Mountain Goat Removal: Olympic National Park
Sam Warkentin
Keywords: removal, management, translocation
Summary
Today, Olympic National Park stands as an International Biosphere Reserve, a World Heritage Site, and gem of the Pacific Northwest within the United States. The regions deep history of geomorphology, indigenous land management, and European settlement have created many narratives crucial to Olympic National Parks story. Yet, one land management decision made from 1925-1929 has shaped the parks recent story, the introduction of non-native mountain goats. As populations increased significantly post-introduction, the U.S. National Park Service has been forced to ponder the importance of ecological, social, and economic drivers within the park. These tough decisions have created extensive research around mountain goat removal, environmental assessments within the park, and various opinions on the removal of mountain goats. These factors culminate with the complete removal of mountain goats within Olympic National Park by 2020, a process that began in 2018. The removal of mountain goats leave not just predictions for the future of the park, but also uncertainty and change that will create another chapter of the Olympic National Park story.
|
Ecological Genealogy
Olympic National Park is an icon within the Pacific Northwest of the United States. Established in 1938, it is a gem of Washington State (“Park History”, 2019). Its 373,120 hectares warranted the United Nations distinction of an International Biosphere Reserve, and a World Heritage Site (“Olympic National Park, 2018). The landscape of the park was created by the massive movement of the Cordilleran Ice Cap from north to south approximately 17,000 years ago (Billo, 2018).
Once glaciers receded out of present-day Washington, the Puget Sound area in which the park is located was transformed into its present-day form (Flippen, 2011). This created a more significant separation between the Olympic Mountain range, the Cascade Mountain range, and created isolation from nearby Vancouver Island (Flippen, 2011). This isolation can be described as similar to an island, as Olympic National Park is flanked by the Pacific Ocean to its west, the Strait of Juan de Fuca to its north, and close to its east lies the southern Puget Sound (Flippen, 2011). This location created a number of unique ecosystems, including species only found within Olympic National Park (Flippen, 2011).
This vastly changed area became home to eight indigenous groups, the “Lower Elwha Klallam, Jamestown S'Klallam, Port Gamble S'Klallam, Skokomish, Quinault, Hoh, Quileute, and Makah” (“The People of the Olympic Peninsula”, pg 1, 2018). Before forests regenerated following glacial retreat, the landscape contained many “rounded hills and marshy meadows” (“Ancient Peoples and Area Tribes”, pg 1, 2018). These territories ranged throughout the Olympic Peninsula, with cultural centers developing often surrounding the key rivers of the region (“Tribes”, 2013). Archeological records suggest that communities shifted from a heavy reliance on hunting to incorporating fishing, hunting sea mammals, and searching for shellfish around 3,000 years ago (“Ancient Peoples and Area Tribes”, 2018). The development of longhouses began from the wood of the Western red-cedar, and village advancements accompanied increased reliance on waterways (“Ancient Peoples and Area Tribes”, 2018).
By the time European settlers made contact with the indigenous peoples of the region in the late 18th century, a complex social network had emerged among them (“Ancient Peoples and Area Tribes”, 2018). Travel within the region expanded as the search for resources, spiritual discoveries, and warfare became more common (“Ancient Peoples and Area Tribes”, 2018). These facts of life and the relatively stable conditions the communities faced changed abruptly with the contact of settlers, as disease spread among the villages (“Ancient Peoples and Area Tribes”, 2018). As populations began to decline, social conditions changed and emerging technologies brought by the settlers complicated everyday life (“Ancient Peoples and Area Tribes”, 2018).
These changes and struggles culminated with the European settlers and indigenous communities signing various treaties in the 1850s. These treaties included the Quinault River Treaty of 1854, Point No Point Treaty in 1855, and the Neah Bay Treaty in 1855 (“Tribes”, 2013). These treaties removed the communities from their native lands, relocating them to other areas in Washington State (“The Quinault River Treaty”, 1855). This relocation changed the course of the region and allowed for a different view of land management.
