Yellowstone ScienceA quarterly publication devoted to the natural and cultural sciences

Number 1Volume 3

Wolves for YellowstoneA Barbee RetrospectiveMaking Bears BehaveGYE Brucellosis

The arrival of the first wolves in Yel-lowstone adds another element of inter-est and complexity to our upcoming ThirdBiennial Scientific Conference on theGreater Yellowstone Ecosystem, to beheld September 24-27 here at MammothHot Springs. This conference, entitled"Greater Yellowstone Predators: Ecol-ogy and Conservation in a ChangingLandscape," has ambitions beyond thewell-known large carnivores that get mostof the headlines.

Invitation to submit an abstract (seepage 21 for details) is extended to anyonestudying any animal that eats any otheranimal. Too often, at least in most popu-lar portrayals of wild settings, the only

consumers the public hears about are thelarge ones, the ones that look best oncolor posters and T-shirts, or the oneswhose management is the most contro-versial. And, though the arrival of thewolves reminds us of just how significant(ecologically and socially) those big ani-mals can be, Yellowstone provides uswith countless other examples of preda-tory appetites that are important to thisecosystem. Fish, birds, reptiles, and am-phibians all prey on a variety of smalleranimals, and all of us, whatever species,seem to have at least a few insects afterus.

Recent research has also revealed anearly incredible complexity among Yel-

lowstone scavengers, too. Dozens ofspecies of animals, ranging from the larg-est grizzly bears to tiny beetles, take theirshare of each elk carcass. Our goal forthis conference is to have as much of thatspectrum of appetites represented as theavailable information permits.

There is more to this than the ecologi-cal setting, though. The social sciences,from archeology to environmental his-tory to wildlife economics, have impor-tant contributions to make to our under-standing of predators and how they fit ina rapidly changing modern world. Wehope to hear from many of these disci-plines in September.

PS

Predators

Yellowstone ScienceA quarterly publication devoted to the natural and cultural sciences

Volume 3 Number 1 Winter 1995

Table of Contents

Yellowstone Science is published quarterly, and submissions are welcome from all investigatorsconducting formal research in the Yellowstone area. Editorial correspondence should be sent tothe Editor, Yellowstone Science, Yellowstone Center for Resources, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone

National Park, WY 82190.

The opinions expressed in Yellowstone Science are the authors' and may not reflect eitherNational Park Service policy or the views of the Yellowstone Center for Resources.

Copyright © 1995, the Yellowstone Association for Natural Science, History & Education.

Support for Yellowstone Science is provided by the Yellowstone Association for NaturalScience, History & Education, a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to serving thepark and its visitors. For more information about the Yellowstone Association, including

membership, write to P.O. Box 117, Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190.

2Aversive Conditioning of Grizzly BearsGreater Yellowstone grizzly bears continue to challengemanagers' skill and ingenuity in the endless quest to keepbears and people at a respectful distance.by Colin M. Gillin, Forrest M. Hammond, andCraig M. Peterson

A Bee in Every BouquetIn September of 1994, Robert D. Barbee completed an11-year stint as superintendent of Yellowstone. A veteranof Yellowstone's most turbulent years, Bob looks back onwhat it all means and ponders where it's all headed.interview with Robert Barbee

Brucellosis and the Future of Greater Yellowstone 15Last September, managers, scientists, and interest groupsgathered for the first regional brucellosis symposium. Thefull spectrum of opinions and positions was represented, andperhaps some progress was made in coming to terms with thiscomplex and controversial disease.by Mark S. Boyce

News and Notes 17Wolves return • Eagle and osprey doing well • New chiefsfor Yellowstone's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service project,Cultural Resources, and Wolf Project • Wild Trout V

8

Editor

Paul SchulleryArt Director

Renée EvanoffAssociate Editor

Sarah BroadbentEditorial Assistant

Ursula WeltmanResearch

Mark JohnsonPrinting

Artcraft Inc.Bozeman, Montana

On the cover: Wolf #7, a 77-pound puppy, in her shippingcontainer the day she arrived inYellowstone. See the story onpage 17.

Opposite: The Crystal BenchPack on January 13, the dayafter their release into the pen.Both photos by Jim Peaco/NPS.

NPS

See page 2

Yellowstone Science2

Aversive Conditioningof Grizzly Bears

Can bears be taught to stay out of trouble?

by Colin M. Gillin, Forrest M. Hammond, and Craig M. Petersoncovering grizzly bear population are twofactors responsible for an apparent in-crease in human-bear conflicts in recentyears. To reduce these conflicts, man-

agement agencies have implemented ag-gressive public programs involving lawenforcement, education, and sanitationpolicies.

Humans have probably encounteredbears in the Greater Yellowstone Areafor thousands of years, but increasinghuman activity in bear habitat and a re-

Well, I love you all loads. We all do.

Winter 1995 3

Bears that receive an easy human foodreward or become habituated to the pres-ence of people may learn habits that aredifficult to break. Generally, managersuse three approaches to resolve conflictsbetween people and bears. The first ap-proach is to remove the attractant, a strat-egy that often works. The second ap-proach is to relocate the nuisance bear toanother part of the ecosystem. Finally, asa last resort, the bear may be destroyed.

Often, relocation of a bear does notprevent the problem from recurring, ei-ther because the bear returns or a newbear discovers the attractant. Some bearsbecome repeat offenders because of con-tinued availability of unnatural food orother attractants, and often these bearsare removed or destroyed.

Public disapproval of the destructionof bears has compelled state and federalagencies to explore alternatives. Onemethod proposed involved the modifica-tion of bear behavior by conditioningbears to avoid humans. This technique,called aversive conditioning, involvesconditioning a bear to avoid people andthe attractants associated with people.

Aversive Conditioning in Practice

During aversive conditioning, a nega-tive reinforcer (for example, the painfulstimulus of being hit with a rubber baton)

Historically, Yellowstone's black bears(above) and grizzly bears (opposite) havepaid a heavy price for their indulgence inhuman foods. NPS photos.

is used while the bear is engaged in unde-sirable behavior, such as approaching acampground to acquire food. Nonlethalprojectiles fired from a gun have beenused with some success to modify unde-sirable behavior of polar, grizzly, andblack bears in other parts of NorthAmerica. In these other places, bearstended to avoid specific sites (backpackcamps, trailer or truck camps, etc.) fol-lowing aversive conditioning.

During a 4-year study, researchers fromthe Wyoming Game and Fish Depart-ment, working with Yellowstone NationalPark personnel, evaluated aversive con-ditioning methods for discouraging griz-zly bears that frequent developments orcampsites. The effectiveness of differentaversive conditioning techniques, includ-ing the use of sound, were evaluated.

Nuisance grizzly bears were captured,radiocollared, and released on site. Bears

engaged in nuisance behavior were thoseattempting to acquire nonbear foods indeveloped areas, or “habituated” bearsthat used areas near people and showedno fear of them. Bears that were knownto cause excessive damage or act aggres-sively were not used in these trials, norwere small cubs.

During actual aversive conditioningtrials, when a nuisance bear approachedan attractant site, an unfamiliar bird callwas played over a loud speaker. Severalseconds later, the bear was struck withthe rubber bullet. Following several tri-als, bears were expected to respond to thespecific bird call alone, fleeing withoutthe rubber bullet even being fired. Tapedbird calls were of species that do notoccur in the Yellowstone ecosystem.

A different bird call was used as acontrol test, to determine if the bear dis-tinguished between calls. This differentbird call was played at a later time, alsowithout hitting the bear with the rubberbullet. Researchers presumed that thebear would ignore this unfamiliar sound.

The same individual bear was testedthroughout an evaluation period to deter-mine if the bear learned from the experi-ence. Researchers fired at bears from thesafety of tree stands, truck cabs, or build-ings. Activities and behavior of the bearwere recorded throughout the trials.

We used two gun systems during test-

Yellowstone Science4

ing, in order to compare differences andprovide an alternative firing system if oneproved inadequate. One gun system em-ployed the Thumper gun, a Model 267Smith and Wesson gas and flare gun thatfires plastic bottles filled with water. Theprojectile was powered with black pow-der.

We also used factory made plastic “BearDeterrent Cartridge” projectiles (AAICorporation, Hunt Valley, MD 21030).The Bear Deterrent Cartridge rubber bul-let was fired from a 12-gauge shotgun.

Tests Using Rubber Bullets

Five female grizzly bears, includingtwo accompanied by their cubs, were usedin aversive conditioning tests from 1986to 1989. A total of 41 shots were fired andbears were hit 27 times.

During 1986, bears at 8 trial sites wereshot at 11 times and hit 6 times. All bearsran from the trial site when fired upon.Generally, bears would not reenter thesite while the researchers were present,and often would not return to the site for2 to 4 weeks.

In 1987, natural foods were plentifuland human-bear conflicts were uncom-mon. The only aversive conditioningused involved two habituated female bearsthat fed near well-traveled tourist routes.

Both bears fled from their immediate trialsites when fired upon, but continued toforage near the road soon after the experi-ment. Due to concerns for tourist safety,both bears were captured and relocated toremote backcountry areas.

Drought and extreme fire conditionsmade 1988 a poor food year for grizzlybears. During 1988, one subadult femaleand three adult female grizzly bears weresubjected to aversive conditioning trials.Bears were fired upon with Thumper bul-lets and Bear Deterrent rounds on 27occasions and hit 19 times. Two adultfemale grizzly bears responded favorablyto the tests by moving immediately fromthe test site.

