Rescuing Rivers

On 04/25/2023, three experts spoke about “The Androscoggin River: Ripe for Renewal.”


Charlie Spies (Merrymeeting Bay TU board), John Lichter (Bowdoin College, Emeritus Prof of Environmental Studies), and Chuck Verrill, Esq. (Maine Rivers president) described the ecological importance of key species in the Gulf of Maine, their critical relevance to having healthy diadromous fish runs in our rivers between salt and fresh water, how dams decimated historic runs of gazillions of fish which fed the entire food chain, and the pending opportunity to finish restoring our rivers. The Androscoggin River was the focus because a big dam in Brunswick-Topsham is up for FERC renewal next year.

Maine has hundreds of defunct or outmoded dams. A few years ago, RESTORE sponsored a screening in Maine of the film “DamNation,” which documents that the only sure way to restore natural fish runs and the vast ecological and economic benefits of free-flowing rivers is to remove dams clogging the waterways.

The experts speaking about the Androscoggin River pointed out that we have done it before in other Maine watersheds, including the Kennebec. We can do it again.

Monitoring the Maine Woods

Monitoring the Maine Woods

On Feb 9-13, I completed my 39th winter excursion in Baxter State Park with several colleagues.

The first day, Thursday, we skied from Abol Bridge to Daicey Pond (6 miles). On Friday, we snowshoed from Daicey Pond to Big and Little Niagara Falls on Nesowdnehunk Stream (2.2 miles). Saturday, after watching a fiery sunrise, we skied from Daicey Pond to Kidney Pond and back (6 miles). We skied from Daicey Pond to Ceilia Pond near the west boundary of the Park on Sunday (5 miles). Monday, we skied from Daicey Pond over hill and dale to Elbow Pond, then south on the Tote Road to Abol Beach and back to our vehicles at Abol Bridge (12.5 miles). Total miles: 31.7.


Baxter State Park is one of the oldest, largest, and most beautiful protected wildlands in New England. It is a good example of the importance of allowing natural processes to reign while people can experience an evolving Northern New England forest in a natural setting.

Over the past four decades, I have traveled on skis and snowshoes in the winter in Baxter State Park more than 1,500 miles. Seeing the park with its winter mantle of snow always reminds me of the power of nature to rejuvenate not just ecosystems, but also the human spirit.

~ Jym St. Pierre, Maine Director, RESTORE: The North Woods

Saving Salmon from Political Extinction

On September 7, 2021, Maine’s U.S. Senators, Susan Collins and Angus King, announced that four organizations in Maine had been selected to receive $900,000 to support ongoing efforts to restore wild Atlantic salmon populations in Maine.

If you did not know some history, this boast by Maine’s senators in Washington, DC, would sound as if they have always been big boosters of saving salmon from extinction. Not so.

In 1993, RESTORE: The North Woods, filed the first petition to protect Atlantic salmon throughout their historic range under the national Endangered Species Act (ESA). For a couple of years, the federal agencies hemmed and hawed despite overwhelming evidence that Atlantic salmon were on the brink of extirpation in the Unites States and the last runs of wild salmon were in Maine.

Meanwhile, the host of a local public tv program focused on Maine issues named Angus King Jr. decided to run for governor as an Independent, despite having no experience in elective office. in 1994, King self-published and widely distributed a book detailing his vision for Maine. In his book, entitled “Angus King, Independent for Governor, Making a Difference,” he did not address the salmon ESA issue directly. However, he did indirectly by promising to streamline regulatory processes. He wrote: “My administration is going to do everything we can to be sure that when it comes to regulation, we aim before we pull the trigger.” (p. 68)

Thanks to a third-party candidate who siphoned votes from the expected Democratic victor, King won election with just over a third of the vote. By the time he became Maine governor in 1995, Angus King was ready to do whatever it took to thwart the listing of Atlantic salmon under the Endangered Species Act.

In 1995, King railed against the ESA listing from the governor’s bully pulpit. In 1996, Governor Angus King warned federal regulators that if the fish were listed, Maine would stop cooperating on salmon restoration efforts. In 1997, he had the state submit a plan to deflect the ESA listing and got the federal agencies to withdraw the proposed listing. He thought he had won the battle.

However, in 1999, the federal agencies admitted the truth: the survival of wild Atlantic salmon was unquestionably endangered in the U.S. and King’s plan was doomed to fail. The agencies restarted the process to list Atlantic salmon under the ESA.

The response from senior Maine officials was fast, furious, and ferocious. Gov. Angus King, in stunningly inappropriate language, scapegoated conservation organizations working to save the salmon from extinction. He raged that the federal government’s science was junk. He claimed that “wild” Atlantic salmon did not exist because they’d been breeding for years with escapees from salmon aquaculture operations. He said there were plenty of salmon at the fish counter of the grocery stories. He even warned that listing the salmon under the ESA would destroy the state’s blueberry, aquaculture, and pulp and paper industries through excessive environmental regulation. 