One example begun between 1925 and 1929, when 11 or 12 Oreamnos americanus, or mountain goats by common name were released into Olympic National Park near Lake Crescent (“Mountain Goat Management”, 1987). These mountain goats were taken from British Columbia and Alaska, regions where they are native (“Mountain Goat Management”, 1987). Although mountain goats are also native within Idaho, Montana, and the Cascade mountain range of Washington (“Mountain Goat Management”, 1987), the isolation of the park from another mountain range prevented mountain goats from ever colonizing the park (Stevens, 1983). At the time of release, the region was considered a national forest where hunting was permitted (Stevens, 1983). Due to this, game managers and park officials saw the mountain goats as a controllable species (Stevens, 1983).
Mountain goats prefer alpine regions with rocky outcroppings and are considered “generalists” when searching for food (“Mountain Goat Management”, pg 17, 1987). These factors allowed for initial success directly after introduction, especially as mountain goats “reach sexual maturity in one and one-half years” and can migrate 50 miles within a 7-day period (“Mountain Goat Management”, pg 17, 1987). By 1960, the southern mountain region of the park included sub-populations of mountain goats, and by 1970 100% of the alpine zone, and 70% of the subalpine zone were occupied by mountain goats (“Mountain Goat Management”, 1987). This equated to an estimate of 350-450 individuals (“Mountain Goat Management”, 1987).
Attention to the overpopulation of mountain goats led to the park conducting scientific research throughout the 1970s, especially due to concern for the health of alpine and subalpine regions (“Mountain Goat Management”, 1987). Specific concerns included vulnerable conditions due to a “short growing season, low plant productivity, shallow soils, and extreme climatic conditions” (“Mountain Goat Management”, 1987). By 1981, the park chose to conduct further research, including eliminating a portion of the mountain goat population from 1981-1984 (“Mountain Goat Management”, 1987). While results showed improvement on the health of both alpine and subalpine regions, mountain goats remained in the park until 2016 when the idea of removal came up yet again (“Mountain Goat Management”, 1987).
Once glaciers receded out of present-day Washington, the Puget Sound area in which the park is located was transformed into its present-day form (Flippen, 2011). This created a more significant separation between the Olympic Mountain range, the Cascade Mountain range, and created isolation from nearby Vancouver Island (Flippen, 2011). This isolation can be described as similar to an island, as Olympic National Park is flanked by the Pacific Ocean to its west, the Strait of Juan de Fuca to its north, and close to its east lies the southern Puget Sound (Flippen, 2011). This location created a number of unique ecosystems, including species only found within Olympic National Park (Flippen, 2011).
This vastly changed area became home to eight indigenous groups, the “Lower Elwha Klallam, Jamestown S'Klallam, Port Gamble S'Klallam, Skokomish, Quinault, Hoh, Quileute, and Makah” (“The People of the Olympic Peninsula”, pg 1, 2018). Before forests regenerated following glacial retreat, the landscape contained many “rounded hills and marshy meadows” (“Ancient Peoples and Area Tribes”, pg 1, 2018). These territories ranged throughout the Olympic Peninsula, with cultural centers developing often surrounding the key rivers of the region (“Tribes”, 2013). Archeological records suggest that communities shifted from a heavy reliance on hunting to incorporating fishing, hunting sea mammals, and searching for shellfish around 3,000 years ago (“Ancient Peoples and Area Tribes”, 2018). The development of longhouses began from the wood of the Western red-cedar, and village advancements accompanied increased reliance on waterways (“Ancient Peoples and Area Tribes”, 2018).
By the time European settlers made contact with the indigenous peoples of the region in the late 18th century, a complex social network had emerged among them (“Ancient Peoples and Area Tribes”, 2018). Travel within the region expanded as the search for resources, spiritual discoveries, and warfare became more common (“Ancient Peoples and Area Tribes”, 2018). These facts of life and the relatively stable conditions the communities faced changed abruptly with the contact of settlers, as disease spread among the villages (“Ancient Peoples and Area Tribes”, 2018). As populations began to decline, social conditions changed and emerging technologies brought by the settlers complicated everyday life (“Ancient Peoples and Area Tribes”, 2018).
These changes and struggles culminated with the European settlers and indigenous communities signing various treaties in the 1850s. These treaties included the Quinault River Treaty of 1854, Point No Point Treaty in 1855, and the Neah Bay Treaty in 1855 (“Tribes”, 2013). These treaties removed the communities from their native lands, relocating them to other areas in Washington State (“The Quinault River Treaty”, 1855). This relocation changed the course of the region and allowed for a different view of land management.
