Your support helps us bring you programs you love.

Go to WyomingPBS.org, click on support and become a sustaining member or an annual member.

Its easy and secure.

Thank you.

- [Steve] Cam Sholly had a very busy job as the Superintendent of Yellowstone National Park, even before he had to deal with a viral pandemic and Yellowstone's 150th anniversary.

In the second of our two part interview with Superintendent Sholly, he'll talk about a new initiative to embrace Yellowstone's history with American Indian tribes, and why he thinks the reintroduction of wolves has been a singular success story.

Yellowstone Superintendent Cam Sholly part two, starting now on Wyoming Chronicle.

(dramatic music) - [Announcer] Funding for this program is made possible in part by the Wyoming Humanities Council, helping Wyoming take a closer look at life through the humanities, thinkwhy.org, and by the members of the Wyoming PBS Foundation.

Thank you for your support.

- When Matt and I arrived at the gate this morning, the gate fee was $35.

I know, of course, that is more than it used to be, and that draws complaints.

Visiting Yellowstone's still a bargain though, isn't it?

- Well, I think it's a matter of what you think a bargain is, but $35 per car for a seven day pass, I think is pretty affordable.

It's $2 and I think 89 cents per day for a family of four for an average three day stay in that range.

I think that's very affordable.

- I heard someone say once every member of Congress should have to visit Yellowstone every certain number of years.

That would be a good idea to, I mean, everybody wants more money, of course.

Do you think that, do you feel understood by the people that need to understand?

- Absolutely, I mean, I've worked in a lot of places.

We have great congressional support for the national park system.

We have incredible support from our congressional delegations surrounding Yellowstone, and I mean, if you look at Steve Danes, and him championing Great American Outdoors Act, John Barrasso, or Cynthia Lummis, or Liz Cheney, or Jon tester, there's an incredible group of senators and congressmen and women that are interested, and want to support, not only Yellowstone, but parks around the country.

- You talked about building new partnerships as well, and embracing old ones, and some of that has to do with new installations that are taking place right now at the park.

Tell us about a couple of those.

- Yeah, we've done what I would say an okay job of engaging American Indian tribes in this park over the past decades, not great.

We've had good relations.

We've done some good things with them, but we felt the 150th was a point in time where we could really do a much better job of engaging American Indian tribes that were affiliated with this area, and we've done that.

And so I think starting in May and June, we'll have the first Tribal Heritage Center at Old Faithful, where we're gonna have, I think right now we've got 30 tribes that want to participate, and those tribes will rotate through scholars, be able to display their artwork, be able to engage the public directly about their culture and heritage.

There's kind of two things.

I mean, we wanna do better as stewards, and make sure we're telling the stories accurately, but no one can tell the stories of American Indians better than American Indians.

And so wherever there's opportunities for that to happen, we're looking for those with our tribal partners.

And we have a great internship program that we're setting up with tribal colleges and the CSKT Tribes.

We are gonna do a very large tepee village in Gardner in August.

Nez Percé will be their Appaloosa horse ride.

We'll do a Appaloosa horse ride on the trail.

We are actively inventorying where are we telling stories about American Indian history?

Are those stories accurate through the eyes of the tribes, not necessarily through the eyes of the park service?

And so what are we getting right?

What are we not getting right?

What are we missing the mark completely?

And that's another thing that we're engaged on right now as well.

- Are the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes part of the- - Absolutely.

- I'm sure they must be.

- Yeah, we just did a phenomenal Zoom session with them in early March.

We're gonna do a face to face symposium on the Wind River Reservation in early June.

- What is it that you feel they desire or hope that this new enterprise, this new initiative can do?

- If you look at our Bison Conservation Transfer Program, I mean, that was fledgling three years ago, and we're now moving, we've moved just under 200 bison to the Assiniboine and Sioux at Fort Peck, and in partnership with the InterTribal Buffalo Council, moved bison to I believe, 18 or 19 tribes in nine states.

- And what's important about that?

- Well, I mean, the bison are, for multiple reasons, some of the most important animals to tribes, and for us to, I think it's important to fulfill our trust responsibilities to work with tribes to get Yellowstone bison, live Yellowstone bison that are disease-free transferred to tribes so they can have their own conservation herds, and have the valuable cultural importance of bison and the genetics of the Yellowstone bison, not just confined to Yellowstone, but across tribal landscapes across the country.

