40 CAMl'OKMA IISII AM) (iA.MK 



C. L. Brown, -west of Mariposa, when it appcai'cd to bo in ^(,0,1 ^.o^\- 

 dition, but lias not been lieard of since. 



Kec'ords made available for preparin«i this paper fail to provide the 

 reasons for the loss of tAvo elk in 1930 and a similar number the follow- 

 in<r year; presumably the animals died from some natural causes. The 

 bull that died December 22. ^'^'^^. after two weeks' illness was (p;ite 

 evidently past his prime. He had small o-point antlers and his teeth 

 were worn to the grums, some of them bein<>- badly infected and 

 ulcerated. 



From 1924 until 19;]2, the nund)er of adult bulls ecpialed or out- 

 numbered the old cows in the Yosemite herd. It is thought that this 

 condition was responsible for the small number of calves that were born 

 each year as an excess of fipliting on behalf of the disproportionate 

 number of bulls ])i'obably interfered with their breeding activities. At 

 any rate, the proportion of sexes was deemed unsatisfactory so the 

 Park Service, early in 1932, decided to remove some of the surplus males 

 and on February 21, four adult bulls were killed and their remains 

 were ))reserved for scientific study by several California institutions. 

 The favorable effect of this reduction of surplus males upon the herd is 

 indicated by the fact that six calves, two more than were bom in any 

 other season, w^ere dropped the following spring, although it is a fact 

 that the mating season Avas over before the surplus males were killed. 



Early in 1928, sentiment began to develop against keeping the elk 

 in Yosemite Valley ])ermanently. For one thing, the tremendous 

 increase in the number of annual visitors to the Valley since the original 

 introduction in 1922 resulted, by 1928, in the need of every foot of 

 available space on the valley floor for the accomodation of the public. 

 Park officials saw^ that the space occupied by the elk corral would soon 

 be required for this purpose. The unsatisfactory experiment of liberat- 

 ing the animals in the Valley in 1927 indicated that relief could not 

 be found in this direction. Another reason for the change in sentiment 

 toward the elk was that by ]928 the National Park Service's policy 

 with reference to exhibiting caged or nonnative animals within the 

 Parks had altered, and the Service was now definitely on record against 

 such exhibits. 



A letter from Acting Superintendent E. P. Leavitt of Yosemite 

 National Park to M. Hall McAllister in June, 1928, outlined the 

 Service's attitude regarding this problem, but stated that no immediate 

 action Avas ])lanned. The subject was carefully considered by the 

 National Park Service during the next months when opinions regarding 

 it were secured from interested persons both within and without the 

 organization. Some of the opinions may be of interest for notwith- 

 standing the need of the space occupied by the elk corral for the pub- 

 lic's use, then Assistant Field Director Horace I\I. Albright and now 

 Assistant Director Dr. 11. C. P>ryant were among the Service's men 

 who expressed the hope that if might be jxissible to keep the animals 

 in the Valley. Superintendent Thomson tenaciously contended for 

 their removal from the Park. Dr. Jose])h Grinnell was, as originally 

 and always, ojiposed to keeping the elk in Yosemite because they are 

 nonnative to its fauna. ]\I. Hall McAllister suggested if the land 

 occupied by the iiaddock Avas recpiired for other ])urposes, it might be 

 possible to erect a corral in Bridalveil jNIeadoAvs or elscAvhere Avhere 