One example begun between 1925 and 1929, when 11 or 12 Oreamnos americanus, or mountain goats by common name were released into Olympic National Park near Lake Crescent (“Mountain Goat Management”, 1987). These mountain goats were taken from British Columbia and Alaska, regions where they are native (“Mountain Goat Management”, 1987). Although mountain goats are also native within Idaho, Montana, and the Cascade mountain range of Washington (“Mountain Goat Management”, 1987), the isolation of the park from another mountain range prevented mountain goats from ever colonizing the park (Stevens, 1983). At the time of release, the region was considered a national forest where hunting was permitted (Stevens, 1983). Due to this, game managers and park officials saw the mountain goats as a controllable species (Stevens, 1983).
Mountain goats prefer alpine regions with rocky outcroppings and are considered “generalists” when searching for food (“Mountain Goat Management”, pg 17, 1987). These factors allowed for initial success directly after introduction, especially as mountain goats “reach sexual maturity in one and one-half years” and can migrate 50 miles within a 7-day period (“Mountain Goat Management”, pg 17, 1987). By 1960, the southern mountain region of the park included sub-populations of mountain goats, and by 1970 100% of the alpine zone, and 70% of the subalpine zone were occupied by mountain goats (“Mountain Goat Management”, 1987). This equated to an estimate of 350-450 individuals (“Mountain Goat Management”, 1987).
Attention to the overpopulation of mountain goats led to the park conducting scientific research throughout the 1970s, especially due to concern for the health of alpine and subalpine regions (“Mountain Goat Management”, 1987). Specific concerns included vulnerable conditions due to a “short growing season, low plant productivity, shallow soils, and extreme climatic conditions” (“Mountain Goat Management”, 1987). By 1981, the park chose to conduct further research, including eliminating a portion of the mountain goat population from 1981-1984 (“Mountain Goat Management”, 1987). While results showed improvement on the health of both alpine and subalpine regions, mountain goats remained in the park until 2016 when the idea of removal came up yet again (“Mountain Goat Management”, 1987).
Present Tense
Today, similar motives for removal led to mountain goat translocation beginning in 2018. Rob Smith of the National Parks Conservation Association described the project as “two restoration projects in one — restoring both the Olympics and the Cascades and providing the goats with a better long-term home” (Shipley, pg 1, 2018). Headed by the National Park Service, mountain goats began being systematically translocated from Olympic National Park to the Cascade Mountain range, a part of their native range (Bush, 2017). Mountain goats within the Cascade Mountain range can triple in population without causing damage to the region, a main incentive for translocation (Bush, 2017).
Another main incentive of the translocation is the destruction mountain goats are causing in Olympic National Park, such as eating rare local species such as Botrychium ascendens, Synthyris pinnatifida, Actaea elata, and Astragalus australis (Shipley, 2018). This is especially a problem as the already diminishing Marmota olympus consume these local species and are only found within Olympic National Park (Shipley, 2018). Similar to concerns raised by the Olympic National Park environmental assessment of 1987, mountain goats threaten the sensitive subalpine meadows, which mountain goats trample (Shipley, pg 1, 2018).
While concerns for the health of the park drive the project, translocating large creatures like mountain goats is not a simple process. With translocation of the mountain goats comes a complicated process for capturing and moving them to the Cascade Mountain range. In some cases, goats are captured via helicopter (Shipley, pg 1, 2018). As the helicopter approaches a group of goats, a tranquilizer is shot. (Shipley, pg 1, 2018). Once this occurs, a crew exits the helicopter, ties the goats feet, puts a mask over the eyes, and covers the goats horns (Shipley, pg 1, 2018). Then a harness is placed on the goat and the goat is brought up to the helicopter (Shipley, pg 1, 2018). The goats are then transported for a physical assessment, and if fit to be released into the Cascade Mountain range they are driven by truck (Shipley, pg 1, 2018).
This highly intensive process creates a lot of stress for the estimated 700 mountain goats within the park. Of 115 mountain goats captured in September of 2018 16 died either in the removal process or in their first two weeks within the Cascades (Shipley, pg 1, 2018). Those that are not captured are going to be killed by volunteers and park officials, with mountain goats expected to be completely gone from within the park by 2020 (Shipley, pg 1, 2018).