But he was not alone. At a 2000 hearing in Machias, Maine’s senior U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe (R) said giving the Atlantic salmon ESA protection would be the “economic decapitation” of Washington County. Maine’s other U.S. Senator, Susan Collins (R), hit all the same points. The news media reported that, at the Machias hearing, "Sen. Susan Collins's opening remark that she was 'completely opposed' to listing brought the crowd to its feet...She castigated the feds..." She warned of “serious implications for the aquaculture, blueberry, cranberry, and forest products industries” if the ESA listing went ahead. She said that ESA listing “threatens to wreak havoc on the economy of Downeast Maine.” In an effort to undermine and derail the ESA process, at the urging of King, Snowe and Collins even secured funding for a National Academy of Sciences (NSA) review of the genetic evidence. 

Before the NAS review could be completed, Angus King had one more trick to try. On November 17, 2000,seven years after RESTORE’s original petition, the Gulf of Maine population of Atlantic salmon was listed as endangered under the national Endangered Species Act. On December 7, 2000, Gov. Angus King had the State of Maine sue the federal government in an effort to overturn the salmon ESA listing. 

Meanwhile, the National Academy of Sciences review of the genetic evidence was underway. On January 8, 2002, the Bangor Daily News reported: "Counter to what many top state officials...have long contended, Maine's wild Atlantic salmon are genetically unique, and therefore, worthy of protection under the federal Endangered Species Act, the National Academy of Sciences said in a report released Monday. King and members of the state's congressional delegation in 2000 criticized a federal decision to list the fish in eight Maine rivers as endangered.” The NAS review backed up the federal scientists and refuted the State’s arguments.  

The following year, 2003, a federal court rejected Maine’s legal challenge to the ESA listing. By then Angus King was term limited out of office as governor. The new administration of Gov. John Baldacci decided not to appeal.

In 2005, a recovery plan for the Gulf of Maine Atlantic salmon population was published. During the next several years, from 2006 to 2009, in the face of numerous law suits brought by conservationists, the federal agencies expanded the salmon ESA listing to other important Maine rivers. They also designated critical habitat as required by law.

In 2012, Olympia Snowe announced she would be quitting the U.S. Senate. Angus King was elected to fill her seat and has been in the Senate since 2013. Susan Collins was reelected to the Senate for her fifth six-year term in 2020.

King, Snowe, and Collins were proven wrong on all counts in their opposition to listing the Atlantic salmon under the Endangered Species Act. King, in particular, had scapegoated RESTORE for filing the original petition. None has ever apologized. 

Since Atlantic salmon was listed under the ESA in 2000, federal funding has poured into Maine to support efforts to rescue the species and for habitat protection. Wild Atlantic salmon remain on the brink of extinction in the U.S. but at least the investment of nearly a million dollars announced earlier this month by King and Collins to support efforts to restore wild Atlantic salmon populations in Maine gives the species a fighting chance.

Are Native Americans Lost from Yellowstone Park?

George Wuerthner and Lee Whittlesey 

Smithsonian Magazine recently published an article titled, “The Lost History of Yellowstone,” which features the work and opinions of archeologist Doug MacDonald. MacDonald is the author of Before Yellowstone: Native American Archaeology in the National Park.

You can find the original article here.

MacDonald may be capable archeologist, but his scholarship on Yellowstone’s more recent, human history is seriously flawed.

The article perpetuates the myth that Indians were driven from Yellowstone to create a national park. This is a widespread myth promoted by some academics that view parks and preserves as socially unjust. These advocates include those espousing the “Anthropocene” claim that America’s landscape was “managed” by Indigenous people for” thousands” of years and that “unmanaged” parks and preserves are culturally and ecologically undesirable. The park was established in 1872, before there were more than a very few visitors and before Euro-American people were in place in good enough numbers to do any “forcing out” of Indians.

In his article, MacDonald repeats the tired myth that early park advocates thought Yellowstone was a "pristine" wilderness, and there was no human presence. In general, that was not true; the few (Montana) territorial residents who were visiting or settling in the general region knew that Indians lived in the area---in fact areas in all directions from the north entrance to the park, to which the mass of the original visitation occurred. “Mass” in kind of misleading word, because estimates are that there were only 300 visitors in 1872 and 500 or less during each summer 1873-1876.

He further asserts that the history of human use of the Yellowstone landscape has been "erased," and he, MacDonald, purports to correct that notion.

His assessment is seriously flawed. No such erasing ever occurred. To understand why, one must know the backstory that underlines this article and other similar efforts. The article is emblematic of the attempts of many academics and social justice advocates to delegitimize parks, and other preserves that they feel have harmed indigenous communities. 

There is good reason to feel empathy for the plight of tribal people. Indigenous people have virtually always been persecuted by dominant societies, whether it was the Romans who occupied the homeland of the Celtic tribes, the "Mongol" hordes of Genghis Khan that overran Asia, or the Incas who colonized much of Peru and adjacent regions. The advance of White settlers was disastrous to Native Americans in many ways. 

As the social justice movement has taken off in recent years due to causes like Black Lives Matter, there has also been a corollary effort to demonize conservation and preservation efforts as socially unjust to indigenous communities worldwide, but particularly in the United States. This has included a concerted effort by many in the social sciences to promote the idea that conservation designations such as parks are a form of "colonialism," "imperialism," and social injustice. 

