The Barren Ground Caribou of Keewatin Part 8

For various reasons, however, the industry has so far declined that by 1949 the total number of Alaskan Reindeer had become reduced to about 28,000 head. Disinclination of Eskimos for reindeer-herding and mixture of their stock with wild Caribou were important reasons for this decline. (Lantis, 1950.) From the biologist's point of view, the most unfortunate result was the large-scale interbreeding with the native Grant's Caribou (_Rangifer arcticus granti_) and the progressive extermination of that fine animal in a pure form by dilution with inferior alien blood. Among Alaskan Reindeer, "constant inbreeding has led to a noticeable reduction in the prolificness of the females, and degeneration is to be observed in many herds" (Hewitt, 1921: 323).

In 1908 Dr. Wilfred T. Grenfell brought 300 Lapland Reindeer to Newfoundland. After some years they were transferred to the north sh.o.r.e of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and finally to the island of Anticosti.

(Hewitt, 1921: 324-328; Seton, 1929, +3+: 92.) In 1911, 50 of these Reindeer were shipped from Newfoundland to the Slave River region. Most of them escaped (probably to contaminate the local stock of Caribou), and by 1916 the last survivor of this band in captivity had succ.u.mbed (Hewitt, 1921: 329-330).

"A large part of the reindeer in Alaska are south of the Arctic Circle on the comparatively mild sh.o.r.es of Bering Sea, where there are several months of open tidewater navigation; vegetation is more luxuriant [than in Arctic Canada] and conditions easier in general. There the reindeer were introduced into a country where the wild caribou had been virtually exterminated, and a large native population were anxious to take up a new mode of support. The percentage of profits has appeared unduly large in Alaska because statisticians have been unable to take into account the value of the services of a large body of devoted missionaries, government teachers, and other unselfish persons who put their best efforts into years of unpaid extra work to make the reindeer successful and beneficial to their charges.

"Canada has a large area of Arctic and sub-arctic lands beyond the reach of possible cultivation, still occupied by large numbers of wild caribou and remnants of musk-oxen, with native inhabitants who derive a living from them and add to the national wealth by fur production. These Indians and Eskimos are still far from being either able or willing to enter upon a pastoral stage of existence, and moreover, they are now enjoying an era of prosperity from the fur industry which may be temporary, but which they will not relinquish for the slower and less profitable prospects of the herder." (R. M. Anderson, 1924: 330-331.)

In 1921 some Norwegian Reindeer were landed at Amadjuak, Baffin Island (Seton, 1929, +3+: 92). The lack of further reference to the Baffin Island animals by such subsequent investigators as Manning and Soper would seem to indicate that the reindeer have not survived, unless through mixture with the native Caribou. An attempt in 1922 at acclimatization in Michigan "ended in total failure" (Seton, 1929, +3+: 93).

"The Barren Grounds . . . still feed enormous herds of caribou. . . .

The greatest danger to this industry [reindeer-raising] is just these wild herds, which would be very apt to absorb the tame animals. This problem may perhaps become a fatal one to the Eskimos, for there might very easily come a most difficult transitional period, when the caribou would be too few in numbers to form a definite basis for the existence of the people, but on the other hand numerous enough to make reindeer breeding difficult." (Birket-Smith, 1933: 121.)

In northwestern Alaska "large numbers of reindeer are constantly escaping the herders and joining the wild caribou. It seems that it will be but a short time until there will be no pure bred caribou along that part of the coast. . . . As the reindeer are protected, and the caribou are killed at every opportunity, the former will doubtless prove the dominant animal and in time overcome the caribou, with hybridization the inevitable result." (Bailey and Hendee, 1926: 22.)

"The caribou's greatest menace is not the wolf, nor the hunter, but man's economic developments, princ.i.p.ally the raising of reindeer.

Wherever reindeer herds are introduced, caribou must of course disappear, for both cannot occupy the same range. The disappearance of the caribou along the Bering Sea and Arctic coasts, while regrettable, was unavoidable in view of the development of reindeer herding in this section, which is ideal for the purpose. . . .

"The mingling of reindeer with the main caribou herds should be avoided.

Reindeer herds maintained in close contact with migrating caribou suffer frequent losses through strays. Already the domestic reindeer are mingling with the caribou herd of Mount McKinley National Park. . . .

[Hybridization] would be regrettable in interior Alaska, which has produced a splendid type of wild caribou, coming near at least to being the largest on the continent." (Murie, 1935: 7.)