Although this highly intensive process is not ideal, the details of the translocation have been known and supported by many key stakeholders since 2014 when an extensive environmental impact assessment was conducted (“Agencies plan”, 2018). This process includes many legal requirements, including extensive consultation with indigenous stakeholders, the public, and scientific experts (“Agencies plan”, 2018). The Muckleshoot, Sauk-Suiattle, Lummi, Stillaguamish, Suquamish, Tulalip, Upper Skagit, and Swinomish communities were involved with the environmental impact assessment process and approved the National Park Service’s course of action (“Agencies plan”, 2018).
Another main incentive of the translocation is the destruction mountain goats are causing in Olympic National Park, such as eating rare local species such as Botrychium ascendens, Synthyris pinnatifida, Actaea elata, and Astragalus australis (Shipley, 2018). This is especially a problem as the already diminishing Marmota olympus consume these local species and are only found within Olympic National Park (Shipley, 2018). Similar to concerns raised by the Olympic National Park environmental assessment of 1987, mountain goats threaten the sensitive subalpine meadows, which mountain goats trample (Shipley, pg 1, 2018).
While concerns for the health of the park drive the project, translocating large creatures like mountain goats is not a simple process. With translocation of the mountain goats comes a complicated process for capturing and moving them to the Cascade Mountain range. In some cases, goats are captured via helicopter (Shipley, pg 1, 2018). As the helicopter approaches a group of goats, a tranquilizer is shot. (Shipley, pg 1, 2018). Once this occurs, a crew exits the helicopter, ties the goats feet, puts a mask over the eyes, and covers the goats horns (Shipley, pg 1, 2018). Then a harness is placed on the goat and the goat is brought up to the helicopter (Shipley, pg 1, 2018). The goats are then transported for a physical assessment, and if fit to be released into the Cascade Mountain range they are driven by truck (Shipley, pg 1, 2018).
This highly intensive process creates a lot of stress for the estimated 700 mountain goats within the park. Of 115 mountain goats captured in September of 2018 16 died either in the removal process or in their first two weeks within the Cascades (Shipley, pg 1, 2018). Those that are not captured are going to be killed by volunteers and park officials, with mountain goats expected to be completely gone from within the park by 2020 (Shipley, pg 1, 2018).
Although this highly intensive process is not ideal, the details of the translocation have been known and supported by many key stakeholders since 2014 when an extensive environmental impact assessment was conducted (“Agencies plan”, 2018). This process includes many legal requirements, including extensive consultation with indigenous stakeholders, the public, and scientific experts (“Agencies plan”, 2018). The Muckleshoot, Sauk-Suiattle, Lummi, Stillaguamish, Suquamish, Tulalip, Upper Skagit, and Swinomish communities were involved with the environmental impact assessment process and approved the National Park Service’s course of action (“Agencies plan”, 2018).
Future Trajectories
Primarily, focus from the 1960s to the most recent mountain goat removal project of 2018 surrounds concern for Olympic National Parks subalpine and alpine regions and the species found within them. Going forward, the removal of mountain goats by 2020 represents the National Park Service’s motivation to move on from a long history of damage to these regions related to the introduction of mountain goats from 1922-1929.
Scientists and park officials suggest that the mountain goat removal will result in safer visiting opportunities for humans (Shipley, 2008). While human contact with mountain goats was a concern listed by the National Park Service’s most recent environmental assessment, the role of public safety was not the primary reason for mountain goat removal (“Final Management Plan”, 2018).
Ecologically, the removal hopes to aid the recovery of alpine and subalpine areas within the park. According to the final environmental impact statement related to the project, a main objective of removal was to “Reduce or eliminate impacts on sensitive environments and unique natural resources from mountain goats in the park and in Olympic National Forest” (“National Park Service”, pg ii, 2018). Another primary objective of the removal was to “Further public understanding of the Olympic high elevation ecosystems and native species and the ecology and conservation of mountain goats in their native range” (“National Park Service”, pg ii, 2018). By doing this, the integrity of the designation of International Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site would be preserved (“National Park Service”, 2018). Also present within the projects environmental impact assessment was the opportunity for less closures benefiting visitors, less impact on archaeological sites, and less impact on soils within the region (“National Park Service”, 2018).