A third adult female did not respondfavorably during trials conducted on herand her two cubs-of-the-year. They be-gan frequenting lodges and campgroundsnear the East Entrance of YellowstoneNational Park, and obtained unnaturalfoods from a major trail head, horse cor-rals, campgrounds, and an open sewagelagoon. The adult was hit twice withThumper bullets and three times withBear Deterrent bullets during six differ-ent episodes without permanently deter-ring her from test sites. One problemduring tests was human foods and sewagewere available to the bear throughoutaversive conditioning trials.

6

Marilynn G. French Marilynn G. French

Wyoming Game & Fish

Another unsuccessful episode occurredwith an underweight subadult female,lacking upper incisors from a birth de-fect. This bear showed chronic habitua-tion to people and was conditioned tohuman foods. The combination of droughtconditions, overall natural food shortage,and displacement by nearby forest fireslikely contributed to the bear’s depen-dence on human foods. This bear wasstruck with Thumper or Bear Deterrentbullets on multiple occasions and re-sponded each time by leaving the testarea but returning later. Application ofthe aversive agent was determined to beineffective and she was relocated to aremote area.

An exceptional food year for bears wasrecorded in 1989. This was partially dueto a high yield of whitebark pine nuts (apreferred food item) observed through-out the ecosystem. In 1989, no bearswere conditioned due to the lack ofhuman-bear conflicts.

Throughout testing, candidate bearsdisplayed no aggression toward research-ers. In every case, bears fled the generalvicinity of the test site when fired upon,regardless of whether they were struckwith the rubber bullet.

Also, five adult male grizzly bears werecaptured for nuisance behavior duringthe study. Four of the captured males

Among the methods used to move bears from an area isfiring "cracker shells," which explode like a firecrackernear the bear, as shown above. These were not testedin the study described here. The authors experimentedwith a combination of rubber bullets (right), water-filled cartridges, and recorded bird calls that wereintended to condition the bear to flee at the sound of thecall without being shot at again.

Winter 1995 5

avoided humans and unnatural foodsources following their release. The fifthadult male was a 5-year-old that appearedto be in poor body condition when cap-tured. This bear caused extensive prop-erty damage and was removed from thepopulation before aversive conditioningwas initiated.

Behavior Responses of Bears toRubber Bullets and Bird Calls

Prior to aversive conditioning trials,bears were involved in a variety of activi-ties including walking through camps,foraging along roads, or running to anattractant. When rubber bullets werefired, all bears ran from the test site.During 10 of 42 trials, bears showedsome hesitation before leaving the trialsite.

When the training bird call (or bird callassociated with the rubber bullet) wasplayed to the bear without firing the rub-ber bullet, the responses were mixed.During three of the trials the bears contin-ued their activities (walking, foraging, ornursing young). When the control birdcall (or unfamiliar call not associatedwith the rubber bullet) was played, bearsdid not react to the unfamiliar sound andnone fled the trial site.

The rate of response to the rubber bul-

let was usually immediate (41 of 42 tri-als). Training bird call responses werenot as conclusive, as bears either delayedbefore leaving (4 of 8 trials), showed noresponse (3 of 8 trials), or reacted imme-diately (1 trial). There were no differen-tiating responses by the bears during allcontrol bird call trials.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that under someconditions, free-ranging grizzly bears maybe conditioned to avoid specific siteswithin their home ranges. It appears thateach individual bear’s response to aver-sive conditioning may depend on a vari-ety of factors including the level of ha-bituation to humans, level of food condi-tioning, sex and age of the bear, breedingstatus, physical condition, natural foodavailability, and “food-reward” duringaversive conditioning.

We attempted to determine if bear be-havior could be altered following a con-flict with humans by using aversive con-ditioning. We found that providing anunpleasant experience to grizzly bearsonly altered their nuisance behavior tem-porarily. This technique did not appear tobe a long-term solution with the sex andage classes of bears we tested.

It appears that the difficulty in condi-

Special Project Biologists Carrie Hunt and Kirk Inberg of Wyoming Game andFish waiting atop a campground restroom for a problem bear to arrive at acampground where it will be shot with a water bottle launched from an improvedSmith & Wesson gas and flare gun.

Unlike the days of open garbage pits,many of today's bear problems stem frombears eating natural foods, but doing sotoo close to developments.

tioning female bears may be related totheir small and sometimes restricted homeranges. Female grizzlies selecting homeranges in close proximity to humans pre-dictably have a greater chance of encoun-tering humans. These female bears maynot be able to avoid people, and may nothave the option of altering the size orshape of their home ranges if adjacentareas are fully occupied by other grizzlybears. Because female subadults oftenselect home ranges adjacent to or over-lapping their mother’s, their ability tomove to areas where they might avoidhumans is also limited.

Subadult males were not involved innuisance behavior during the study,though this age class has been involved insuch behavior at other times. Youngbears would likely learn nuisance behav-ior from their mothers and one wouldexpect them to be involved in similartaught behaviors. Generally, subadultmales disperse great distances in searchof home ranges that are unoccupied byother bears. By moving to unoccupiedhabitat, the probability of encounteringhumans may be less than that experi-enced in their mother’s home range bychance or they may select poor habitat inproximity to humans because it is theonly habitat available and not occupiedby other bears. If these young bearsbecome involved in nuisance behavior,aversive conditioning may be an effec-tive tool if it is applied during the bear’sinitial encounter with humans and in the

LuRay Parker/Wyoming Game & Fish Marilynn G. French

Yellowstone Science6

unfamiliar surroundings of their newhome range.

In 1988, all individual bears requiredmore than a single treatment, particularlyat different conflict sites. This suggeststhat initially, bears had to be hit at eachsite because they failed to associate thenegative experience from the first sitewith the next site. Following several hits,bears appeared to recognize specificstimuli related to the unpleasant experi-ence at a trial site (truck, tent, or odor) andavoided them at other sites.

One factor affecting success of condi-tioning experiments during 1988 was thesevere shortage of natural foods causedby drought conditions. When naturalfoods are less available, problem bearsare often more persistent and determinedabout acquiring unnatural foods. Duringnormal to good food-availability years,problem bear situations will be limited,provided unnatural food sources are madeunavailable and important bear habitatcomponents are maintained.

Instilling a fear of humans in habitu-ated bears that might otherwise becomedangerous was also evaluated. Bearsinvolved in aversive conditioning dis-played no aggression toward researchers

or the public. In fact, they ran from thetrial site when fired upon with the rub-ber bullet on every occasion, regardlessof whether they were stuck with theprojectile. Even during trials using justthe training bird call, bears generallyresponded by leaving the area. Al-though we were not able to demonstratea correlation between the bears’ behav-ior and a fear of humans, the generalavoidance response exhibited by bearsto being hit with a rubber bullet (andpossibly relating the experience to aunique sound) suggests that if aversiveconditioning is applied often enoughand under ideal circumstances, fearcould be established in habituated bears.

Management Use of AversiveConditioning in YellowstoneNational Park

In some circumstances, aversive con-ditioning may be used as a managementoption to allow bears to exist in areasthey are normally not tolerated. Aver-sive conditioning may well produce“sneaky” bears or bears that attempt toreturn to a site when people are notpresent. Such a behavior change may

help resolve a particular conflict and avoidthe need for further management actions.Examples include changing the activitypatterns of a bear feeding on a roadsideduring the day to nocturnal feeding habitsor conditioning a bear to use areas nearcampgrounds and trail heads when peopleare absent.

We were unable to document when orhow long bears in our study had beenhabituated to humans or how often theywere food-rewarded prior to aversiveconditioning. If a bear returns to anincident site following its first encounterwith humans and is not food-rewardedbut is aversively conditioned, successfulconditioning should be more likely.

Certain situations will generally beconsidered unacceptable for using aver-sive-conditioning techniques due to un-controllable external factors. For ex-ample, aversive-conditioning techniquesshould not be used when human foodattractants can not be removed or madeunavailable, such as sewage lagoons ordumping sites. Therefore, the logicalfirst management response when han-dling nuisance bear problems is to rectifythe cause of the problem, realizing thatnuisance bears are only a symptom. Fur-

The circa-1930 rangers (above left) probably would have appreciated the greater ease of operating and moving the modern trap(above right and following page), but they got the job done despite their primitive equipment.

NPS Photo Archives Yellowstone Bear Management Office/NPS

Winter 1995 7

Kerry Gunther/NPS

thermore, if unnatural food sources can-not be eliminated, it is unlikely that suc-cessful conditioning of problem bearscan be achieved.

Aversive-conditioning techniques willprobably be used most often during poorfood years when nuisance behavior in-creases. However, these techniques arepotentially less effective on bears in poorcondition, which they are more likely tobe in years when natural foods are lim-ited. In such years, areas where bearsconcentrate to feed on natural foods (suchas trout spawning streams and army cut-worm moth sites), should be managed tokeep human activity from displacing bearsto other areas where chances for human-bear conflicts may be greater.

Several adult male grizzlies that werenot habituated to humans and were foodrewarded on only one or two occasionsmay have been conditioned to avoid hu-man attractants. By removing the attrac-tant in association with the trauma ofbeing captured and released on-site, thesebears ceased their nuisance behavior.

From our experience with one smallfemale grizzly, sick or injured bears donot make good candidates for aversiveconditioning. Other noncandidate bearswill usually include adult age-class bearsthat have been repeatedly food rewardedand cubs-of-the-year. Cubs are too small

to safely use these techniques on withoutrisk of physical injury. From a humansafety standpoint, relocation or removalof bears exhibiting aggressive behaviorare generally the most appropriate man-agement actions.