Murie's extensive experience with these animals in Alaska has led him to remark further (1939: 245):

"The greatest hazard to the Caribou is the possible occupation of the range by man's agricultural activities. . . . The most serious danger is introduction of domesticated Reindeer on wild Caribou range, for the wild herds must be removed in order to make possible the safe herding of the domestic animals. . . . There is not room for both of these animals on the same or closely adjacent ranges."

Porsild points out (1943: 386, 389) that spa.r.s.ely covered grazing areas are suitable for Caribou but not for Reindeer; and that the former disappear before expanding Reindeer culture.

"Perhaps the worst threat of all to the caribou has been the introduction of reindeer culture along the arctic coast. This has resulted in interbreeding between the wild caribou and their inferior domesticated relatives. When and if this mixture extends to all the herds of the Barren Grounds, the caribou may be written off the record as a pure species; the animal will have become extinct through dilution, as the biologists express it." (Harper, 1949: 239.)

The American Society of Mammalogists, at its annual meeting in 1950, pa.s.sed the following resolution (_Jour. Mammalogy_ +31+ (4): 483, 1950):

"That the American Society of Mammalogists urges that the Canadian Government not undertake the introduction of reindeer into Ungava.

Before any introduction even is seriously considered, those persons involved in any planning are urged to make a thorough study beforehand of the problems of integrating lichen ecology, reindeer biology, and native culture--serious problems that have not been solved to date on any workable scale on the North American continent. It would be particularly deplorable if an introduction, to aid the natives, led to early successes and high hopes, then eventual failure."

Porsild, who knows the Reindeer thoroughly at first hand, has made (1951: 53) the following observation:

"Thus far these experiments [at introduction into America] have met with only partial or indifferent success, because reindeer nomadism is incompatible with present trends of cultural development and because the North American Arctic is too thinly populated to provide a ready market for reindeer products."

Referring to the region of the Brooks Range in northern Alaska, Rausch says (1951: 190):

"The mixture of inferior reindeer bloodlines with the native caribou is serious. This has already occurred to a considerable degree, and it is hoped that proper control will be exercised if the reindeer industry is revived in Alaska. Ear-notched animals have been killed in the Anaktuvuk Pa.s.s country, and white reindeer have been seen running with the caribou. The number of unrecognized reindeer pa.s.sing through could be great."

At present the Barren Ground Caribou is apparently the third most abundant member of the deer family on our continent, being exceeded by the White-tailed Deer and the Mule Deer (_cf._ Jackson, 1944: 7-8). No other member of this family could be expected to be so eminently and thoroughly adapted to its Arctic environment or to thrive so well on the very ground where nature has been molding and perfecting its characters for thousands of years. No naturally occurring relative--Moose, Deer, or Woodland Caribou--undertakes to compete with it on its own particular range. It requires practically nothing for the maintenance--and increase--of its present numbers, other than an enlightened policy of conservation. (As indicated on a previous page, the feminine wearers of Arctic Fox furs must bear a heavy share of responsibility for the decline of the Barren Ground Caribou in recent decades.) Our highest authorities have pointed out the impracticability of Caribou and Reindeer occupying the same range.

Would it not be the part of wisdom to exclude the inferior domesticated alien, with its difficult and generally unsuccessful culture in North America, and thereby to give the wonderful wild Caribou of the Barrens its best chance for survival?

_References._--Chambers, 1914: 350-351; Hornaday, 1914, +2+: 105-108; Hewitt, 1921: 323, 329-330; R. M. Anderson, 1924: 330; Kindle, 1928: 74; Seton, 1929, +3+: 92-93; Blanchet, 1930: 53-54; Birket-Smith, 1933: 121; G.o.dsell, 1934: 276; Murie, 1935: 7, 1939: 245-246, and 1941: 435; Porsild, 1943: 386, 389; Rousseau, 1948: 96; Harper, 1949: 239; Polunin, 1949: 24; Lantis, 1950; Hustich, 1951; Porsild, 1951: 53; Rausch, 1951: 190; Scheffer, 1951.

NUMERICAL STATUS

There seems to be a general impression, among those who have known the Barren Ground Caribou at first hand for a considerable period, that the population has been reduced by something like a half during the past generation. "Recent preliminary aerial survey has indicated that their numbers, although less than the previous estimates of 3,000,000 (R. M.

Anderson, 1938; Clarke, 1940), which were based upon the carrying capacity of the Arctic tundra, are probably comparable to their primitive numbers in the central portions of the range" (Banfield, 1949: 478). A definite reduction is indicated along the Arctic coast and on the Arctic islands (R. M. Anderson, 1937: 103, and 1938: 400; Banfield, 1949: 478, 481, and 1951a: 13-14). While large numbers still remain in southwestern Keewatin, there are no reports of any such ma.s.s occurrence as was witnessed by the Tyrrell brothers on the upper Dubawnt River on July 29, 1893; that throng was estimated at 100,000 to 200,000 animals (J. B. Tyrrell, 1897: 165).