- And fewer bison being killed if they stray outside the park, which regardless of the arguments for it, and there were those, I mean, it was done for a reason, but it wasn't a great, I don't think anyone was really satisfied with that.

- You know, Interagency Bison Management Plan was signed in 2000, set a general number of about 3000 for a population.

It gave room for adaptive management decisions to be made, and over the last 22 years, that group, which includes the state of Montana and the USDA, Forest Service, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, includes multiple tribes, has made, and the park service obviously has made decisions that have, I think, progressed the framework in which we manage bison, staying true to some of the major objectives of the IBMP, which are a healthy, free-ranging, viable bison population, and preventing brucellosis transfer to livestock in Montana, and reducing conflict with private land owners.

We're achieving those objectives.

Right now, we have a population that's at roughly the highest number of bison in the park since 1872.

- Which is approaching 5,000 now, right?

- 5,550.

- [Steve] 5,500.

- We've also, this is an impact of climate change also, had very limited migrations out of the park in the last several years.

- [Steve] And how's that tied to climate change?

- Well, when you have less precipitation, and one of the things that makes the bison migrate out of the park are heavy snow packs, ice in the park, and inability for them to obtain forage, so they move to lower elevation.

And so that's been relatively predictable over the last two decades, and that was a big problem back when the original IBMP was signed in 2000, was the migrations were so large, there were more cattle outside the park.

There was a higher risk of interface between Yellowstone bison, that about 60% have the disease brucellosis, which induces abortions in cattle.

And there was a lot of conflicts with private land owners because of those migrations, and we don't have that right now.

So we have one of the highest numbers we've ever had, and we've had lighter migrations.

Now, at some point, we're gonna get migrations.

They're gonna gonna go out of the park, and we need to be prepared to handle those, and we're gonna do that through tribal hunting, state hunting, the Bison Conservation Transfer Program.

And although I do not like to ship bison to slaughter.

That is a population management technique that's been used, and although we're gonna try to use those other two tools more aggressively for the foreseeable future, we'll probably continue to do that once bison migrate outside the park.

So I would say that we have a better structure to manage the population when the migrations do happen than we did 22 years ago.

And we need to, we also need to look at what's the carrying capacity of Yellowstone, how many bison can it hold, and take into consideration other ungulates, and what the general capacity is.

One of the things we've seen here recently has been bison moving to areas of the park they never moved before.

So we feel like 3,000's probably on the low end.

We think that stabilizing where we are right now, and seeing how that goes, and ensuring we're still meeting the objectives of the IBMP is important, and we'll continue to work with our partners to figure out that balance.

- 50 Years ago, 3000 bison in Yellowstone might have seemed like a pipe dream, the way things had gone 50 years prior to that.

- True, that's true.

- Figured out a better way to do it.

One of the big, big stories of the 20th century, late 20th century in Wyoming was the reintroduction of wolves.

Do you think of that in terms of being a success or not, or what's the state of the wolf in Yellowstone, and the surrounding area from the point of view of the park superintendent?

- Probably the most successful wildlife conservation restoration effort in the history of this country, and wolves are so valuable to Yellowstone in so many different ways.

And listen, Yellowstone is 96% in Wyoming, 3% in Montana, 1% in Idaho.

We work very closely with those states on wildlife conservation objectives.

We have, we will, we have, and we will continue to work with the state of Montana to not only help them achieve their wildlife conservation objectives, which I'm not gonna get into my viewpoints on statewide management of species by the states, but where there's areas that we can partner and collaborate, and the wolves in Yellowstone, I think are a really good example of that.

Just like with bison, how much money, and we're spending time and energy to prevent bison from infecting livestock with brucellosis, and we've gotta manage that interface.

People need to understand that.

Similarly with wolves, the state legislature in Montana passed a law that there would be a large reduction in the wolf population across the state.

What we're asking for is can that be done more surgically?

There are two wolf management units you've probably read about in northern Yellowstone that the state manages, units 313 and 316, which is basically Gardner and Cook City.

The wolves in Yellowstone, which number in a range of about 80 to 120, they were on that higher end last year, move into 313 and 316.

They spent about 5% of the time in the state of Montana.

They are some of the most researched, studied, and watched wolves in the entire world.

We have very good information about where they go, what they do, how far into Montana do they go, things like that.

And you look at what is the fundamental reason from a wildlife conservation perspective that we can't work together with the state to protect wolves that were bred in Yellowstone, and yes, transcend the boundary, and can we work together to protect them?

Because wolves in Yellowstone, although very wild, are tolerant to humans watching them.