The basic narrative is that the designation of parks, wilderness, national wildlife refuges, and other federal and state lands designed to protect Nature, comes at Indigenous peoples' expense. While it may resonate with present-day social justice movement, this revisionist history is not historically accurate. If this were historically true, we would be among the first to support such a movement. 

Although it may have occurred in some instances in other parts of the world, with regards to national parks in the United States, none were created by the removal of Indigenous people. In every instance, tribal people were relegated to reservations to advance settlement, not to create parks. In this case of Yellowstone, this is particularly accurate. Yellowstone was initially too remote (no railroad within 400 miles of the place) and too little-visited to have been the seat of such a removal.

RESERVATIONS AND PARKS

In the case of Yellowstone, social justice advocates critical of the park take two unrelated events that occurred within a period of a couple of years — the creation of reservations and the establishment of the park —and suggest, based on little evidence, that the first was done to enable the second. Briefly, all tribes associated with the Yellowstone region except for the in-park Sheepeaters (Mountain Shoshones) signed treaties and were relegated to reservations before the park was created. That tribe was very small in number. A few of them elected to leave to Shoshone or Lemhi; others remained in the park, some until the late 1880s. 

There is plenty of room to criticize the treaties and reservations they created during the 1800s. However, none were physically placed on a reservation to make Yellowstone or other national parks. 

Instead, most treaties were designed to reduce intertribal warfare, promote peace mostly among the tribes, and lead to the "civilization" of Native Americans. Later treaties were also intended to make the West safe for eventual white settlement and transportation corridors like railroads and the Oregon Trail. Although many tribes were leery of being left vulnerable to their enemies, some were willing, perhaps reluctantly, to accept the government annuities in exchange for restricting their movements. 

For instance, the Eastern Shoshone attended the Fort Laramie treaty meeting in 1851, hoping to obtain a treaty-defined territory. While the Sioux and other tribes signed treaties, the Shoshone were excluded from the 1851 treaty for bureaucratic reasons—they resided in a different government district. The Shoshone signed their first treaty in 1863 and the second one in 1868. Similarly, other tribes like the Crow signed their first treaty in 1825 and later 1869 (with a ceding of their northern strip in 1880) and the Blackfeet in 1855, Nez Perce in 1855 and so on. 

Many of these original treaties were revised in later years, typically reducing the reservation boundaries. However, these reservations were established long before there any significant white presence in the region and before there was any discussion about creating a national park. 

Except for a few traders and itinerant fur trappers, there were few Whites in the region. Only after gold was discovered in the Northern Rockies in the 1860s was there a significant movement of miners and ranchers into the future states of Montana and Wyoming, and even those populations were very small. For example, Bozeman, Montana, the nearest town to Yellowstone had only 579 residents present for the US Census of 1870 and most other Montana Territory places even fewer In 1880, Bozeman had only 915 residents. Moreover, Livingston, Montana and Jackson, Wyoming did not really exist until 1883; Cody, Wyoming not until 1895-96; and West Yellowstone, Montana not until 1907. In general, towns around Yellowstone National Park did not exist in any significant numbers until the 1880s, and most came along after that.

And despite conventional wisdom, many of these treaties and reservations were created with the intention of “saving” the Indians. Intertribal warfare was common, and one purpose of reservations was to promote peace between tribes by creating recognized boundaries for each tribal group. Except for the 1880 cession by the Crows, the last major treaty revisions occurred in 1868. No additional treaties with Native Americans were made anywhere in the West after 1871. 

In terms of the larger American population, Yellowstone was terra incognita. Though some fur trappers like Jim Bridger, John Colter, Johnson Gardner, and Osborn Russell, among others, did traverse the Yellowstone region, most American citizens did not have a clue there was anything like the Yellowstone geologic wonders. It wasn’t until the first expeditions penetrated the region, beginning with the Cook-Folsom Expedition in 1869, the Washburn Expedition in 1870, and the Hayden Expedition of 1872, that Americans became aware of Yellowstone’s attributes. 

There is debate among historians about who should get credit for proposing a national park, but at least one of the claims is made by members of the Washburn Expedition, which traversed the future park in 1870. But no Native Americans had to be removed from the park because by 1870 they were already living on reservations. 

In the post-Civil War era of Manifest Destiny, it’s remarkable that any lands were purposely withdrawn from resource exploitation. 

PRISTINE WILDERNESS

MacDonald and many other advocates of the Anthropocene movement assert that somehow conservationists are so naïve that they believe wilderness and parks were free of human presence or “pristine” as they like to suggest. Residents and even many of the few visitors to YNP in the 1870s certainly knew that Indians had historically lived in the park and its GYE.

His suggestion in the article that there is a “lost history” of Indigenous people, begs credibility. Numerous archeological studies document human presence throughout North America since the close of the Ice Age. Someone would have to be extremely ignorant of history to be unaware that humans migrated into North America and spread to every corner and ecosystem. 