During the big movement of the last week of August, 1947, I may have seen as many as 500 Caribou on one or two days, in herds numbering up to 150 individuals. A striking proportion of those observed seemed to occur in bands of roughly 25 animals. On August 25 Fred Schweder, Jr., reported about a thousand crossing Little River, in bands of as many as 100 individuals. On October 11 Charles Schweder observed a thousand Caribou resting on a hill 3 miles long in the vicinity of Four-hill Creek. In November he found thousands, in herds up to 300 strong, moving south from the upper Kazan River. These figures may give a faintly approximate idea of the numbers occurring in the general region of Nueltin Lake in a year considered less good than an average one. On the other hand, toward the coast of Hudson Bay, there were reports of a greater number of autumn migrants than in ordinary years.

In October, about 1944, tracks indicated that 2,000 or 3,000 animals had crossed Windy River in the vicinity of Four-hill Creek in the night (_fide_ Charles Schweder). About October 10, 1946 (a year of unusual abundance), Fred Schweder, Jr., witnessed the pa.s.sage of thousands in one day in this vicinity; he got the impression of "the hills moving with Deer." (Yet this was the season when the Caribou pa.s.sed mainly to one side of the upper Kazan River, so that nearly one-third of the local band of Eskimos starved to death.) In the first part of May, about 1942 or 1943, John Ingebrigtsen came to a nameless lake, about half a mile by a mile and a half in extent, somewhere east of Duck Lake, Manitoba. It appeared "absolutely full of Caribou," and he estimated their number at not less than 20,000. This would mean a density of no more than about 50 per acre.

_References._--Jones, 1899: 368, 374; J. B. Tyrrell, 1894: 442, and 1897: 10, 49-50, 165; Whitney, 1896: 240; Seton, 1911: 220, 258-260; R. M. Anderson, 1913b: 502; Hornaday, 1914, +2+: 225-226; Nelson, 1916: 460; Thompson, 1916: 100-101; Kindle, 1917: 108-109; Buchanan, 1920: 130-131; Hewitt, 1921: 56, 64-66; Stefansson, 1921: 255; R. M. Anderson, 1924: 329; Blanchet, 1926b: 48, and 1930: 52; Kindle, 1928: 72-73; Seton, 1929, +3+: 131-134; Critch.e.l.l-Bullock, 1930: 159-160; R. M. Anderson, in h.o.a.re, 1930: 52-53; Kitto, 1930: 87; Jacobi, 1931: 201-202; Munn, 1932: 58; Birket-Smith, 1933: 89; Ingstad, 1933: 160; R. M. Anderson, 1938: 400; Clarke, 1940: 65, 84-91, 101-104; Downes, 1943: 258-260; Wright, 1944: 185-188, 191, 193; Yule, 1948: 287-288; Banfield, 1949: 478, 481, and 1951a: 9, 13-14; Harper, 1949: 231, 239; Anonymous, 1952: 261; Barnett, 1954: 96.

GENERAL HABITS

_Daily periods of activity and rest_

According to Charles Schweder, the Caribou do not move about much at night; that seems to be their princ.i.p.al time for sleep. They exhibit a definite tendency to pause and rest also toward the middle of the day.

Several instances have already been given of the animals resting at such a time on frozen lakes and rivers: lakes southwest of Reindeer Lake, March 18; lakes south of Lake Athabaska, April 16; Seal River, May 31; Windy Bay, June 6 (mid-morning). Open hilltops are evidently sought likewise for both nocturnal and mid-day rests: knoll by Windy River, June 3; Josie's Hill, June 20; ridge by Little River, August 24 (about 9 a.m.). (For details, see sections on _Winter range_, _Spring migration_, and _Fall migration_.)

Although we noted a small band of Caribou pa.s.sing through a thick and extensive stand of spruce at dusk on October 2, Fred Schweder, Jr., remarked that they do not rest in such a place; they are safer from Wolves in open areas. Charles Schweder reported about 50 Caribou, in three slightly separated bands, appearing on the south side of Windy River near Four-hill Creek during the evening of September 24, but not making up their minds to cross; he thought they might have been scared by Wolves. Possibly there was a similar explanation for the crossing of the river at this point by large numbers of the animals during an October night several years previously.