And when they step across that boundary, they don't know the difference between a spotting scope and a rifle scope.

And when we start looking at reasons the state is reducing the wolf population, comes down to, in the large part, livestock degradation, so wolves killing domestic animals.

A reduction of the elk population is thrown out there on a regular basis.

And the reality is that, at least in Park County, which encompasses 313 and 316, there's been one wolf-related livestock degradation incident in the last three years, less than one per year since 2013.

Livestock deprivation associated with wolves is not really occurring in this area.

So it may be something the state needs to focus on in other areas of the state, because it is a problem, but that's not a problem here right now.

If it becomes a problem, I suggest we have relationships that are strong enough, and we have a plan that's flexible enough that we address it.

because frankly, if you want to, if a Yellowstone Wolf goes out and kills livestock, we want that wolf killed also.

We don't want wolves passing on cattle, livestock as prey to other wolves.

So that's really important.

In regards to the elk population, I mean, the state is at their objective in northern Yellowstone.

The 10 year bull elk harvest average is higher now than it was 10 years ago.

They're over their objective in region three, which includes Bozeman, and Ennis, and this whole area, and they're over their objective statewide.

And so then you couple that with the incredible benefits that the wolves have to the Yellowstone ecosystem, and the tremendous economic benefits that wolves have to Montana communities, especially in the winter when tourism's at its lowest, and I hope there's room for us to work together to help the state accomplish their objectives, at the same time, the state helping us protect the integrity and the core population of wolves in Yellowstone.

- I hear you talking a lot about Montana, which is very interesting to me, and clearly, many of these issues you're talking about have a focus on Montana.

We're Wyoming Public Television.

What does Wyoming mean to Yellowstone?

- First of all, all the states have really good people working to manage wildlife.

I wanna say that up front.

Wyoming has the best I've ever seen in my career in many ways, especially when it comes to wolf management.

I mean, they count their wolves the way we count 'em.

They manage their populations in ways that are very progressive.

They have very clear cut, scientifically-based objectives, and we work very, very closely with them.

And yeah, I think that I was just in a meeting last week with a director of Wyoming Game and Fish, and a great conversation on wildlife corridors, and how can we work together to protect wildlife corridors?

How can we work together to, on say, aquatic invasive species protection so that we're maximizing the use of state resources and federal resources to help each other?

And many of these wildlife issues, it's not a, to me at least, it's not a state or federal type of thing.

It's about partnerships.

It's about trade offs.

Partnerships require reciprocity.

They require give and take.

They require an ability to understand that one partner's viewpoints on something or objectives may be a little bit different than another's.

Is there common ground there?

And I think that's what we're focused on with all three states, and where we can collaborate, and make good decisions for the future.

- Where are we on the battle against the lake trout?

Is that progress being made, speaking of looking years in the future, do you think we'll reach the objective there?

- Well, I dunno if you saw that the other day, there was a smallmouth bass at the confluence of the Gardner and Yellowstone River.

- [Steve] Small mouth bass.

- And we're investing more money this year in native fish restoration in Yellowstone than we ever have.

- And the point being the smallmouth bass wasn't something you ever thought- - It wasn't on the radar.

Well, I said that a few minutes ago.

I mean, it's like you don't know what's coming next, and then, so there's a whole range of different actions that we're gonna take to monitor that, and figure out what a strategy might be.

We continue to be on top of the lake trout issue in Yellowstone Lake, thanks to this incredible team here of fish biologists, the contractors, the public, a lot of philanthropy, a lot of federal dollars, but that's a great example, I think, where I said this before, but in the '80s and '90s, we started seeing lake trout here and there, and we- - And that would've been the time to pounce on it, in retrospect.

- Yeah, I don't wanna second guess the actions, because you know what you know at a certain point in time.

- [Steve] It's easy to look back.

- I think if anybody had a crystal ball, and they were saying you're gonna spend 10, $15 million in a five year period to eradicate lake trout, we might have taken a different approach, but it gets back to what I said about predicting the future, and trying to understand where those threats and challenges are gonna come, and can you be more proactive early?

- How about the tiger mussels, and the invasive aquatic boat hugger organisms?

- Well, thanks to the team, I think we had at least one or two instances where they were detected in the last year or so, and because of aggressive inspections, we caught them.

If you let some of those into Lake Yellowstone, and you are going to, you talk about 20 or 30 years from now, see substantial changes, just like we have in other areas of the country where that's happened.