Given the numerous archeological studies around the region, the idea that humans somehow never ventured into what is now Yellowstone National Park is absurd and, of course, does not even align with past archeological evidence. 

The interesting thing is that the only people I know that suggest landscapes like Yellowstone were "pristine" and were devoid of humans are those trying to discredit conservation.

The idea that wilderness equates with the absence of human presence also demonstrates a lack of scholarship on the part of critics. Conservationists do not assert that “wilderness” must be "untouched" or "pristine," but rather that it is "self-willed." Self-willed means they are influenced mainly by natural abiotic and biotic processes, not necessarily the absence of human presence. 

Beyond this problem of setting up a strawman to knock down, there is an abundance of research and publications that detail the presence in the Yellowstone region of pre-historic and historic humans. These sources refute the assertion by MacDonald that the National Park Service and others have tried to “erase” the Indigenous history. 

For instance, Larry Lahren, a Livingston archaeologist, published Homeland: An Archaeologist's View of Yellowstone Country, detailing the many archeological sites in the area near Yellowstone. 

My book, Yellowstone, A Visitor's Companion, mentions the early archeological record and the more recent historical record of Indigenous people in the Yellowstone region. Forefront books on the subject include Peter Nabokov and Larry Loendorf’s Restoring a Presenceand their Indians and Yellowstone National Park. Many other books on Yellowstone also discuss the prehistoric human use of the area, including Janetski’sIndians in Yellowstone National Park, Haines’s The Yellowstone Storyand both Yellowstone Place Names by Whittleseyand Aubrey Haines’s Yellowstone Place Names: Mirrors of History, along with Hiram Chittenden’s The Yellowstone National Park contain many other reviews that discuss the Indigenous presence. The presence of indigenous people is not "lost history," nor has it been "erased," as suggested in the Smithsonian article. 

Some of the most famous archeological sites in the West are found near Yellowstone. The Anzick Site near Livingston was the burial site of a child dated to 13,000 years ago. A Clovis point was located near Gardiner at the entrance to Yellowstone. The 5,000-year-old hearth found at Rigler Cliff site 5 miles north of Gardiner is well known. There is a big bison jump near Dailey Lake by Dome Mountain, 10 miles north of Gardiner. Archeological remains within the park are located by Yellowstone Lake, in the Upper Yellowstone River, and in Lamar Cave near Tower Junction. Mummy Cave along the North Fork of the Shoshone River to the east records human presence dating back 9,000 years, including a 4,000-year-old mummy. 

Plus, Obsidian CliffsCliff in the park was a favorite mining site for obtaining volcanic glass or obsidian for arrowheads and knives. Indeed, as noted in the article, the Yellowstone obsidian was found as far away as Ohio. And Sheepeater Cliff in YNP has long been known as an Indian vision-quest site or celebration site.

MacDonald proposes the far-fetched idea that the Hopewell people walked 4,000 miles to and from Yellowstone through the territories of numerous hostile tribes to get obsidian. The more logical explanation is that obsidian was traded widely from tribe to tribe. Additionally, tribes that lived in the immediate region---Shoshones, Crows, Blackfeet, and Bannock---had no problems riding their horses into YNP in order to obtain obsidian. 

I mention all those examples because it is well known that Indians were living in and around Yellowstone. Their history is not lost. But MacDonald acts like his "finds" of human use of the park are somehow remarkable and newsworthy.

HISTORICAL RECORDS OF NATIVE AMERICAN PRESENCE 

Beyond the archeological record, we have many historical references to Native Americans in the Yellowstone region. The earliest explorers, trappers, and traders recognized that Native Americans traveled through Yellowstone and surrounding lands. Failure to acknowledge this fact could result in the loss of your scalp or your life. 

From the early trappers to the first expeditions to explore the park, everyone made note of Indians or signs of Indian activity. William Clark, of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, traveled across the Gallatin Valley and down the Yellowstone River and noted signs of Indians the entire way. Indeed, the expedition used Trail Creek, an "Indian Road" to cross from the Gallatin Valley to Paradise Valley along the Yellowstone River. 

While Clark did not go south to Yellowstone, it would beg the credibility of anyone to think that Indians were absent from what is now Yellowstone Park given the heavy use of the Upper Yellowstone Valley by Native Americans. 

John Colter, one of the expedition members, was released from the homeward journey to join a trapping venture. He traveled through the winter of 1807-08 and encountered Indians on his trek around the Yellowstone region, though none while he was crossing the high, snowy Yellowstone Plateau.

Other trappers followed, including Osborne Russell, who kept a detailed journal of his travels. Not only did he talk about trading with Indians in Yellowstone’s Lamar Valley in 1834, but he was also attacked by Indians on Yellowstone Lake and had to walk to Fort Hall (Pocatello) with an arrow in his leg. Osborne Russell had no illusions that Yellowstone was a “pristine” wilderness without humans. 

The first expeditions like the Cook-Folsom, Washburn, Hayden, etc., all reported signs of Indians within the future the park. And in 1877, the Nez Perce shot a few tourists while attempting to evade the U.S. Army on their way through from Idaho to Canada. No one of that era would have suggested Yellowstone was a land absent from Native American presence. 