With mountain goats removed from the park, funding can be allocated towards scientific objectives informing future park management. These objectives include protecting re-introduced fisher and Olympic marmot populations, monitoring glacier levels for key climate change data, and carrying out the Elwha River Restoration project (“Science and Research”, 2016). Yet, uncertainties surrounding climate change remain following mountain goat removal.
This uncertainty is the impact that climate change will have on the park, specifically on the alpine and subalpine species the removal projects intends to protect. Within these regions, the risk of drought and fire within summer months will likely lead to a change in distribution of many species (Halofsky et al, 2011). Soil moisture is projected to decline, a concern for the health of alpine and subalpine vegetation (Halofsky et al, 2011).
Collectively, the mountain goat removal project indicates both a desire for Olympic National Park to be protected, yet for humans to still have the ability to shape its function and resilience. This is highlighted by the removal of mountain goats from Olympic National Park, a project that challenges our view of what protection and management really mean. Going forward, change regarding ecological, social, and climate related factors will continue to write the story of Olympic National Park.
Scientists and park officials suggest that the mountain goat removal will result in safer visiting opportunities for humans (Shipley, 2008). While human contact with mountain goats was a concern listed by the National Park Service’s most recent environmental assessment, the role of public safety was not the primary reason for mountain goat removal (“Final Management Plan”, 2018).
Ecologically, the removal hopes to aid the recovery of alpine and subalpine areas within the park. According to the final environmental impact statement related to the project, a main objective of removal was to “Reduce or eliminate impacts on sensitive environments and unique natural resources from mountain goats in the park and in Olympic National Forest” (“National Park Service”, pg ii, 2018). Another primary objective of the removal was to “Further public understanding of the Olympic high elevation ecosystems and native species and the ecology and conservation of mountain goats in their native range” (“National Park Service”, pg ii, 2018). By doing this, the integrity of the designation of International Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site would be preserved (“National Park Service”, 2018). Also present within the projects environmental impact assessment was the opportunity for less closures benefiting visitors, less impact on archaeological sites, and less impact on soils within the region (“National Park Service”, 2018).
With mountain goats removed from the park, funding can be allocated towards scientific objectives informing future park management. These objectives include protecting re-introduced fisher and Olympic marmot populations, monitoring glacier levels for key climate change data, and carrying out the Elwha River Restoration project (“Science and Research”, 2016). Yet, uncertainties surrounding climate change remain following mountain goat removal.
This uncertainty is the impact that climate change will have on the park, specifically on the alpine and subalpine species the removal projects intends to protect. Within these regions, the risk of drought and fire within summer months will likely lead to a change in distribution of many species (Halofsky et al, 2011). Soil moisture is projected to decline, a concern for the health of alpine and subalpine vegetation (Halofsky et al, 2011).
Collectively, the mountain goat removal project indicates both a desire for Olympic National Park to be protected, yet for humans to still have the ability to shape its function and resilience. This is highlighted by the removal of mountain goats from Olympic National Park, a project that challenges our view of what protection and management really mean. Going forward, change regarding ecological, social, and climate related factors will continue to write the story of Olympic National Park.
References
Agencies plan to start translocating mountain goats from the olympics. (2018). States News Service
Ancient Peoples and Area Tribes. (2018, February 15). Retrieved March 2, 2019, from https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/the-people-of-the-olympic-peninsula.htm
Annual Park Recreation Visitation Graph (1935 - Last Calendar Year). (2017). Retrieved March 6, from https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/Reports/Park/OLYM
Billo, T. (2018, April 1). ENVIR 280 SP 18 Geography and Geomorphology. Lecture presented at ENVIR 280 at the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Bush, E. (2017). Mountain goats in olympic national park: Their days may be numbered.The Seattle Times
Dark, A. (1997). Landscape and politics on the olympic peninsula: Social agendas and contested practices in scientific forestry. Journal of Political Ecology, 4(1), 1. doi:10.2458/v4i1.21343
Douce, E., & Garder, J. (2019, January 16). How Is the Partial Government Shutdown Affecting National Parks? Retrieved March 6, 2019, from https://www.npca.org/articles/2029-how-is-the-partial-government-shutdown-affecting-national-parks
East, A. E., Pess, G. R., Bountry, J. A., Magirl, C. S., Ritchie, A. C., Logan, J. B., Shafroth, P. B. (2015). Large-scale dam removal on the elwha river, washington, USA: River channel and floodplain geomorphic change. Geomorphology, 228, 765-786. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.08.028
Final Mountain Goat Management Plan for Olympic National Park Released. (2018, May 4). Retrieved March 26, 2019, from C:/Users/Sam/Downloads/May 4_OLYM_FEIS_MountainGoatMngmtPlan.pdf
Flippen, J. B. (2011). Olympic national park: A natural history. Manhattan: Journal of the West Inc.
