, and 180 goat permits
have been issued since then. Sev-
eral more goat release areas should
sustain hunting within a few years.

Mountain goat releases, in gen-
eral, have been slower to increase
because of the comparatively small
number of animals involved, and be-
cause the goat birthrate appears to
be somewhat lower than that of deer
or antelope.

Mountain Sheep

The trapping and transplanting
program for Rocky Mountain big-
horns has been limited, with the re-
lease of 74 animals since 1942. In
the first attempt to relocate sheep
during 1942-43, 14 animals were
planted in the Gates of the Mountains
m Lewis and Clark county, but their
location after release was never de-

termined. During 1947, six sheep
were released on Wildhorse Island
in Flathead Lake to supplement six
sheep already there. The Wildhorse
Island herd increased to 100 head by
1955, when 29 sheep were taken from
the Island for transplanting stock
in several state areas. More sheep
from Wildhorse will be available for
future releases.

In 1947, the Montana Fish and
Game Department acquired 16 moun-
tain sheep from Colorado's Tarryall
herd for release at Billy Creek in the
Fort Peck Game Range of northern
Garfield county. The sheep were
loosed in a 320-ac.ce pasture where
they were held for two years before
release. These sheep were the nu-
cleus of the first huntable, trans-
planted herd in Montana; five per-
mits were issued in 1955.

Several other areas have been
stocked with sheep in the last two
years, including the Kootenai River
area of Lincoln county, Sixteen Mile
Canyon in northern Gallatin county
and Bull Mountain in Jefferson coun-
ty. These releases are too recent for
evaluation, but the Sixteen Mile and
Kootenai River releases already
show promise of good increases.

At various times, bighorn rams
were interchanged from the Sun Riv-
er, Kootenai River and Gallatin sheep
herds to vary the breeding stock.

Montana's mountain sheep popula-
tion has remained static for a num-
ber of years, but an intensified trans-
planting program is expected to
increase the sheep numbers to a
huntable level in many areas.

24

\ inn

Seldom does a human find a
bear's winter boudoir, but Turner
Atkins of the Flying D ranch near
Gallatin Gateway, Mont., discovered
such a den early last winter. A few
days later, William Shunk, also of
the Flying D, managed to get a photo
flash picture of sleeping bruin.

The bear was asleep near the
cave entrance which extends back
eight to ten feet. After several
flashes had interrupted the bear's
nap, he (or she) decided to change
residence. The bear followed the
men for a few feet after they hur-
ridly left the cave, but showed no
sign of animosity other than object-
ing to the publicity. Changing direc-
tion, the bear went over the hill, ap-
parently seeking a more secluded
suite to resume the winter snooze.

One of nature's countless myster-
ies is the "winter sleep" or hiberna-
tion of certain animals. A number of

species, including ground squirrels,
marmots and bats store up fat during
the summer and fall. When winter
sets in, they seek a cave, burrow,
windfall or hollow log and assume
a condition of reduced body metab-
olism called hibernation. This con-
dition varies in length from a few
days to several months, depending
on the species and geographical lo-
cation. With the retarded bodily
functions, the animal apparently
lives on stored-up fats.

Bears are one of the lucky species
which avoid the unpleasantness of a
Montana winter by sleeping soundly
through snow storms and sub-zero
temperatures. It probably even beats
going south with the ducks. Bears
maintain nearly a normal body tem-
perature and their breathing, timed
at four to five complete respirations
per minute, is about the same as that
of a person in very deep slumber.

DOCUMENTS DEPT.
GENERAL LIBRARY
UNIV. OF CALIFORNIA
BERKELEY 4, CALIF.

Helena, Montana

"Sec. 34.66, P. L. & R

U. S. POSTAGE

PAID
Permit No. 50