Based on this study, we felt aversiveconditioning should be considered priorto relocating or destroying nonaggressivebears. When nuisance bears are removedfrom areas near human developments,the opportunity exists for reoccupation ofthese habitats and home ranges by otherbears that may be involved in similar ormore serious conflicts. By training a bearto avoid humans at an early period in thebear’s life, coexistence may be attainableeven where human developments haveencroached on bear habitat.

Yearling through subadult age-classbears that are conditioned during theirinitial exposure to humans and humanfood sources are likely the best candi-dates for successful aversive condition-ing. Bears that have never been foodconditioned are also potential candidates.This situation will usually occur in na-tional parks where tourist safety is of highconcern. Bears feeding on natural veg-etation along heavily trafficked roadwayswould be likely candidates.

The concept of aversive conditioningfree-ranging wildlife is relatively new,

with great opportunity for improvementsin methodology and equipment technol-ogy. However, the underlying reason forneeding reaction-oriented managementpractices, such as aversive conditioning,is that humans have encroached on andaltered bear habitat. Therefore, we musttake responsibility for creating situationsthat lead bears into nuisance behavior.Bear management should be primarilypeople management. In areas of pre-dicted conflict between humans and bears,resource management and planningshould include actions to reduce or elimi-nate attractants of bears and limit humancontact with bears in areas determined tobe critical habitat.

Colin Gillin and Forrest Hammond wereemployed as grizzly bear biologists forthe Wyoming Game and Fish Depart-ment during this research project. Gillinis currently at Tufts University School ofVeterinary Medicine, Massachusetts.Hammond is finishing a black bear studyin southern Vermont for the VermontFish and Wildlife Department. CraigPeterson is a psychologist with theVancouver School District, Washington.This article is an abridged version of apaper appearing in Proceedings of theNinth International Conference on BearResearch and Management.

Yellowstone Science8

A Bee in Every BouquetThe administration of science in Yellowstone

This interview is something of a depar-ture for Yellowstone Science. We origi-nally adopted an informal rule that wewould interview only researchers in thisseries, rather than managers. But Rob-ert D. Barbee, who served as superinten-dent of Yellowstone National Park from1983 until his departure in early Septem-ber 1994, has been central in too manyscientific and resource-management is-sues here for us to pass up the chance tointerview him, which we did in late Au-gust. Ed.

BB: Ask me a penetrating question. Youknow, like the journalists who start withsomething like, “Give us an anecdoteabout the West.”YS: Well, Bob, here in Yellowstone,you’ve presided over the largest and most

complex science program in the NationalPark Service. How do you feel aboutthat?BB: It’s neat.YS: This is going well. Let’s try a morespecific approach. In Yellowstone’sunique blend of politics and emotion,with so much at stake and so manycontroversies simmering along, how doyou go about administering a scienceprogram so that it amounts to something?BB: You surround yourself with a bunchof smart people, smarter than you are ifyou’re lucky, and support them, and thenyou hope that they don’t lead you off ontoa rabbit trail.YS: So where’s the payoff? Science isnotoriously expensive, inefficient, andinconclusive. Where’s the payoff for amanager?

BB: That’s a good question. That’swhere things become vague, because atany given time, you’ve got a lot of ques-tions that aren’t answered, and decisionsstill have to be made. Managers likeanswers, and science doesn’t always giveanswers, especially right away.

But look at all the issues we’ve dealtwith in Yellowstone where science isinvolved. Whether it’s geothermal re-source development near the park bound-ary, or northern range issues, or grizzlybears, or fire management, or any of theothers, you have no choice but to get helpfrom science. Look at the gutpile we’vegotten into over brucellosis; science isgoing to be essential in sorting that out.

It might be that the real question is,what’s the alternative? There was a timewhen land managers could make seat-of-

NPS Photos

Yellowstone Science Interview: Bob Barbee

Winter 1995 9

the-pants decisions, but that’s not re-garded as a good idea by most profession-als any more. Science isn’t perfect, butit’s sure to give the best information at themoment, and that’s what you must haveto make decisions, or at least influencedecisions. Without it, you’re falling backon lesser resources, what we hear calledbarroom biology, or even conventionalwisdom, which is often not very wise.YS: So the payoff is that you get some-thing beyond barroom biology and con-ventional wisdom?BB: That’s the payoff, but the payoff iselusive, far more so than most casualobservers might think. Science doesn’tgive you answers, it gives youinformation. Scientists don’t give youanswers, they give you interpretations ofdata.

We must have good science. That said,I can’t overemphasize the complicationsof dealing with the scientific community.First, on an issue of any substance at all,the scientists will almost certainly dis-agree. Sometimes they will gather con-flicting data, sometimes they’ll just dis-agree over what the data means, but as anissue matures, you can be sure that theywill agree less and less. The more com-plex the subject, the less agreement youget.

On the one hand, it’s a comfort to knowthat stuff like that is going on––that sci-entific dialogue is sorting out a complexquestion. But on the other hand, it’s kindof a dilemma, because the level of sophis-tication of scientific inquiry is greaterand greater all the time. Over here youhave scientists producing the kinds ofquantification that goes into making sureit’s valid science, and over there you havethe managers, with little patience or un-derstanding about what goes into it.YS: Hasn’t that changed? Among all thepeople who would be called managers inthe National Park Service, have you seena change, say in the past ten years, in theirlevel of responsiveness to science?BB: Servicewide there is a greater empa-thy and understanding for scientific in-quiry. I have some doubts about how a lotof managers view it, but there has been alot of progress.YS: Now, the cynical manager...BB: Which of course I’m not.YS: Right. But the cynical manager––

and by the way, we don’t know how youavoid cynicism––could point out thatevery time there’s an issue, the advocateson both sides can trot out their own scien-tists to make equally plausible arguments.That kind of stalemate happens with parkissues all the time and all the manager isleft with is some kind of Captain Kirkalternative: to try to intuit himself orherself through the mess by appealing tosome inner wisdom or savvy. How shouldmanagers strike a better balance betweenthe clamor of the scientists and their ownso-called better judgment?BB: They start by keeping in mind thatmost scientists are advocates. Many don’tlike to admit it, but it’s true, and actuallyit’s an admirable trait in them. They putyears of their life into studying someresource, and they care deeply about it.After all that work and time, it just isn’thuman nature to be able to say, “Wellhere’s the science, I’m done, and it’s up tothe managers to decide what to do.” I’veseen very little of that kind of emotionalremoteness in scientists.

A classic example of that was the situ-ation that developed here in the late 1960ssurrounding the pioneering grizzly bearresearch of the Craigheads. Look whatthat did here. The scientists producedtheir work, the managers didn’t agreewith it, and so we had a 15-year war overgrizzly bears.

Or look at the issue of thecross-boundary geothermal connectionsdown here at Corwin Springs [a privatelandowner drilled a well into a hot-wateraquifer a few miles north of the park.Ed.]. We asked the scientists to tell us ifdrilling just north of the park would affectpark geothermal features. What we gotwas a fine big report from the U.S. Geo-logical Survey (USGS) that even theirscientists didn’t agree on, and a sort ofalternative report from our own agency.The USGS report said limited withdrawalof hot water was okay, and our report saidthat no risk at all should be taken. Wheredid that leave us? Well, it left us realizingthat sometimes scientists just can’t an-swer our questions absolutely.

And here’s another important ques-tion: where did that leave the publicimage of science? How many peopleread all this in the news and wonderedwhy we asked the scientists to help in the

first place? Most people have a prettylow tolerance for technical haggling.

But that’s a dilemma that managersand the public are going to have to learnto live with. Maybe the real answer is thatour expectations for science are too great.We tend to want quick, definitive an-swers to complex questions.YS: So if you would write a manual formanagers who find themselves in situa-tions like that, what would you tell themto look for if they want to get the most outof the science they’re spending so muchmoney for?BB: Look for someone you trust. Youhave to find someone you can put confi-dence in, because you know you’re goingto run into these technical quagmires, andyou better have someone to translatewhat’s going on and keep your decisionsbalanced.

I know that may sound like I’m sayingthat someone else is going to do your jobfor you, but how many managers have thebackground or the time to delve into thefine points of some of these highly tech-nical controversies? Take brucellosis.There is an authentic quagmire of techni-cal scientific debate. Some scientists,including our own, hold one set of verypersuasive views, and some others, in-cluding those affiliated with the livestockindustry, hold another. Where does thatleave the manager? Well, maybe I as themanager in that case should just feellucky that I seem to have some scientistson my side at all. That might be morecomfort to me if it was even clear whatmy side was.

The point is, the manager has to be ableto go to a professional intermediary forcoaching and briefing on the fine points.That’s why it’s so important for manag-ers to be dealing with someone they havea great deal of trust in, someone whospeaks the language of science. Thatperson can’t be a technical expert in allareas––that’s impossible––but they cantranslate some of this stuff for you. In mycase, that’s where John Varley [Director,Yellowstone Center for Resources] andothers on the staff come into play.