Glusac, E. (2013). A dam smart move on the olympic peninsula. National Geographic Traveler, 30(6), 28.
Halofsky, Jessica & Peterson, D.L. & Aubry, C & Dowling, C & Acker, Steven. (2012). Climate change and vegetation management at
Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park. USDA Forest Service - General Technical Report PNW-GTR. 61-90.
Halofsky, J. E., Peterson, D. L., O’Halloran, K. A., & Hoffman, C. H. (2011). Adapting to climate change at Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-844. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 130 p, 844.
Houston, D. B., Stevens, V., & Moorhead, B. B. (2007). Mountain Goats in Olympic National Park: Biology and Management of an Introduced Species (Chapter 4). Retrieved March 3, 2019, from https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/science/25/chap4.htm
Laws, Policies & Regulations (U.S. National Park Service). (July 22, 2015). Retrieved March 6, 2019, from https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/lawsandpolicies.htm
Le, P. (2010). Goat kills man, stares at hikers trying to help: Olympic national park rangers shoot, kill mountain goat. The Charleston Gazette
Mountain goat management in Olympic National Park: Environmental assessment. (1987). Port Angeles, WA: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, USDA Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, United States. (2018). Final Mountain Goat Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (pp. 1-320). Port Angeles, Washington.
Olympic National Park. (2018, April 18). Retrieved March 2, 2019, from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/national-parks/olympic-national-park/
Park History | Olympic National Parks | Olympic Peninsula WA. (2019). Retrieved March 3, 2019, from https://www.olympicnationalparks.com/discover/park-history/
Science & Research (U.S. National Park Service). (February 16, 2016). Retrieved March 6, from https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/scienceresearch.htm
Shipley, J. (2018). Goats Go Home. Retrieved March 3, 2019, from https://www.npca.org/articles/2023-goats-go-home
Stevens, V. (1983). The Dynamics Of Dispersal In An Introduced Mountain Goat Population (Washington), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
The People of the Olympic Peninsula. (2018, February 15). Retrieved March 2, 2019, from https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/the-people-of-the-olympic-peninsula.htm
Tribes. (2013). Retrieved March, 2019, from http://www.roadsideolympicpeninsula.com/resources/tribes/
Upload. (1855). The Quinault River Treaty. Retrieved March 2, 2019, from https://www.cwis.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/premium/267dp11104.pdf
Images:
National Park Service. (2018). A mountain goat stands atop a crag in Olympic National Park. (Photo). Retrieved from https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/removal-of-olympic-national-park-mountain-goats-could-start-in-summer/
N/A. Studying sediment in the uncovered landscape of a drained reservoir. (n.d) Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/elwha-river-restoration-research-publications.htm
Neil Mortiboy. (Photographer). (1952). Two park rangers and a group of visitors view part of the scenic panorama where a lodge will be built on Hurricane Ridge. The lodge opened in 1952. (Photo). Retrieved from https://www.seattletimes.com/life/outdoors/vintage-photos-showcase-beauty-of-olympic-national-park/
Ramon Dompor. (Photographer). (2018). Goats were sedated and blindfolded Thursday in Olympic National Park before being put into harnesses as part of the goat relocation project. (Photo). Retrieved from https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/150540-780x520.jpg
Ancient Peoples and Area Tribes. (2018, February 15). Retrieved March 2, 2019, from https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/the-people-of-the-olympic-peninsula.htm
Annual Park Recreation Visitation Graph (1935 - Last Calendar Year). (2017). Retrieved March 6, from https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/Reports/Park/OLYM
Billo, T. (2018, April 1). ENVIR 280 SP 18 Geography and Geomorphology. Lecture presented at ENVIR 280 at the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Bush, E. (2017). Mountain goats in olympic national park: Their days may be numbered.The Seattle Times
Dark, A. (1997). Landscape and politics on the olympic peninsula: Social agendas and contested practices in scientific forestry. Journal of Political Ecology, 4(1), 1. doi:10.2458/v4i1.21343
Douce, E., & Garder, J. (2019, January 16). How Is the Partial Government Shutdown Affecting National Parks? Retrieved March 6, 2019, from https://www.npca.org/articles/2029-how-is-the-partial-government-shutdown-affecting-national-parks
East, A. E., Pess, G. R., Bountry, J. A., Magirl, C. S., Ritchie, A. C., Logan, J. B., Shafroth, P. B. (2015). Large-scale dam removal on the elwha river, washington, USA: River channel and floodplain geomorphic change. Geomorphology, 228, 765-786. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.08.028
Final Mountain Goat Management Plan for Olympic National Park Released. (2018, May 4). Retrieved March 26, 2019, from C:/Users/Sam/Downloads/May 4_OLYM_FEIS_MountainGoatMngmtPlan.pdf
Flippen, J. B. (2011). Olympic national park: A natural history. Manhattan: Journal of the West Inc.
