2. Encourage carnivores on stock ranges* 
Let us take the poison operations on the California National 
Forest referred to above. No coyote control work was done in 
this Forest or the Trinity Forest to the north nor Mendocino 
and Humboldt before 1921. The coyotes were so abwzdant in. 
these two counties that they had forced most of the sheep pro- 
ducers out of the business. Only private trappers were at work* 
Mr. Clark, who lives near Laytonville and has a ranch there, 
described the situation in the hearing before Congress several 
years ago. Yet with the coyotes as abundant as they were they 
had little or no effect on the control of the Douglas ground 
squirrel present in that area. It was necessary to use artificial 
means of control. 
Another area in California where before 1920 no control of the 
coyotes had been done is range country above and between 
Independence and Bishop in the Sierras. I checked that area 
in 1919 and there were 50 Belding ground squirrels to the acre 
in the large meadows and they were taking 40 to 50% of the range 
in what they ate and destroyed with their burrows and mounds* 
Why hadn't the natural enemies kept them in check? They had 
not been disturbed up there except by private trappers. 
I am wondering if we can't find the answer in the natural rate 
of increase in population of the rodents as compared with that 
of their natural enemies. Considering the rate at which a coyote 
eats squirrels how many would it take to control ground squirrels 
in infestation of 10 to 50 per acre. At the Bison Refuge in 1933 
 
- 18 -