42 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME 



reference to the plan. Tliis ^ronp's inquiries met witli the immediate 

 favorable reaction of the board and soon the City of Los Angeles 

 issued formal perniissiou to introduce elk into its Owens Valley prop- 

 erties. Credit is due to ^Messrs. Dow and Dnnwoody, Hoy Booth, 

 Supervisor of the Inyo National Forest, Dean L. Sears and Dr. M. A. 

 Williamson, both of Lone Pine, and the Water and Power Board for 

 brinyinji' the nialter to such a speedy and successful conclusion. 



In the meantime, Dunwoody and Dow corresponded in this regard 

 with C. G. Thomson, Superintendent of Yosemite National Park, 

 and kept him informed of their progress. Supt. Thomson seemed to 

 favor the plan from the start. On -May 10, 19132, Dunwoody advised 

 the Superintendent that details were completed with the City of 

 Los Angeles and that the jxTiiiit had been granted. A few days 

 later, Dow advised Supt. Thomson that he was already to send trucks 

 in which to move the animals. This prompt action was a bit prenuiture, 

 for the National Park Service had not yet decided to move the elk and 

 would not agree to do so until it was satisfied beyond any question that 

 the herd would succeed in its new location. 



The National Park Service soon delegated George M. Wright, Chief 

 of its Wild Life Division, to conduct a thorough study into the details 

 of the proposed transfer both from the viewpoint of its desirability and 

 necessity, and of the suitability of Owens Valley for the animals' 

 success. Wright, on account of other Avork, was unable to undertake 

 this investigation until the following spring. On June 1, 1933, he 

 rendered a most comprehensive report on the subject to the Director 

 of the National Park Service. It seems advisable here, even at the 

 expense of some duplication in this paper, to put a goodly portion of 

 this report on record, for it indicates how thoroughly the Park Service 

 went into the matter before reaching a decision. 



In regard to the necessity and desirability of removing the elk 

 from the Park, Wright outlined the manner in which conditions as they 

 obtained in 1922, when the elk were placed in Yosemite, had changed, 

 as follows : 



1. Now contrary to policy to harbor exotics in a National Park. 



2. Against National Park policy to exhibit animals in confinement. 



3. Inconsistent with National Park's educational program, which is to 

 stimulate visitors to study nature in place, to have elk enclosed in a paddock 

 within sight of its Educational Museum, a living contradiction to this principle. 



4. Space used by elk pasture required for caring for great crowds of 

 Park visitors. 



5. Maintenance of elk herd costs Educational Department of Yosemite 

 $400 per year for feed for animals. 



6. Need for preserving species from extinction that threatened in 1022. 

 now removed with establishment [in 19.S21 of 1000 acre State Park in San 

 Joa(|uin \'alley with 140 'i'ule lOlk mi it. 



Wright's report then outlined tlie requirements that should be met 

 before acting on the pro]-)osal to transfer tlio nuinuils to Owens Valley, 

 as follows : 



1. Obtain approval of California Academy of Sciences. 



2. Obtain approval of scientific groii)) at the University of California. 



3. Obtain approval of the California Division of Fish and Game. 



4. Local inhabitants should be favorably disposed to the introduction. 



(This requirement already met by assurance of G. W. Dow and otiier residents 

 of Owens Valley.) 