We have the luxury here in Yellow-stone of having had a full operating sci-ence division, with an administrator who,because of his strong background andexperience as a scientist, has a clue about

Yellowstone Science10

what all these hundreds of scientists whodo work here are up to. His role is towatch my decisions, and when he getsworried, to say to me, do you really wantto do this? Do you realize the implica-tions of this?YS: You make the administration ofscience sound like a pretty complex job.BB: I think that’s true everywhere. I alsothink that sometimes the scientists maketheir own mess. They paint rocks pink orturn rivers weird colors or give us ani-mals with radio collars and ear tags andmissing teeth. In a lot of parks, there’ssort of a backlash against intrusive sci-ence. Maybe that’s because we’ve failedto explain the value of what is beinglearned. We don’t put ear tags in animalsjust for the hell of it. We’re gaining someinformation that we hope is pretty valu-able.YS: Elaborate on this idea that scientistssometimes make their own mess. What’sanother example of that?BB: Well, take computer modeling. Ithink there’s a bee in that bouquet. Inprinciple it’s a great thing, and we all lookforward to the day when it can reallysettle an issue now and then, but that’s notwhere it is today.

There’s this whole notion of cumula-tive effects modeling in grizzly bear man-agement, for example. Scientists tell usabout the quantification of all the com-plex sets of variables out there, that leadsto overlays in a formula that ultimatelycould be factored down to a certain kindof actionable result in the loss of one tenthof a bear or half a bear in the system overfive years. I am highly skeptical of that,and I think most people of the manage-ment mentality are also. And yet I see usheading into it more and more, and I canassure you that science and managementare on divergent paths here. There’sgreat skepticism in offices like mine, anda great infatuation with the science ofmodelling among the scientific people.YS: Are you proposing abandoning mod-eling? That sounds like a return to con-ventional wisdom.BB: I didn’t say it was a return to conven-tional wisdom. I said I’m skeptical aboutwhere it’s taking us. It’s a perpetualmotion machine. It’s a big money sump.I think it’s gimmicky and it may deservemore respect, but I’m telling you that it

doesn’t have that respect in the manage-ment community. A lot of managersmight keep their mouths shut becausethey don’t want to admit how absolutelyignorant they are about all of this newtechnology.YS: But doesn’t the science routinelyoutrun the management? Yellowstonehas probably had about 2,000 researchprojects since you came here as Superin-tendent. It would appear to some thatthere is far more science being done thancan properly be assimilated by managers.BB: Probably true. If you were to ask meif I had even the vaguest knowledge ofwhat half those projects were specifi-cally, I’d say probably not. I have ageneral idea of where we are. That’s whywe have the John Varleys of the world.Even John Varley can’t have his finger onthe pulse of all these things, but it’s gen-erally a value on the plus column to knowmore and more about all the stories thatthis park has to tell. It goes into thegestalt, so to speak. It helps put it alltogether.

So you generally foster a climate thatfavors that instead of being hostile to it.You recall that one of the great criticismsof the National Park Service in 1983 wasthat we were insular in our research pro-gram––that we needed to open it up to theoutside world more, make it more acces-sible to research, not just mission-orientedresearch that would serve some manage-ment need, but pure basic research. Sowe talked about that and basically openedthe doors. That doesn’t mean that any-body who comes along with any idea willautomatically get approved for researchhere––we have to care for the resourcetoo––but we tried to foster a climate thatprovided that opportunity.

One of the real purposes of the nationalparks is their value to science. There arelots of other values, but their value toscience is clear and unmistakable andthey ought to be fostering opportunities.YS: When you arrived in 1983 there wereabout 90 authorized research projectsunderway in Yellowstone. Now there aremore than 300. Does that mean youachieved your goal of fostering opportu-nities?BB: I suppose we did. I rarely hear thecriticism that we are insular, or that weonly allow researchers in here who we

have in our pocket or have absolute con-trol over. All that sort of rhetoric, whichI never really believed anyway, seems tobe a lot less common.

But however many researchers areworking in the park, we still hear lots ofopinions about the scientific issues here.We don’t always agree with them, butthey keep us on our toes. Don’t they?YS: They seem to. During your tenurehere you launched several other initia-tives. The quarterly publication Yellow-stone Science wouldn’t have happened ifyou hadn’t championed it with the Yel-lowstone Association. And we’re now inthe planning stages for the third biennialscientific conference on the Greater Yel-lowstone Ecosystem, which was youridea in the first place.BB: Virtue is not its own reward. John D.Rockefeller’s PR man said that. Thiswhole idea of communication, of gettingthe word out on all this science, whetherit applies to one of our hot issues or not,is very important. Think what an oppor-tunity these conferences have given thescientific community to communicatewith each other, and with the public. I’vealways been a big promoter of that. Wedid it when I was superintendent at Ha-waii Volcanoes, and we were starting itwhen I left Redwoods National Park.YS: You once got a lot of press for sayingthat you can’t even move a picnic table inYellowstone anymore without causing acontroversy. That suggests a dramaticchange in the way business is done in thenational parks.BB: The world anymore is largely gov-erned by process. You don’t just have abunch of czars sitting around. Maybe wenever did, but I suspect once we did to agreater extent here in Yellowstone. In1954, 40 years ago, I suspect the superin-tendent could just say, “This is the way itshall be,” and that was it.YS: Even 20 years ago.BB: Even 20 years ago. I’m not sayingthat the change is all bad, but with all thelegislation and executive orders, and allthe process that stems from them, and allthe people that are perched out thereready to pounce on you if you do some-thing they don’t like, especially if theydetect a vulnerability, science has movedinto the forefront even more. That’sbecause if we find ourselves involved in

Winter 1995 11

litigation, which we constantly are, wehave to be able to say, look, we didn’t justwing this, this wasn’t just a dream we hadone night and we got up in the morningand decided to do it this way. We tried tobase this on the best information that wehad, and that’s within our discretionaryauthority to do. There it is—another votefor science.YS: So given what you just said aboutprocess-oriented decision making, thenhaving good science in any national parkis almost a command performance.BB: It’s absolutely necessary. Some-times I think we try to pin too much on it,maybe try to let it make our decisions forus. That’s where we get into problems.It’s too easy to lay too much responsibil-ity on the information, and not enough onthe manager. We can say, well, youknow, scientists say such and such, andkind of sidestep the issue. But if we’reresponsible about it, and say that this isthe best information we have on thissubject, and it suggests that we ought tohead in this direction with our manage-ment, and we are deciding to do just that,then science is a good tool.YS: How did science help with the fires?At one point it apparently gave you ahuge dilemma.BB: Which was?YS: Don’t you remember your appeal toquit telling the happy-face story? Therewere your scientists and naturalists outthere, talking to reporters and the public,

going on and on with great enthusiasmabout how wonderful fire was, while thewhole rest of the world seemed to see itall as some gigantic tragedy.BB: That was a matter of poor timing.The scientists were right, and were provedright in the spring of 1989, but in thesummer of 1988, people had other thingson their minds. As we said at the time, wehave 50 years to tell the happy-face story,but now we probably better talk about thebrave firefighters. Let’s do the bravefirefighters story now and do the happy-face fire ecology story when all the littlegreen plants are coming up.

And you know, that’s another problemwith how we explain Yellowstone to theworld. We send out confusing signals.The fires are a good example of it. Fire isawful because it threatens all these build-ings and people’s livelihoods and so on,but at the same time, fire plays a role here,it’s part of the system; it’s as important assunshine, rain, and frost and all the otherthings that drive this ecosystem.

That’s where Bill Mott [NPS Directorin 1988] got in trouble. He was trying onthe one hand to recognize that we had todeal with this fire so it wouldn’t burn upa lot of valuable structures. On the otherhand, he pointed out that there’s no eco-logical downside to this fire: it’s part ofthe system, so don’t really worry about it.That’s a pretty confusing message to sendto the public, especially when it has totravel through the simplification filters of

the media.YS: Does this mean that the Americanpublic can’t even understand a complexstory?BB: This may sound crass, but it dependsupon how the message is packaged. Ifyou could sit people down in this roomand work through a dialogue about thiswhole thing for a couple hours, mostintelligent people would probably walkout with an understanding of why firematters so much. But you’re dealing with15-second sound bites by some reporterwho’s interested in divisiveness and highdrama and hyperbole and everything else.I think the media can sway public opinionon these issues, but I also think that if youcan get into a real dialogue with people,they will understand. They may not agree,but they will see that you’re followingsome sort of professional standards, andthey’ll stop thinking that you’re just nuts.YS: But the surveys carried out after thefires suggested that the public wasn’tentirely fooled––that they didn’t just buyeverything they heard on the news.BB: That’s good news, of course, be-cause you’re always concerned about thepublic, including our own internal pub-lic, by the way.

You’ll recall that in June of 1989, wheneverything came up bright green and itwas obvious that the fire ecologists knewwhat they were talking about when theytold their happy-face story, we had Easterin Yellowstone—we had resurrection.

Bob Barbee taking the media heat during the fires 1988 (left); and with Secretary of the Interior Donald Hodel, who visited twiceduring the 1988 fire season (right).

Yellowstone Science12

First, in 1988, the media buried us, andannounced that Yellowstone was de-stroyed. Then, in 1989, on their wayhome from the big Exxon oil spill, theystopped by Yellowstone for the rebirthstory, to celebrate the phoenix rising fromthe ashes. They said the rumors ofYellowstone’s death were greatly exag-gerated, as if they hadn’t been the verypeople to start those rumors the yearbefore. I’m glad they finally got it right,but it was quite a show.YS: What makes things like the fires sohard to explain?BB: I think that people by and large havetrouble with deep time, and with change.We don’t recognize that the way weshould; we could do a lot better job thanwe have been doing portraying that theseare dynamic places where it’s okay to seedisruption, it’s okay to see blackenedforest, it’s okay to see a mountainsidethat’s been ravaged by an avalanche, be-cause that’s how the system works.