Both F.V. Hayden and Supt. P.W. Norris ASKED the Sheepeaters and their kin, the Shoshones, to go to one or both of the Reservations (Lemhi at West and Shoshone at South). Some went, but some did not, but what is important is that no one forced them to go. 

Apparently, Mr. Norris was worried about Indians frightening off tourists, but we do not know as much about Hayden’s motives for asking them to leave (which happened in 1871, much earlier than Norris’s). 

All through the 1870s, explorers encountered bands of Indians hunting in the Park, in part, because by that date, wildlife was rapidly being eliminated outside of Yellowstone. During the late 1880s, the US Army, which was occupying Yellowstone, and encountered bands of Indians hunting in the Park. The known encounter between Army and Native Americans occurred in 1889. That 1889 encounter was the last one known. 

THE U.S. ARMY AND THE NATIONAL PARK

Another misleading statement in the article is the assertion that the Army was stationed in Yellowstone "to make tourists feel safer and discourage Native Americans from hunting and gathering in their old haunts." The reality is that the Army was stationed in Yellowstone to prevent tourists from destroying geological features and poachers from killing wildlife, thus degrading the very values that the park was established to protect. The army was actually sent to YNP in 1886, because congress had cut off the funding to pay the civilian superintendents and assistants, not to make tourist feel safe from Indians or discourage Indians (many of whom were still present) from hunting and gathering.

Again, in a contextual omission, the article neglects to inform readers that by the late 1800s, due to market hunting and unrestricted hunting by miners, settlers and Indians alike, even once-abundant species like bison and elk were nearly driven to extinction. Yellowstone was one of the last refuges for these species, and no one — white or Indian was permitted to hunt the park's wildlife. And it was a good thing, because otherwise it is likely that we would not have any remaining elk or bison today. For more on this, see Lee Whittlesey’s article in Montana the Magazine of Western History(Spring, 2020) entitled “Abundance, Slaughter, and Resilience” and his two-volume book entitled The History of Mammals of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1796-1881: A Multi-Disciplinary Analysis of Thousands of Historical Observations (Seattle: Kindle Direct Publishing, 2020. 

This gets to an important point that is ignored by Anthropocene boosters. If you care about more than humans (who, after all, have many more options than most wildlife species), but believe we have an obligation to consider the welfare of all fellow travelers on the planet then parks and wilderness areas are the Gold Standard for protecting biodiversity and functioning ecosystems. 

ERASING NATIVE AMERICANS FROM PARK? 

MacDonald asserts that the NationalPark Service has tried to erase Native Americans from Yellowstone’s history. Yet, place names throughout the park record the presence of Indians. There isare Shoshone Creek and Shoshone Lake, Sheepeater Cliff), Indian Creek, Nez Perce Ford, Bannock Trail, Wickiup Creek, Indian Pond, Absaroka Range, Snake River (Snake) name of Shoshone people) Shoshone River, plus Shoshone National Forest and Washakie Wilderness border the park. At many of these sites, there are informational signs explaining the origins of the names, and as early as 1880 Superintendent Norris erected signs in YNP 

RESERVATIONS AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE WEST

In the 1860-the 1870s, the primary goal of the federal government in the West was to facilitate the settlement of the region. Indians were assigned to reservations not to create parks like Yellowstone but to make the West safe for miners, farmers, ranchers, settlers, emigrant trail travelers, and railroads. 

Think of how the establishment of Yellowstone Park was the antithesis to this goal. Instead of promoting settlement and development, Yellowstone was set aside for Nature, not human exploitation. 

Ironically, some of today's progressives criticize the creation of Indian Reservations and the attempt to “civilize” and transform Native Americans into “respectable citizens” as disrespectful, and some even use the term "genocidal." 

On the contrary, the explicit goals of the 1868 Fort Bridger Treaty with the Shoshone Indians says:

"To ensure the civilization of the tribes entering into this treaty, the necessity of education is admitted, especially of such of them as are or may be settled on said agricultural reservations, and they, therefore, pledge themselves to compel their children, male and female, between the ages of six and sixteen years, to attend school; and it is now made the duty of the agent for said Indians to see that this stipulation is strictly complied with; and the United States agrees that for every thirty children between said ages who can be induced or compelled to attend school, a house shall be provided and a teacher competent to teach the elementary branches of an English education shall be furnished, who will reside among said Indians and faithfully discharge his or her duties as a teacher. The provisions of this article to continue for twenty years.”

Indeed, it was arguably the progressives of the 1800s who felt that the best way to protect Indian people from extermination was to place them on reservations, teach them to read, write, and learn how to farm or learn other trades. 

They argued for reservations based on humanitarian goals. Father Pierre Jean De Smet labored among many tribes of the Northern Rockies between the 1840s-60s. He lamented that "I have seen enough of Indians to convince me of this fact, that they can never exist in contact with the whites, and their only salvation is to be removed far, far, from their presence." 

Similarly, progressive groups like the Indian Rights Association, Women’s National Indian Association, and Indian Citizenship Committee were formed to “civilize” tribe by supporting Indian schools and reservations.