Glusac, E. (2013). A dam smart move on the olympic peninsula. National Geographic Traveler, 30(6), 28.
Halofsky, Jessica & Peterson, D.L. & Aubry, C & Dowling, C & Acker, Steven. (2012). Climate change and vegetation management at
Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park. USDA Forest Service - General Technical Report PNW-GTR. 61-90.
Halofsky, J. E., Peterson, D. L., O’Halloran, K. A., & Hoffman, C. H. (2011). Adapting to climate change at Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-844. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 130 p, 844.
Houston, D. B., Stevens, V., & Moorhead, B. B. (2007). Mountain Goats in Olympic National Park: Biology and Management of an Introduced Species (Chapter 4). Retrieved March 3, 2019, from https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/science/25/chap4.htm
Laws, Policies & Regulations (U.S. National Park Service). (July 22, 2015). Retrieved March 6, 2019, from https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/lawsandpolicies.htm
Le, P. (2010). Goat kills man, stares at hikers trying to help: Olympic national park rangers shoot, kill mountain goat. The Charleston Gazette
Mountain goat management in Olympic National Park: Environmental assessment. (1987). Port Angeles, WA: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, USDA Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, United States. (2018). Final Mountain Goat Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (pp. 1-320). Port Angeles, Washington.
Olympic National Park. (2018, April 18). Retrieved March 2, 2019, from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/national-parks/olympic-national-park/
Park History | Olympic National Parks | Olympic Peninsula WA. (2019). Retrieved March 3, 2019, from https://www.olympicnationalparks.com/discover/park-history/
Science & Research (U.S. National Park Service). (February 16, 2016). Retrieved March 6, from https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/scienceresearch.htm
Shipley, J. (2018). Goats Go Home. Retrieved March 3, 2019, from https://www.npca.org/articles/2023-goats-go-home
Stevens, V. (1983). The Dynamics Of Dispersal In An Introduced Mountain Goat Population (Washington), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
The People of the Olympic Peninsula. (2018, February 15). Retrieved March 2, 2019, from https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/the-people-of-the-olympic-peninsula.htm
Tribes. (2013). Retrieved March, 2019, from http://www.roadsideolympicpeninsula.com/resources/tribes/
Upload. (1855). The Quinault River Treaty. Retrieved March 2, 2019, from https://www.cwis.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/premium/267dp11104.pdf
Images:
National Park Service. (2018). A mountain goat stands atop a crag in Olympic National Park. (Photo). Retrieved from https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/removal-of-olympic-national-park-mountain-goats-could-start-in-summer/
N/A. Studying sediment in the uncovered landscape of a drained reservoir. (n.d) Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/elwha-river-restoration-research-publications.htm
Neil Mortiboy. (Photographer). (1952). Two park rangers and a group of visitors view part of the scenic panorama where a lodge will be built on Hurricane Ridge. The lodge opened in 1952. (Photo). Retrieved from https://www.seattletimes.com/life/outdoors/vintage-photos-showcase-beauty-of-olympic-national-park/
Ramon Dompor. (Photographer). (2018). Goats were sedated and blindfolded Thursday in Olympic National Park before being put into harnesses as part of the goat relocation project. (Photo). Retrieved from https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/150540-780x520.jpg