I often hear people who visited herelong ago say that it’s not like it used to be.I always say, well, it wasn’t like it used tobe when this conversation started, either,because it changes constantly. The firesjust sort of put it on fast forward. Real fastforward. I’m still not confident there’s agreat deal of support out there for big-timeecological shifts.YS: Another big thing that happenedduring your watch here was wolves, whichwent from a non-issue to almost happen-ing before your departure.BB: I feel good about that, but I’ll feelbetter when the paws are on the ground.Remember that when I first came here, G.Ray Arnett [Assistant Secretary of the

Interior for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks]had just told me that the politics of wolveswas not going to be in my realm, and if Igot caught with even the suggestion ofbringing wolves back here, I would betransferred to South Yemen or some-place like that. We’ve come a long waysince then.

But you know who I give full credit forthe wolf campaign? Bill Mott. He’s theone who pushed that rock off the cliff. Hedidn’t know where the rock was going toland, but he used the influence of hisoffice at considerable personal peril topush that issue into the forefront, and I’mnot sure any other person in our world hadthe power or identity to do that.YS: Some people believe that the bigreports to Congress, Wolves for Yellow-stone I-IV, were the cause of his demise.BB: I suppose you could argue that hissupport for wolves was not career-en-hancing, but he told me that when you’re79 years old, you don’t have to worryabout being enhanced. He wasn’t buck-

ing for a new job somewhere. He waswonderful. We were here to jump in withhim and to take advantage of that circum-stance.

There were a lot of other importantplayers in this too. Lorraine Mintzmyer,with her wolf-education task force. ReneeAskins. Defenders of Wildlife. It’s along list. None of these things happen bythe force of only one personality.YS: Let’s try another very visible Yel-lowstone issue. There’s more and moreconcern that the place is getting too full ofpeople. Can science play a really signifi-cant role in this issue, the way it did withwolves, or is it too social and cultural anissue, so that its sense of direction isgoing to have to come from somewhereelse?BB: Well, scientists can certainly help uswith what they’re good at, and that’sresource limitations and that sort of thing.There is a point at which campgroundsget too trampled, or trails get too beat up,or other resources get overused, and youcan make some decisions based uponresource impact. It’s quantifiable.YS: But the challenge with carryingcapacity has to do with more than directresource impacts. It has to do with thequality of the human experience, anddetermining if that quality is being de-graded by the huge numbers of people weall share that experience with now.BB: Right, and that’s almost a religiousargument. What’s my dogma may beyour sacrilege. And yet, you know, wewere implored by [legal scholar] JosephSax to come forward with the best defini-tion we can of what that experience shouldbe. We’re the professionals, and based

Presidentialhopeful MichaelDukakis visited thepark to view thefires in Septemberof 1988.

President GeorgeBush's June 1989visit highlighted

the "rebirth" newsstories during thefirst spring after

the fires.

Winter 1995 13

on our legislative history and experienceand even some sociology, this is what webelieve. But we don’t do that. We hedgeand dodge around that.

This is an issue that makes nice grist forinterpretive programs and so on, but whenwe’re making management decisions wegenerally dodge it and say somethingindirect, like, well, our fuel capacity isstressed, and there’s no more room at thegarbage pit, and we can’t process anymore sewage, and we have a drinkingwater quality problem, and the road’s toonarrow, and we’re having too many acci-dents. By hiding behind all those specificproblems, we dodge the central question,which ultimately, when you get down tocarrying capacity, is experiential.

Now John Varley thinks that the an-swer is to hire some sociologists to go outand talk to people and learn what theywant and need. My opinion is, that’sgood and I think we ought to do that, butwe pretty much know that public atti-tudes are going to range clear across thewaterfront. Some people think the expe-rience today is an abomination, and otherpeople think it’s wonderful. That beingthe case, how do we decide on the socio-logical trigger? How do we define theacceptable experience, so we know ex-actly when to close the gates? How do wequantify it so that we can announce oneday that sorry, no more people today,because the experience will be trashed ifwe let ten more snowmobiles in, or Xnumber of cars in?YS: The problem is, the longer we wait,the worse the condition that becomes thestatus quo. When you start deliberatingon a subject is when you tend to establish

your baseline, but for all we know the realbaseline should have been 1920.BB: So what are we trying to achievehere with the Yellowstone experience?Some kind of contrast with everyday life?Rediscovery of elemental kinds of things?And why do people come to parks, otherthan to eat some really nice meals and getsome really neat fudge?

Is it our job in the National Park Ser-vice to offer a great contrast to the rest ofthe world, and be exemplars of environ-mental quality? We think so, and wethink that we as an agency should be ableto say something about that with relativeimpunity. But we aren’t. At least not yet,not in any precise way.

We know we’re advocates andspokespeople for an extremely importantgood cause; national parks have a centralrole to play in the future of the globalenvironmental movement. But this is adangerous area because for all our knowl-edge and experience, we don’t dare for-get that we’re public servants, not oracles.

If we try to tell the public what theyshould like, we’re stretching any defini-tion of our authority, and getting into thefather-knows-best syndrome. We haveto be really careful there.

The biggest resource issue in the nextdecade will be how to deal with the num-bers of people. There are more everyyear. How long can this go on? It justcan’t. We decided to deal with it bystarting with winter. We have the sameproblem in the winter time. That’s a littlesmaller bite, more containable, moreconfinable; maybe we can take on thatpart and then, when we’ve sorted that out,we can work on summer. We’re eatingelephants in small bites.YS: What do you see as the biggest issuefacing us ecologically?BB: I think the big ungulates. There is allkinds of heartburn and confusion over thenorthern range and its ungulates, andthough elk have had center stage in thatcontroversy for decades, the future maybelong more to the bison.

It’s an ecosystem problem. We have torecognize that we have a big and verycomplex problem out there, and that’swhat this EIS [Bison-management planEIS, currently being written coopera-tively by several state and federal agen-cies] is supposed to get at least a partialhandle on. But somewhere along the linethere’re going to have to be fewer ani-mals.YS: One of the things that the publicabsolutely hates is when there’s a win-terkill. And yet it’s one of the fundamen-tal processes in wild country.BB: As everyone says around here, deathis a hard sell, and it probably always will

Karen Armstrong, ofEdmond, Oklahoma,

and her daughterMichele, of Rock

Springs, Texas, werehonored as

Yellowstone's 100millionth visitors on

June 22, 1993.

Norris DistrictNaturalist SandySnell-Dobert, BobBarbee, andSecretary ofInterior BruceBabbitt talkingwith a park visitor,May 1994.

Yellowstone Science

be. It’s another example of too muchhappening at once. The public generallycan appreciate seeing a predator take aprey, and understands intellectually theinterrelationship of predators and prey,and how they support each other. Butwhen the system makes a major correc-tion, like 900,000 acres of fire, or severalthousand dead elk, that’s too much atonce.

When I first came here, I called JackAnderson, the superintendent in the late1960s and early 1970s, just to sort of sayhello. Jack was retired by then, living inOregon. I asked him if he had any advice.Jack said, “Oh, you know, I don’t havemuch to offer to you except one thing.Sooner or later you’re going to have a bigwinterkill up there. There’s going to bedead elk all over the place, 5,000 of thembetween Mammoth and Cooke City, andall hell’s going to break loose. My adviceto you is just hunker down. Becauseyou’re going to catch it.”

And that’s what we did in 1989, and it’sgoing to happen again and again, as longas we have the kind of large elk herds wehave now, and that this place seems to beable to support. Maybe it will be nextwinter, or two or three or four winters, butthere’s going to be another big winter andall these cow elk, these bags of boneswith no teeth that have managed to limpthrough winter after winter, are going todie. And it will not be a pretty sight. Butthat’s the way it is because winter’s thegreat predator. You know there’s goingto be a lot of happy grizzly bears in thespring. And magpies and ravens andcoyotes. And wolves, I presume.YS: If that’s the dark side of the future,what’s the bright side?BB: The ecological health of Yellow-stone is arguably better today than it hasbeen any time in this century. We’vecleaned up our act. We don’t have gar-bage dumps, and we don’t have bearswith their rear ends sticking out of gar-bage cans. We don’t have roads up Peli-can Valley and down to Heart Lake and ina lot of other places that most peopletoday don’t even realize there used to beroads.

Our overnight capacity––what theconcessioners used to call the pillowcount––hasn’t increased for more than20 years, and I don’t think it ever will

Bob and Carol Barbee

14

again. The people who do stay hereovernight are more contained, and do lessharm to the natural setting than a lot fewerpeople used to. As far as disturbing thislandscape, we probably reached our peaksome time in the 1940s or so.

It’s hard for people today to believewhat went on here in the past. I talked tosomeone the other day whose father usedto work at the Indian Creek slaughter-house. This park was covered with uglylittle developments. There were dairyherds all over the place, and huge num-bers of horses eating grass that the elkwere supposed to get. There were dumpsbehind every tree, poor sewage disposal,all kinds of things that would never betolerated today. The progress here hasbeen enormous.YS: Going to miss Yellowstone?BB: Yes. Big time. In fact I’m strug-gling with that right now.YS: What are you going to miss most?BB: The people, the place. Mount Evertsin the morning. Tim Hudson [Chief ofMaintenance] coming in with his hatcocked telling me about the latest sewagespill or some other godawful situation.Varley, Schullery, you know, the works.Wolves.

Life is full of beginnings and transi-tions and endings. I do feel fairly goodabout Yellowstone and where it is and thepeople that have been working hard on allthese issues. And sure, there’s someunfinished business here. Nothing is everfinished here, it’s one endless continuum.YS: Is there a single thing or handful ofthings that you feel most pleased about?