According to Fred Schweder, Jr., a day's movement of Caribou past the mouths of Little and Windy rivers during the fall migration generally does not commence before 10 a.m. and ends about 3 p.m. The explanation of such a phenomenon is none too obvious; and in any event, there were exceptions enough, though the general statement may hold true for the bulk of the migrants. As remarked in the section on _Spring migration_, the daily periods when the Caribou crossed the ice of Windy Bay were mainly from 10 to 11 a.m., from 2:30 to 5 p.m., and in the evening.

On August 27, about 5:50 p.m., a majority (say half a dozen) of a small band of Caribou were lying down on a slope near the mouth of Little River. They faced down wind to watch for enemies in that direction, while their noses would warn them of any approaching from the opposite direction. Their att.i.tude was very much like that of Norway Reindeer figured by Seton (1929, +3+: pls. 11, 15, 18).

Charles Schweder spoke of having seen whole herds lying down to rest, while none of the animals remained standing up on guard. He had noted one such herd of 600 or 700 along the Thlewiaza River in August. He further stated that when the Caribou lie down to rest and to chew the cud, they hold the head up. They may also sleep in this position. In the hard winter of 1944-45, when the snow was deep and the animals were tired and hungry, he came up to a resting herd. All but one of them got up and moved away. That one remained sleeping, head up and eyes closed; Charles walked up to within 10 feet and shot it. He has also seen resting Caribou lay their heads down on the side, but only for a few moments at a time.

_References._--J. B. Tyrrell, 1892: 129; Jones, 1899: 359; Harper, 1949: 227; Banfield, 1951a: 23.

_Organization of herds_

The Barren Ground Caribou is a distinctly gregarious species. It goes in herds for at least the greater part of the year; this is especially true of the spring and autumn migration periods and of the winter months. We know comparatively little of the behavior of the does at fawning time in June; but probably there is a tendency toward solitariness on their part at that season. It is true that solitary Caribou may be met with at almost any season of the year; but this doubtless represents merely temporary rather than permanent segregation of such individuals. At the very end of the spring migration and at the beginning of the autumn migration, there may be, among the spa.r.s.e southernmost elements of the population, a larger proportion of solitary animals.

While marching over the Barrens and feeding as they go, the smaller bands maintain a fairly loose organization, as apparently best suiting their needs. On the other hand, the huge herds of former times, such as the Tyrrells met on the upper Dubawnt in 1893 (J. B. Tyrrell, 1897: 49-50, pl. 1; J. W. Tyrrell, 1908: pls. facing pp. 80, 81; Seton, 1929, +3+: pl. 22), obviously maintained very compact ranks. In my limited experience, the animals bunched more closely in crossing the rivers than was normally the case on land among feeding herds. While swimming, they would follow each other in files at minimum intervals; but in stepping across rapids they might extend these intervals somewhat.

When merely covering ground, without stopping to feed, or when following a trail through brush or along a narrow ridge, there is a strong tendency for the animals to go in a single file, or at least in a procession many times longer than wide. This was also apparent when they were crossing the ice of Windy Bay in June.

When Caribou flee from some source of alarm, a distinct tendency toward compact bunching may be observed. This may have been developed as a measure of protection from pursuing Wolves; the latter could naturally overcome a straggling or isolated individual more readily than one in a compact herd. The Caribou running away from the train in the "Little Barrens" south of Churchill very clearly demonstrated the tendency toward a close formation. (See also, in the section on _Disposition_, the account of a herd attacked by a hunter near Lake Charles.)

The larger herds of the autumn migration seemed to be generally composed of all s.e.xes and ages; yet some sizable bands were made up chiefly of bucks on the one hand, or of does and fawns on the other hand. The rear guard of the spring migration and the vanguard of the autumn migration are generally composed of bucks, traveling either singly or in small bands; this state of affairs is looked upon as evidence that the majority of the bucks do not advance so far to the north in June and July as the does do.

The following are a few examples of the composition and leadership (or rear-guarding) of groups of Caribou. (Other examples are mentioned in the sections on _Migration_.) A band of about 20, after feeding for a time on the south bank of Windy River on June 16, moved off upstream, mostly in single file, with a patriarchal buck in the lead. The remainder of the band included several lesser bucks and various does and yearlings. On the following day a band of equal size, composed chiefly of bucks but including three hornless individuals (does?), was led by two of the bigger bucks. When a band of some 40 does and fawns approached Little River to cross it on August 25, a doe came first to the water's edge to make a careful inspection. On the same day I remarked having noted several times that a buck brought up the rear of a band. On August 26 I noted that a distinct majority in the herds of the previous two or three days were does and fawns, although there were generally a few bucks present also. At this period I got the impression that the number of individuals in a band was frequently not far from 25.