George Bird Grinnell, a staunch advocate of Indian tribes, felt that reservations were necessary to protect Native Americans from extinction and bring them up to civilized standards. 

Today, many progressives generally consider efforts to educate school-age children as “genocide” and “disrespectful” of their culture. However, in contrast to the more common "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" opinion that dominated many Western settlers, these progressive folks, however, misguided we might consider them today, were doing their best to preserve Indian people from extinction. After all in America, public education has always been considered the best way for integrating people into the American culture. 

It would be ironic if because of their attempts to denigrate conservation efforts, future generations will judged today's progressives to be as misguided as the progressives of the 1800s. 

WHAT IF THERE WERE NO YELLOWSTONE?

MacDonald is concerned about the general mistreatment of Indigenous peoples. Yet, most social justice advocates direct their criticism at public lands and protected landscapes. They seldom make the same criticisms of cities and other human development, which had a far greater impact in displacing Indigenous peoples from the most productive and valuable landscapes. 

Indeed, the University of Montana where MacDonald works, and Missoula, where he lives, were once within the Flathead tribal homeland. Still, I do not hear him discussing the social injustice of the Flathead Indians' displacement to a reservation, to make the Missoula valley was safe for white settlement. 

And what if there had been no Yellowstone? Does anyone seriously think that tribes would have been treated any differently? 

Without the park, much of what we know as Yellowstone would almost assuredly have been converted into private ranches, private tourist spas, and timber grants. MacDonald's ability to find undisturbed archeological sites is partly due to the protection of the landscape that the Park’s establishment created. Without the park, I can assure you that tribes would have been relegated to reservations regardless. 

While we can lament the treatment of tribal people, we should celebrate that Yellowstone's establishment has led to the creation of the world's greatest national parks, which isare now part of humanity's global heritage. 

Yellowstone has served to protect many species, including the bison, elk, and grizzly, that were nearly extirpated from the rest of the West. TheYellowstone National Park is the foundation for the last functioning temperate ecosystem in the world. We have come to recognize the vital importance of the intact forests and wetlands of Yellowstone to absorb and store carbon from the atmosphere that would otherwise fuel climate change. And recent science shows what Native Americans no doubt knew intuitively — that access to natural, beautiful, unspoiled nature is good for human health and well-being. This is the timeless legacy of Yellowstone National Park.

AUTHOR BIOS 

George Wuerthner been studying Yellowstone for nearly 50 years. He has published 38 books on national parks and other environmental issues, including Yellowstone—A Visitor’s Companion, Yellowstone and the Fires of Change, Yellowstone in Photographs, and most recently Keeping the Wild: Against the Domestication of the Earth and Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilderness the Foundation for Conservation. He recently worked as Ecological Projects Director for the Foundation for Deep Ecology and Tompkins Conservation, promoting parks in Patagonia and elsewhere. Wuerthner taught as visiting lecturer Alaskan Environmental Politics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, various field ecology classes for San Francisco State University, University of California Santa Barbara, Prescott College, and environmental writing at the University of Vermont. 

Wuerthner was a commercial guide in Yellowstone, a ranger at the Gates of the Arctic National Park and river ranger on the Fortymile Wild and Scenic River both in Alaska, and a botanist for the BLM. 

He has served on the boards and/or as advisor of numerous conservation organizations including RESTORE the North Woods, a group advocating a 3.2-million-acre national park, New National Park Campaign, The Wildlands Project, Western Watersheds Project, the Ecological Citizen, Predator Defense, Gallatin Yellowstone Wilderness Alliance, Montana River Action Network, Gallatin Wildlife Association, Friends of Douglas Fir National Monument, Rewilding Institute, and others. 

Lee Whittlesey’s forty-five-year studies in the history of the Yellowstone region have made him an expert on Yellowstone’s vast literature and have resulted in numerous publications. He is the author, co-author, or editor of sixteen books and more than fifty journal articles. Coming in 2021 is his This Modern Saratoga of the Wilderness: A History of Mammoth Hot Springs (National Park Service). He and NPS Interpreter Sarah Bone have completed their two-volume, thirty-year book The History of Mammals in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1796-1881: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Thousands of Historical Observations, and it was published in late 2020 by Kindle Direct Publishing of Seattle. Forthcoming in 2022 is volume one of his book Stagecoaching Through Yellowstone. In 2015, Lee published a new edition of Truman Everts’s Lost in the Yellowstone, a new edition of his well-known book Death in Yellowstone, and his book Gateway to Yellowstone: The Raucous Town of Cinnabar on the Montana Frontier (Rowman and Littlefield with Two Dot Books). 