BB: I hate questions like that.YS: Would you answer it anyway?BB: We removed almost all of a majorpark development, Fishing Bridge. Itwas a 5-year bloodbath in the politicalarena, but it may be the only time in theadministration of the Endangered Spe-cies Act that something like that hap-pened; not merely not building some-thing new, but actually taking down some-thing that existed.

We ought to feel pretty good aboutwolves, and that we’re dealing with thebison issue. The interagency coopera-tion on bison and brucellosis is a remark-able step after so many years of little orno progress.

We’ve put tremendous effort into in-frastructure issues here. That isn’t a sexyscience issue, but it’s important. Thefacilities were absolutely coming downaround our ears here, and through a tre-mendous effort with a great concessioner,and appropriations from Congress and soon, we really brought that whole thingaround. We saved the Lake Hotel, whichwas virtually collapsing.

We’ve got the Yellowstone Center forResources going, accenting resources,recognizing the importance of our natu-ral and cultural resources organization-ally.

Lots of other things. Outfitter policiesthat make sense. We’ve got abackcountry-management plan perchedon the edge of happening. By mostaccounts we have reason to be cautiouslyoptimistic about the grizzly bear and itssurvival. Lots of good stuff.

Winter 1995 15

the disease because existing technologydoes not provide a means by which bru-cellosis can be eliminated from free- rang-ing herds of bison and elk. The onlyalternative by which the USDA mightpossibly accomplish its eradication ob-jective given existing technology is bydepopulation of elk and bison from theGYE. Depopulation means slaughteringevery elk and every bison over 18 millionacres of the GYE––perhaps more than100,000 elk and 4,000 bison! Given thelearned migratory behavior of elk herdsin the region, centuries would be requiredbefore the GYE would recover from sucha drastic management scheme.

It is frightening to realize that thereexists a precedent. During the 1920s,more than 22,000 deer were destroyed inthe Stanislaus National Forest of Califor-nia to control foot and mouth disease.Happily, according to Robert Keiter, pro-fessor of law at the University of Utah,the USDA’s Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service (APHIS) does not ap-pear to have jurisdiction over wildlifewithin Yellowstone National Park.

Dr. Paul Nicoletti (University ofFlorida) and I shared the responsibility of

summarizing the recent NationalBrucellosis Symposium that immediatelypreceded a meeting of the Greater Yel-lowstone Interagency Brucellosis Com-mittee, September 28-29, 1994. The con-ference included 34 papers given duringtwo days. There were presentations frompoliticians, ranchers, bureaucrats, epide-miologists, wildlife biologists, and vet-erinarians. The governors of Wyoming,Montana, and Idaho gave presentations,as did high-level representatives from theU.S. Departments of Agriculture and In-terior.

Universal among the presentations bypoliticians and bureaucrats was a themeof how important it was for agencies andinterest groups in the GYE to cooperateand compromise to resolve the brucello-sis problem. Repeatedly, we were toldhow, given the apparent conflicting inter-ests of the livestock industry and wildlife,it will be necessary for all parties to yieldin some way in order to permit closure tothe problem of brucellosis in the GYE.

Another theme emerging from the sym-posium was the party line expressed byadministrators representing the USDA.Repeatedly, we were told that APHIS

Brucellosis is a bacterial disease thatinfects a diversity of wild and domesticanimals, and can cause serious, but easilytreatable, disease in humans. In particu-lar, Brucella abortus is a bacterium thatinfects cattle often resulting in abortionof calves. The disease is usually trans-mitted through ingestion of milk or pla-cental fluids. Since the 1930s the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA) hassupported an aggressive program to eradi-cate brucellosis from the United States;overall the program has been highly ef-fective at virtually eliminating the threatof the disease in domestic livestock. Asof 1994, only 200 livestock herds in theUnited States are known to harbor thedisease. Protocol for eradication entailstesting cattle herds in which the diseasehas been found, and slaughtering all thattest seropositive for antibodies to the dis-ease. If the disease persists, the entireherd of cattle must be slaughtered.

The bane of the brucellosis eradicationprogram is, however, that bison and elk inthe Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem(GYE) carry brucellosis and serve as areservoir for the disease. Thus, it wouldappear virtually impossible to eradicate

Summary of the National Brucellosis SymposiumSeptember 27-28, Jackson, Wyomingby Mark S. Boyce

Brucellosis and the Futureof Greater Yellowstone

Yellowstone Science

was going to accomplish brucellosis eradi-cation by 1998. Over the years, the fed-eral government has invested $3.5 billionin their mission to eradicate brucellosis,and to fail now, when so close to finishingthe task, would to the minds of thoseinvolved constitute squandering of thisinvestment. We were told repeatedly byofficials from the USDA (but not scien-tists) that this goal of eradication by 1998was practical and feasible, and that itwould happen.

We were reassured by representativesfrom the Fund for Animals and the Na-tional Park Service that brucellosis was anon-problem. Brucellosis exists in wild-life, but does not seem to present a seriousproblem for wildlife populations. Reso-lution of the problem, in this view, shouldnot be too difficult if we can simply avoidcontact between potentially infected wild-life and livestock during critical times ofthe year.

But we were all taken aback by a rancherwho dug in his heals and warned us thatcompromise was not on his agenda. Heemotionally made a plea to the audiencethat rancher’s livelihoods were threat-ened by brucellosis, or at least by therules established by APHIS regulations.These regulations require extraordinaryexpenses for brucellosis testing and quar-antine before any interstate shipment.The livestock industry is clearly veryconcerned. They are concerned becauseof a growing public intolerance of live-stock grazing on public lands, and be-cause of the serious risks associated withthe Uniform Methods and Rules imposedby APHIS (curiously there seemed to belittle concern about the risks associatedwith the disease itself).

Is there a comfortable solution to thisproblem? I believe so, and it requires thatwe step back to look at the big picture.We must recognize the extraordinarynatural values of the GYE. But we mustalso acknowledge that we have 5.5 bil-lion people on the planet. An appropriatemodel for sustainable development canbe conceived for the GYE. Indeed, Ibelieve that it is possible to have ranchingand wilderness in the region. It may notbe necessary to eliminate livestock fromthe GYE, because we can modify live-stock use to minimize risk of transmis-sion of brucellosis from wildlife to live-

stock. We know how.The federal agency representing live-

stock interests, the USDA, sent its chiefspokesperson, Lonnie King, to advisethat the status quo is not good enough. Heinsisted that there absolutely must becompromise and we cannot permit thesituation to remain as it stands today. Noone at the conference proposed clear reso-lution to the problem, but it was clear thata number of things could be accomplishedthat would greatly alleviate the threat(whether real or perceived) of brucellosisin the GYE. These changes from thestatus quo will require compromises byall parties involved.

It was my reading of the symposiumthat action on the following objectivescould substantially reduce the problem ofbrucellosis in the GYE.1. Livestock at risk on elk and bisoncalving grounds should be appropriatelymanaged so as to minimize the possibil-ity of transmission of brucellosis. Forexample, Grand Teton National Park al-lows cattle grazing in the Elk Ranch Res-ervoir area while elk calving is in progress.Similar cases exist throughout the GYE,and these situations could be modified ifagencies would adopt strict policies tominimize risk of transmission.2. Reduce and eliminate elk feedgroundswherever possible. Concentration of elkat feedgrounds facilitates transmission ofthe disease. Dr. Tom Thorne indicatedthat brucellosis is not sustained in elkpopulations except when concentratedby winter feeding.3. Manage winter habitats for wildlife,and to keep wildlife away from cattle.4. Reduce the high bison population inYellowstone National Park by reducingsnowmobile winter recreation in Yellow-stone National Park. Improved access toforaging areas by bison afforded by travelalong groomed snowmobile routes ap-pears to have resulted in a large popula-tion size that increases the likelihood of asubstantial exodus of bison from the parkin the future (Dr. Mary Meagher’s pre-sentation). Permitting continued snow-mobile trail disruption of ecological pro-cesses in Yellowstone would appear to beinconsistent with park policy.5. Vaccinate livestock in all ranges withinthe GYE. This would seem to be areasonable price to pay for imposing ex-

16

otic ungulates on this largely wild land-scape.6. More money must be allocated to-wards research on the epidemiology ofbrucellosis and the development of oralvaccines. Several participants in the sym-posium indicated that the risk of trans-mission from wildlife to livestock wasseriously exaggerated, but sufficient datado not exist to evaluate this risk. Avaccine for brucellosis in bison does notexist.7. Modify the USDA’s unrealistic objec-tive to eradicate brucellosis from theUnited States, and acknowledge thateradication is not feasible given currenttechnology. Management of the diseaseis certainly feasible, and much can bedone. But having an unrealistic objectiveinterferes with making true progress withbrucellosis management in the GYE.8. Reevaluate APHIS’s Uniform Meth-ods and Rules with an eye towards realis-tic disease threats, and an appreciation ofthe esthetic value to wildlife resources inthe GYE. It is not clear that we mustslaughter every bison that leaves thepark—even if it is infected with brucello-sis. Treatment may be expensive, but it iscertainly possible. If animal-rights groupsfeel strongly enough about saving thelives of these animals, perhaps they willfinance alternatives to the draconian Uni-form Methods and Rules.

Compromise on the part of agencies,ranchers, and interest groups is possiblein the GYE in a way that will make thebrucellosis problem manageable. Butthere is one thing that we must not com-promise: the GYE is a global treasure.We must keep it forever really wild andreally wonderful. Priorities for livestockmanagement must not take priority overthat need within the GYE.

