Richardson, "1825": 328-330, and 1829: 242; Godman, 1831, +2+:
284; Murray, 1858: 210; B. R. Ross, 1861: 438; Pike, 1917
(1892): 58-59; J. B. Tyrrell, 1892: 128, and 1894: 442; Whitney,
1896: 239; Russell, 1898: 228-229; Jones, 1899: 411; Hanbury,
1900: 67, and 1904: 32, 137, 194; Preble, 1902: 41; R. M.
Anderson, 1913b: 504; Stefánsson, 1913b: 204, 212-213, 333;
Douglas, 1914: 191-192; Malloch, 1919: 55-56; Hewitt, 1921: 67;
Johansen, 1921: 22-24, 29, 35, 37; Stefánsson, 1921: 247;
Blanchet, 1925: 32, and 1926b: 47; Birket-Smith, 1929 (1): 56,
133; Seton, 1929, +3+: 109-111; Critchell-Bullock, 1930: 193;
Hoare, 1930: 33, 37-38; Kitto, 1930: 89; Jacobi, 1931: 244-245;
Munn, 1932: 58; Sutton and Hamilton, 1932: 84-86; Birket-Smith,
1933: 90, 92; Ingstad, 1933: 48, 135; Hornby, 1934: 105; Soper,
1936: 429; Henriksen, 1937: 25, 26; Hamilton, 1939: 247, 301;
Murie, 1939: 245; Clarke, 1940: 70, 95; Downes, 1943: 226, 255;
Manning, 1943a: 53; Porsild, 1943: 386; Gavin, 1945: 228;
Harper, 1949: 228; Banfield, 1951a: 31-33; Barnett, 1954: 104.
_Ectoparasites_
It was in vain that I searched a number of fresh specimens for lice,
mites, fleas, or ticks. The Schweder boys spoke of never having noticed
any such parasites. Seton (1929) mentions none, and Jacobi (1931: 243)
records only a louse (_Linognathus tarandi_) from the Reindeer. "Lice
are not known from caribou according to Ferris (in conversation)"
(Weber, 1950: 154).
_Relations to Reindeer_
Recent discussions of the possibility or advisability of introducing
domesticated Reindeer to replace, or to augment the diminishing supply
of, native American Caribou in various new localities prompt a brief
review of the subject.
It may be remarked at the outset that acclimatization attempts in the
Old World have generally been abortive. Wild Reindeer introduced from
Finmark into Iceland in the eighteenth century flourished for a time,
but by 1917 they were almost exterminated. A number of different
introductions into Great Britain, Denmark, Germany, Austria,
Switzerland, and Italy came to naught. On the other hand, the
introduction of Lapland Reindeer on the subantarctic island of South
Georgia in 1908 seems to have turned out successfully. (Jacobi, 1931:
158-165; Harper, 1945: 473-474.) A saving feature in each of the
above-mentioned cases was the absence of any native Reindeer whose
racial purity might have been destroyed by the newcomers.
Decrease of local American stocks of Caribou, and consequent suffering
of native populations who had in past generations depended upon these
animals for a major portion of their food supply, have led to
introduction of foreign Reindeer in several regions of North America,
from Newfoundland and Labrador in the east to Alaska in the west. The
persons responsible were doubtless inspired by high humanitarian
motives; but it is doubtful if they could have thoroughly considered or
foreseen the serious biological consequences of their efforts.
In Alaska, importation of domesticated Siberian Reindeer began in 1892.
By the 1930's the herds had increased to an estimated total of 600,000.
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 shore
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 succumbed
(Hewitt, 1921: 329-330).
"A large part of the reindeer in Alaska are south of the Arctic Circle
on the comparatively mild shores 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, principally 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 sparsely 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,
passed 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
Pass country, and white reindeer have been seen running with the
caribou. The number of unrecognized reindeer passing 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; Godsell, 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 mass 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 passage 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 passed 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;
Stefánsson, 1921: 255; R. M. Anderson, 1924: 329; Blanchet,
1926b: 48, and 1930: 52; Kindle, 1928: 72-73; Seton, 1929,
+3+: 131-134; Critchell-Bullock, 1930: 159-160; R. M. Anderson,
in Hoare, 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 principal 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 passing 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 attitude 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 sparse 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 sexes 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.
On August 28, when a band of 40 crossed the mouth of Little River, three
or four bucks plunged in first, but a doe was almost even with them. At
the Bear Slough, on September 3, a group consisted of two bucks, two
does, and a fawn. On September 15 Fred Schweder, Jr., reported seeing
about 100 Caribou, with not a buck among them. On September 24 about 15
does and fawns were resting or feeding quietly by Glacier Pond. On
September 28 a band of six large bucks crossed the Camp Ridge. On
October 1, an older and a younger buck appeared in the shoal waters of
Duck Bay. On November 3, in the same locality, a band of about 50 was
composed largely of does, but included a few fawns and a few
well-antlered bucks. On November 11 five does were reported crossing the
mouth of Windy River on the ice.