Whittlesey served as Park Historian for the National Park Service at Yellowstone National Park for 25 years, and previously served in that park as Archivist, Ranger Naturalist/Interpreter, Law Enforcement Ranger, and in numerous other positions. He has a master’s degree in history from Montana State 

University and a law degree (Juris Doctor) from the University of Oklahoma. On May 19, 2001, because of his extensive writings and long contributions to Yellowstone National Park, Idaho State University conferred upon him an Honorary Doctorate of Science and Humane Letters. On May 3, 2014, Montana State University awarded him an honorary Ph.D. in history. From 2006 through 2011, he served as an adjunct professor of history at Montana State University. Whittlesey retired as Park Historian for the National Park Service at Yellowstone National Park on April 30, 2018. He now lives in the Livingston, Montana area, where he continues working on his latest book, the two-volume history of stage coaching in Montana, Idaho, and the Yellowstone region.

Failing the Climate Change Ultimatum

More than 30 years ago, in The End of Nature, writer/activist Bill McKibben warned that if climate change went unchecked, a warming planet could drive out the coniferous forests of northern New England, and the many native species they harbor. RESTORE board director Jamie Sayen says a third of a century later we are failing the climate change ultimatum.

You can read what he says we need to do here.

Wildlife Crossing Priorities for the Northeast

By John Davis

Safe wildlife crossings are needed on busy roads that fragment natural habitats throughout the eastern United States, to save wild and human lives and wildlife populations. The United States and Canada have opportunities now to modify roads, bridges, culverts and other human-built infrastructure to make it more permeable to wildlife movement even as we make it more durable in the face of climate chaos.  The worsening storms and floods of the 21stcentury mandate infrastructure modifications anyway, and motor vehicle/wildlife collisions are expensive for people, in addition to being disastrous for the animals; so incorporating wildlife needs as we update and upgrade the built environment should be seen as fiscally prudent and ecologically necessary. Installing safe wildlife crossings can also help put Americans back to work.

Most road ecology knowledge so far is general.  Conservationists have good ideas of the stretches of roads most in need of safe wildlife crossings, but have less knowledge about the exact sites where wildlife underpasses and overpasses can do the most good.  There are, however, some very nearly “shovel-ready” projects. We suggest two below, after giving an example of one high-priority general area.

A general high-priority area is the Adirondack to Algonquin (A2A) wildway, linking New York’s great Adirondack Park northwestward to Ontario’s great Algonquin Park, via the Frontenac Axis and crossing the mighty Saint Lawrence River at the Thousand Islands. Canadian conservation biologists are studying the roads on their side of the border most in need of safe wildlife crossings. On both sides of the international border, road density increases near the river. On the US side, it is substantially higher outside the “Blue Line”, the boundary of Adirondack Park. Among roads fragmenting the wildway on the US side and where safe wildlife crossings are most needed are Routes 37 and 11 and 3 and Interstate 81.  Studies are needed to identify where wild animals are crossing, or trying to cross, these busy roads – particularly amphibians and turtles and wide-ranging mammals like River Otter, Fisher, Marten, Bobcat, Black Bear, and Moose. 

The smaller Split Rock Wildway toward the east end of the A2A wildway has at least one known specific site needing a safe wildlife crossing.  Split Rock Wildway is the most secure habitat connection between the biologically rich but fragmented Champlain Valley and the Adirondack High Peaks to the west, through the botanically diverse West Champlain Hills (all contained within the UN-honored Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve). The safest way across I-87 for wildlife in Split Rock Wildway traveling from valley to mountains or vice versa is where the North Branch of the Boquet River flows beneath the interstate highway. Here, the span over the river is broad enough to allow wildlife to pass safely beneath, but modifications to the accidental wildlife crossing would help.  Presently, misplaced fence and repeated all-terrain vehicle encroachment discourage wildlife movement here.  Modifying the fences to direct animals toward the crossing, excluding ATVs, and replacing rip-rap with natural vegetation would make this a friendlier wildlife crossing.

Half a day’s drive to the east, but still within the Northern Appalachian/Adirondack/Acadian eco-region, is a site that ranks near the top nationally for needed safe wildlife crossings.  Where Route 2 (the major east-west thoroughfare in northern New England) goes over the Bowman Divide, in Randolph and Jefferson New Hampshire, urgently needs safe underpasses and an overpass, to allow wildlife to safely cross this increasingly busy road, and reconnect wildlife populations in the Presidential Range with populations in the Kilkenny Range to the north. This is scenically spectacular area – the watershed divide between the Connecticut and the Androscoggin Rivers -- with tens of thousands of sightseers driving Route 2 every summer and autumn and admiring the highest mountains in the Northeast, so a wildlife overpass with educational signs here could be a real showpiece and source of education on the wider need for safe wildlife crossings.  The late great conservationist James Meiklejohn, head of Randolph’s Conservation Commission for many years, worked for decades to convince the NH Department of Transportation to install safe wildlife crossings here.  NHDOT was interested and in principle supportive, and biological studies have been done to confirm the importance of the Bowman Divide for animal movement; but money still has not been allotted to build the needed wildlife structures. Randolph’s human population is strongly supportive of land and wildlife conservation, so land-owner support may be expected here.

The Interstate Highways that fragment forests of northern New England and New York – including 87, 89, 91, 93, and 95 -- should be retrofitted with overpasses and underpasses in key wildlife movement areas that provide safe crossings for roaming animals. Sometimes this is most simply done where streams flow beneath the highways, and modifications of existing bridges may suffice.  With most wildlife crossings, fencing is needed to funnel the animals to the safe places.