Mark S. Boyce is Vallier DistinguishedProfessor of Quantitative Ecology at theUniversity of Wisconsin-Stevens Point,and has conducted extensive research onGYE issues. He is the author of TheJackson Elk Herd (1989), and co-editorof North American Elk: Ecology, Be-havior and Management (1978, with L.D.Hayden-Wing) and The Greater Yellow-stone Ecosystem: Redefining America’sWilderness Heritage (1991, with R.Keiter).

Winter 1995 17

Though the media in the Yellowstoneregion have covered the arrival of wolvesintensively, some of our more far-flungreaders may not have access to such abun-dant information, so we provide here anoverview of events of the past few months.

After what may have been the mostextensive public-involvement process inthe history of the Endangered SpeciesAct (ESA) and the National Environ-mental Policy Act, the final Environmen-tal Impact Statement (EIS) on “The rein-troduction of gray wolves to Yellow-stone National Park and Central Idaho”was released to the public on April 14,1994. The EIS proposed establishingexperimental populations of wolves inboth areas. The Idaho reintroductionwould be achieved through “hard release,”that is simply letting the animals go in theappropriate area. The Yellowstone rein-troduction would be achieved through a“soft release” involving a period of sev-eral weeks in acclimation pens. Recov-ery for each population is defined as thepresence of 10 breeding pairs of wolves(about 100 individuals in 10 packs) forthree successive years. Recovery in Yel-lowstone is anticipated by the year 2002.A summary of the plan and the full EISare available from the U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service, P.O. Box 8017, Helena, MT59601.

The Record of Decision, which ini-

to arrive in late November or early De-cember, but on November 25, the Moun-tain States Legal Foundation, the Ameri-can Farm Bureau Federation, and theFederation’s Montana, Wyoming, andIdaho affiliates filed suit with the U.S.District Court in Wyoming, asking for apreliminary injunction. Such injunctionsare intended “to prevent immediate andirreparable injury” and “to preserve thestatus quo until the case can be consid-ered in its entirety.” The attorneys for theplaintiffs argued, among other things,that the USFWS and NPS were ignoringevidence that native wolves still survivedin the two areas, that the introduced Ca-nadian wolves are not the appropriatespecies for the area, that private landown-ers were not adequately consulted, andthat the USFWS and the NPS initiatedwolf recovery efforts prior to the conclu-sion of the public comment period (bybeginning purchase and construction ofacclimation pens).

Delays resulting from this court actionrequired trappers in Alberta to releasesome already-captured wolves,radiocollaring them so they could be re-located quickly. On January 3, U.S. Dis-trict Court Judge Downes denied themotion for a preliminary injunction. Hedid not address the arguments of the plain-tiffs regarding the various actions of theUSFWS; that is, he did not decide on therightness or wrongness of these argu-ments and accusations. Instead, he fo-cussed on the issue of irreparable injury,reasoning that was the central issue at thisstage, and the principal justification foran injunction.

Judge Downes concluded as follows:"The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments,concerning irreparable injury,unpersuasive. Plaintiffs offered only fearand speculation of some livestock depre-dation in the indefinite future. Plaintiffs’reliance upon anecdotal evidence fromthe turn of the century is insufficientwhen confronted with the Defendants’persuasive scientific testimony that thepresent circumstances surrounding theYellowstone and central Idaho ecosys-tems are markedly different from those inearlier times."

Upon learning of the ruling, UnitedStates and Canadian trappers and otherstaff resumed operations, recapturing

Bringing the first wolf to the Crystal Bench Pen:left to right, Yellowstone Wolf Project Leader MikePhillips, Maintenance Foreman Jim Evanoff, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Director Mollie Beattie,the wolf, Superintendent Mike Finley, and Secre-tary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt.

tiates the process of reintroduction, wassigned by Secretary of the Interior Bab-bitt on June 15, 1994, and by Secretary ofAgriculture Espy on July 19. Draft spe-cial regulations (as required by the ESA)for conducting reintroduction operations,were published in the Federal Register onAugust 16, and formal public hearings onthe regulations were held during the 60-day public comment period. On Novem-ber 15, Assistant Secretary of the Interiorfor Fish, Wildlife and Parks George T.Frampton signed the final regulations forestablishment of the Idaho and Yellow-stone experimental populations, and theseregulations were published in the FederalRegister on November 22.

Three acclimation pens (each more thanan acre in size, and each half a mile to amile from the nearest road) were built onsites near or in the Lamar Valley. Coop-erative efforts between the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS), the NationalPark Service (NPS), and the Alberta Min-istry of the Environment, Fish and Wild-life Branch, were undertaken to livetrapwolves from western Alberta.

Original plans were for the first wolves

&notesNEWSWolves Arrive: Legal Challenges Continue

Jim Peaco/NPS

News & Notes

Yellowstone Science

&notesNEWS

18

some wolves and capturing others. OnJanuary 11, as the first load of 12 wolvesbegan their airplane trip south, the samegroup filed an appeal with the U.S. Courtof Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Den-ver), requesting a “temporary stay” toblock the wolf reintroduction. The Courtgranted this stay, which was to last until5:00 p.m. on January 13, unless extendedby the court.

The first 12 wolves, each in its ownmetal shipping container, had been trans-ported by air from Hinton, Alberta, toEdmonton, Alberta (where they passedthrough Canadian customs), and fromthere to Great Falls, Montana (where theypassed through American customs). AtGreat Falls, eight of the wolves (still intheir individual containers) were loadedin an NPS horse trailer and driven to thepark, and immediately taken to the accli-mation pens. The wolves passed throughthe Roosevelt Arch at the North Entranceto Yellowstone National Park shortly af-ter 8:30 a.m., January 12, amid consider-able media attention, which was height-ened by the ongoing legal issues.

One group of six (an alpha male andfemale plus four younger animals) wasdelivered to the Crystal Bench site, whilethe other two (a mother and daughterpair) were taken to the Rose Creek site. Inaccordance with instructions from thecourt, they were placed in the pens, butnot allowed to leave their shipping con-tainers. Media and public attention, aswell as government legal response to thestay, focussed on the length of time theanimals had now been held in such tightquarters (approaching 36 hours). Secre-

tary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt andU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service DirectorMollie Beattie were on hand to provideceremonial assistance in accompanyingthe wolves to their pen sites, and bothexpressed great concerns over the ever-lengthening period of time the wolveswere confined in the small containers.

In the early evening of January 12, theDistrict Court dissolved the temporarystay because the “appellant failed to makethe required showing.” Later that night,long after dark, park staff hiked into thetwo pen sites, opened the containers, andimmediately left the wolves to step outonto the snow at their convenience. Nowolves were observed leaving the con-tainers at Crystal Bench, but as the crewwas leaving the Rose Creek site (aroundmidnight), they were able to observe theyounger female running here and therethrough the snow in the enclosure. In aprocess full of historic moments, this

Above left: Gardiner Schoolchildren watch NPS trailer withwolves enter the park just afterdawn on January 12. Aboveright: the mule team that hauledtwo sled loads of wolves to theCrystal Bench Pen became al-most as popular with mediaphotographers as the wolvesthemselves. Right: One ofYellowstone's newly arrivedwolves, a 77-pound femalepuppy that is also pictured onthe cover of this issue.

must be one of the most powerfully sym-bolic, as a wolf had now actually hit theground.

Late in the evening of January 19, asecond group of six wolves arrived inYellowstone. They were held overnightin their containers at the Lamar RangerStation. On the morning of January 20,one male was released with the two fe-males (the mother was known to be inestrous) at Rose Creek, and the other five(a pack) were released in the third accli-mation pen near Soda Butte. The wolveswill be held in the pens for several weeks,and then released.

The legal appeal process will appar-ently continue. By January 20, a total of15 wolves had also been released in Cen-tral Idaho. These reintroductions in Idahoand Yellowstone National Park are thefirst in a series of scheduled releases,which are expected to continue for threeto five years.

Jim Peaco/NPS

Diane Papineau/NPS Jim Peaco/NPS

Winter 1995

A Good Year for Yellowstone Bald Eagles

&notesNEWS

19

and federal biologists and independentresearchers from Wyoming, Montana, andIdaho that actively work with bald eaglesin the GYE. The Working Group wasestablished in 1982 as part of an inter-agency coordination effort for successfulrecovery of the bald eagle in the GYE.

Osprey Aren’t Doing Badly Either

Terry McEneaney also reports that “thenumber of osprey nesting pairs has sky-rocketed” since 1988. According toMcEneaney, “In 1988, there were 66 nest-ing pairs of osprey, whereas in 1994 agrand total of 100 nesting pairs wererecorded.” This year, because of mildweather conditions, 101 osprey chickssurvived to the fledgling stage. Thoughosprey nesting depends on the presenceof standing dead snags for nest sites (thesort of tree snags Yellowstone has ingreat abundance since 1988), McEneaneyattributes the series of successful nestingyears much more to hospitable weatherconditions.

Renee Evanoff

system (GYE) also continues to showpositive signs towards downlisting andeventual recovery. A total of 93 eagletsfledged from 96 occupied territories inthe GYE in 1994. Since 1982, bald eagleproduction has averaged 72.5 fledglingsfrom 69.2 occupied territories.

Speaking for the GYEBEWG (we didnot ask him to pronounce this acronym)McEneaney explained that “the overallstatus of the bald eagle in the GYE is veryencouraging, but it still is not without itsshare of problems.” Weather continuesto play an important role in influencingannual bald eagle production (this yearthe ecosystem experienced a wet springand a dry summer, resulting in favorableeaglet production). “Bald eagle nests onpublic lands appear to be well protectedthroughout the GYE; however outdoorrecreational impacts are significantly in-creasing and creating conflicts, especiallyalong popular rivers,” McEneaney said.Private land development on the fringesof the ecosystem, especially along rivers,is exploding. The primary threat to thebald eagle and many other species ofwildlife in the GYE continues to be unco-ordinated, unplanned, sprawling devel-opment of private land. “We need toleave space for wildlife, or we will de-stroy the very thing that attracted us to thearea in the first place––the wide openspaces,” McEneaney explained. Theworking group is attempting to work withcounty planners and concerned privateland owners interested in leaving spacefor wildlife, such as bald eagles.

The GYEBEWG is comprised of state

Bald eagle fledgling numbers continueto the rise in the park. This year a total of13 eaglets fledged from 21 occupied ter-ritories––the second highest eaglet pro-duction in the recorded history of thepark. In the record year of 1993, 17eaglets were fledged from 18 active nestsin the park. Since 1982, the park hasannually averaged 10 fledglings from 13.5occupied territories.

Occupied bald eagle territories havegradually increased each year since the1988 Yellowstone wildfires, accordingto the park’s bird management specialist,Terry McEneaney. “It looks as thoughbald eagles have responded positively tothe effects of wildfires,” McEneaney said.Other variables, such as favorable mildweather conditions, particularly duringnesting, have also influenced the birds.He also pointed out that there are morebald eagles in the Greater YellowstoneEcosystem than ever recorded before,thus compelling “floating” eagles to oc-cupy new territories.

McEneaney warned that eagles willundergo an unstable phase in their nest-ing cycle as many of the burned treesfrom 1988 are uprooted by winds andbegin to fall. “Nesting bald eagles willmost likely be affected as a result of thisnatural event,” McEneaney stated, “but Iexpect them to gradually adjust to thisnatural disturbance.” A fire this yearburned one bald eagle nest tree.

The Greater Yellowstone EcosystemBald Eagle Working Group(GYEBEWG) announced bald eagle pro-duction in the Greater Yellowstone Eco-

Lynn Kaeding Named U.S. Fish andWildlife Service Yellowstone ProjectLeader

Lynn Kaeding has succeeded the re-cently retired Ron Jones as leader of theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Fisheryand Aquatic Management Program inYellowstone. Kaeding has been assistantproject leader in Yellowstone since 1990,

Renee Evanoff

Yellowstone Science20

&notesNEWS

and officially became project leader onSeptember 18. Kaeding has also worked with the UtahDivision of Wildlife Resources as a fish-ery biologist and resource analyst (1976-1980), and with the U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service as head of endangered fishesresearch in the Colorado River, GrandCanyon National Park (1980-1982), andas project leader for the research programon endangered fishes in the ColoradoRiver in Colorado and Utah (1982-1990).

Kaeding’s acquaintance with Yellow-stone fisheries dates to his graduate stu-dent days in the mid-1970s, when he didhis M.S. thesis on the growth and diets ofbrown and rainbow trout in the FireholeRiver.

Laura Joss Named Chief of the Branchof Cultural Resources

The Cultural Resources Branch of theYellowstone Center for Resources has itsfirst full-time administrator, Laura Joss,who entered on duty October 3. Jossreplaces Paul Schullery, who served asActing Chief of Cultural Resources sinceMarch 1993, when the branch was cre-ated.

Joss has a B.A. in Anthropology fromIndiana University, and an M.A. in mu-seum studies from the CooperstownGraduate Program. She is also a graduateof the Women’s Executive LeadershipProgram and the NPS Rocky MountainRegional Office Pilot Mentoring Pro-gram.

Joss started with the NPS as a volunteerin Mesa Verde National Park, and hasworked as either staff or consultant atGlen Canyon National Recreation Area,Grant-Kohrs Ranch National HistoricSite, Big Hole National Battlefield, TheChildren’s Museum in Indianapolis, NewYork State Museum, Onondaga Histori-cal Association, Buffalo Museum of Sci-ence, New Jersey State Parks, and theJohn Wesley Powell Museum.

In 1990, Joss was hired at the NationalPark Service’s Rocky Mountain RegionalOffice as staff curator, and was regionalcurator from 1991 until accepting theYellowstone position. She has also heldkey acting positions, including 3 monthsas acting chief of Interpretation in Yel-lowstone, 1 month as acting superinten-

Wild Trout V Focuses on Big Picture

The fifth in a series of Wild Troutconferences, this one entitled “Wild Troutin the 21st Century,” was held on Sep-tember 26-27 at Mammoth Hot Springs.The Wild Trout conferences have beenheld every 5 years at Yellowstone since1974. This most recent one was spon-sored by Trout Unlimited, the Federationof Fly Fishers, the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, the National Park Service, theU.S. Forest Service, the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, and the AmericanFisheries Society.

Conference topics included a growingemphasis on ecosystem management is-sues, the changing nature of public inter-ests in trout and their environments (in-cluding concern over animal rights andconflicts between native and nonnativewild trout), and the fate of endangeredspecies legislation as a tool in wild troutmanagement. Keynote speakers includedSecretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt,National Wildlife Federation PresidentJay Hair, and Trout Unlimited PresidentCharles Gauvin.

Two events will be of special interest tofollowers of Yellowstone’s trout pro-grams. First, Ron Jones, who recentlyretired as Project Leader of the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service’s Yellowstone team,was given the A. Starker Leopold Awardin the professional category for his manyyears of service.

Second, a special evening session washeld to discuss the invasion of Yellow-stone Lake by nonnative lake trout, re-ported in the previous issue of Yellow-stone Science. This informal session,hosted by the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, was attended by about 20 biolo-gists and managers with a special interestin lake trout-related topics. The goal wasto have a “brainstorming session,” atwhich a variety of ideas might surface,and this goal was achieved to everyone’ssatisfaction. Perhaps the most importantproposal, offered and expanded on byseveral people, was to convene a specialpanel or workshop of leading lake troutauthorities this winter to develop a set ofmanagement alternatives based on thebest science available. We will report onthis process in future issues of Yellow-stone Science.

dent of Bryce Canyon National Park, and2 months as special assistant to the De-partment of the Interior Office of theAssistant Secretary for Policy, Manage-ment, and Budget.

Mike Phillips Wolf Project Leader

Anticipating the projected arrival ofYellowstone’s first new wolves this win-ter, the Yellowstone Center for Resourceshas added a full-time wolf project leaderto the staff. Mike Phillips, who arrived inOctober, spent the previous eight years asfield coordinator of the Red Wolf Recov-ery Program at the Alligator River Na-tional Wildlife Refuge in North Carolina.Phillips oversaw the successful restora-tion of red wolves into the wild, andcoordinated red wolf recovery in fourother states in the southeast.

Phillips earned a B.S. from the Univer-sity of Illinois, majoring in ecology, andhis M.S. from the University of Alaska.His master’s thesis addressed the cumu-lative effects of oil and gas developmenton grizzly bears.

Phillips’ previous research experienceincludes studies of wolves and their preyat Isle Royale National Park and in Min-nesota, working under Rolf Peterson andDavid Mech; a stint as a visiting biologistin Australia, where he studied relation-ships between native dingoes and intro-duced red foxes; and an assignment withthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at theArctic National Wildlife Refuge.

National Brucellosis Symposium

On September 27 and 28, more than200 people attended the national sympo-sium on brucellosis, and heard a widevariety of positions and opinions on themanagement of that disease, especiallyas it exists in the Greater YellowstoneEcosystem. The governors of Wyoming,Montana, and Idaho were all in atten-dance.

Long-time Yellowstone-area re-searcher Mark Boyce served as a confer-ence summarizer, and his comments ap-pear starting on page 15 in this issue ofYellowstone Science. There are plans topublish the proceedings of the confer-ence, and we will keep readers informedas we learn more about that.

Winter 1995 21

Ecology and Conservation in a Changing LandscapeGREATER YELLOWSTONE PREDATORS:

Call for Papers

September 24–27, 1995Mammoth Hot Springs HotelYellowstone National Park

Third Biennial Scientific Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

Greater Yellowstone Predators

Submitting An Abstract

Registration and Reservation Information

The third biennial scientific conference will take a broad look at predators and predation. We welcome papers not only on thelarge predators, but on all predatory species, whether mammal, bird, fish, or invertebrate. We welcome papers from fieldstraditionally associated with wildlife ecology, but also encourage submissions from other disciplines, such as sociology,economics, and environmental history.

The deadline for abstracts is May 1, 1995. Please submit a one-page double-spaced abstract. If possible, send both a hard copyand a WordPerfect or ASCII text disk. We will be publishing the accepted abstracts in the conference agenda booklet. Mail theabstract to Conference Program Committee, Yellowstone Center for Resources, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone Park, WY 82190.

Do not attempt to make reservations yet. Reservations and registration information will be forthcoming in future announcements.Watch for information in future issues of Yellowstone Science, or write to the Yellowstone Center for Resources for moreinformation.

Please contact the program committee if you know of anyone else who might like to receive information on this conference.

BULK RATEPOSTAGE & FEES PAID

National Park ServiceDept of Interior

Permit No. G-83

Yellowstone ScienceYellowstone Center for ResourcesP.O. Box 168Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190

Aversive C

onditioning4

Yellow

stone Science Interview

: Bob

Barbee

10

Brucellosis and the F

uture17

New

s & N

otes19