In short, the tragedy of road-kill – which is played out on American roads millions of times a day – can be turned into a job-creating, life-saving nation-wide effort at coexistence. The state and federal transportation agencies should work quickly but carefully with biologists and naturalists to identify places animals are trying to cross roads, and install the infrastructure that will allow safe passage. Engineers can, as they are emplacing wildlife crossings, also make our human-built infrastructure more durable for the century of climate chaos we’ve entered.

John Davis is executive director of The Rewilding Institute and editor of Rewilding Earth, as well as a board director of RESTORE: The North Woods.

Misinformation Raging Like Wildfire

By George Wuerthner

With large fires still raging around the West, we can all feel empathy for those who lost their homes and even entire communities and all of us suffering from the smoke.

Still, there is a lot of smoke and mirrors about the blazes and their cause.

The timber industry, Forest Service, and forestry schools are quick to suggest that logging can reduce large blazes. Rushing to log forests will not solve the problem; indeed, it can worsen it. More subsidized logging takes funds away from solutions that can protect communities.

First, we must address many of the misguided information.

1. Climate change is driving much of the massive blazes we are experiencing in the West. Higher daily temperatures, extreme drought, low humidity, and high winds resulting from climate change exacerbate vegetation’s flammability. Severe fire weather is driving large blazes, not fuels.

2. The idea that Indian burning kept fuels low, hence prevented large stand replacement blazes, is an exaggeration. The fire intervals recorded in charcoal studies and other methods have shown that large fires were always occurring before the advent of Euro American occupation.

3. You can only get a massive fire when the weather conditions are favorable. It doesn’t matter who or what is the source of ignitions. Indians could not burn much of the landscape because most of the landscape does not burn unless you have extreme fire weather conditions—which do not occur in most years.

4. The majority of plant communities in the West have long “intervals” of hundreds of years between significant blazes. The Douglas fir forests on the west slope of the Cascades now burning in Oregon tend to have natural fire intervals of 300-500 years. Fire suppression has not altered the natural fire cycle at all.

Most plant communities, including lodgepole pine, aspen, sagebrush, juniper, high elevation fir forests, and so on tend to experience fires hundreds of years apart. During this period, they are accumulating fuels, but that is the natural consequence of their ecology, not fire suppression.

Consider that the 1910 Burn of Idaho and Montana that charred over 3.5 million acres occurred long before “active fire suppression.”

5. High severity fires do not destroy forests. They rejuvenate them. Large fires create much-needed habitat for numerous species. Some studies suggest up to 2/3 of all wildlife species depend on the snag habitat and down logs that result from such blazes.

6. Winds are the driving force in all large fires. Over the past three decades, I’ve traveled all over the West to view the aftermath of larger blazes in New Mexico, Colorado, Idaho, Washington, Nevada, Wyoming, Montana, Oregon, and California. In every instance, with no exceptions, high winds were the essential and critical variable.

When you have high winds, it blows embers over and through any “fuel reduction” projects. That is why fires like the 2017 Eagle Fire in Oregon was able to cross a mile and a half of the Columbia River to ignite fires in Washington. Many other fires are crossing 16 lane freeways, clearcuts, and other areas with little or no “fuel.” The idea that we can preclude large fires by more “active forest management” is pure delusion.

7. Indeed, active forest management can contribute to more massive and more severe fires because it opens up the forest to greater drying and more wind penetration. One recent study reviewed 1500 fires around the West and found the highest severity blazes occurred in areas with “active forest management” while protected landscapes like wilderness areas where presumably fuels were higher, burned less intensely.

Plus, after logging, you enhance the growth of shrubs, grasses, and small trees, which are the fine fuels that carry fires. Removing large trees as advocated by the timber industry is a false solution since large trees do not readily burn—instead is it is the small fuels like needles, small branches, and cones, which are the primary fuel for fires. That is why you have snags left after a fire—the large boles do not burn efficiently.

In many cases, forest management has increased the fire frequency, not reduced it. There is a direct correlation between roads (which are built to log the forest) and an increase in human ignitions.

8. Much of what is burning in the massive California fires and elsewhere in the West is not forested, but chaparral, grasslands, sagebrush, and other non-forested habitats. So “active forest management” would have no influence upon much of the acreage currently in flames.

9. We cannot preclude large fires through forest management, but we can reduce the impacts on humans. An emphasis on reducing communities’ flammability, planning escape routes, burying power lines, and other proven measures can reduce human suffering.

10. The ultimate cause of these massive conflagrations is climate change. We need to address the causes of global climate change and make this a national priority.

Trumping Environmental Laws

In June, President Trump ordered federal agencies to bypass requirements of some of the country's most significant environmental laws to fast-track big development projects.

The legality of the directive is questionable. It would suspend requirements for compliance with the Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, and other laws. It would also shut out input from those affected by such projects and it would block considerations of the value of birds, wildlife, tribal interests, community impacts. RESTORE has joined with other conservation groups in opposing Trump’s wrecking crew.

Read the letter.