- And again, something that wasn't on the radar years ago.

- [Cam] Absolutely.

- When we're coming up from Wyoming PBS, normally, if we'd been in the summer season, we would come up through the south entrance, Moran Junction, great views of the Tetons.

Here I am promoting it to people who think that the only way to come in is somewhere else.

And you'd mentioned earlier that you wouldn't, my perception is you wouldn't mind if more people chose to enter the park from some of these other entrances.

Are there any infrastructure, road, bridge improvements scheduled for that part of the park?

- We've got two very major projects going on, the replacement of Lewis River bridge, which is just north of the south entrance, about 10 miles.

We're redoing the road between Grant Village and Old Faithful, another major road segment.

We chose, instead of having them staggered, and having impacts for two years for the bridge, and then another two years for the road project, to basically put them together.

And so what that's gonna mean is someone coming up from the south entrance is gonna need to plan, and we'll do everything that we can to proactively communicate with folks to minimize impact, but there is no way to put it, other than bring your patience, because it's gonna be more difficult than normal to get into the south entrance of Yellowstone.

- Is there a typical tenure for a park superintendent?

How long would you expect to, you might be on the job?

- You never know.

- [Steve] A year from now?

- Never know.

- [Steve] Never know?

- You never know.

- [Steve] Okay.

- Yeah.

- You've seen lots of plans and have, because of when you've come on the job, have had to do a lot of looking forward.

What do you think the state of the park might be 10 years from now?

Where are you most optimistic that things could be better in light of the priorities you've set out?

Is it all of them?

- Well, hope so.

- [Steve] I'm sure.

- I think we'll continue to see bigger and bigger effects of climate change.

I think that even people that I've known in the past that have been unwilling to acknowledge that climate change is going to be, isn't going to be a major factor, are starting to realize that that's not the case.

And I think for us to understand, if you look at last year, we had some of the lowest water levels, warmest water temperatures that we've had in this park in a long time.

- And it's now been 40 years since the last big fire.

- Right, you've got, we put out, I think, 13 fires last year, and the big difference, I think, was we started putting them out in May and June, and we have a need to put fire on this landscape for ecological benefits, and the best time of year to do that is early, when usually you've got more moisture in the ground, it's safer to do it.

It's been so dry this last couple years, that we've had to go almost into a full suppression mode right away, or risk some type of catastrophic wildfire escape.

That is not a good long-term strategy.

That's something that we've gotta focus on in the future.

But I think to answer your question, visitation cannot continue to grow at the pace that we've seen in the last six years, or something is gonna have to be done with that.

So I think you'll see a different approach over the next 10 years in how we manage visitation, and I think you'll continue to see a lot of successes in areas that we're working on, and you'll see areas that surface that maybe a year or two or three ago, we didn't think were a big threat that become that, and we've gotta do a better job of predicting where those areas are, and how to proactively address some of those things, not just be in a reaction mode.

- If you could speak to someone who has just spent the day waiting in line 12 deep on tiptoe to see Old Faithful erupt, which is a great thing to see, what's the next thing you might recommend that person do to get a fuller experience of Yellowstone?

- Well, I always recommend, a lot of it's length of stay.

I mean, and like I said, so many people are first time visitors, they're gonna go to Old Faithful, and Midway Geyser Basin, and the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone.

Really try to encourage people to get out to the best degree possible, get out into the back country, see areas, get out on Yellowstone Lake, take a hike to Shoshone Lake, get away from those really crowded areas, because we end up spending probably 98% of our time, energy, and money in about one to 2% of this park, but there's so much more to this park than just those areas.

- And it's not that hard to do.

- It's not hard to do, and we, I think team's doing a better and better job of helping people trip plan.

I don't think you're gonna ever get away from the 12 deep at Old Faithful, but I think it's important that people not just look at those iconic areas within the park, but understand what else the park has to offer.

- And in my previous job, I often was sent books to review, and one was from a park ranger.

I believe his name was Jerry Muirden, and you may not know Jerry.

- Yeah, I knew Jerry.

- I know that he, in some ways, reminded me of your story when I read it.

He had some Yosemite experience as a younger man, came to Yellowstone, had a lot of other assignments as well, and he rose to a certain rank of management and training.

And then the impression I got from his book was he might have been able to press on, and hire in the administrative ranks, but decided not to, because he was afraid he'd have to leave Yellowstone where he served for 32 years.

But the thing I'll always remember from the book was he said, "I like nothing better than being on a good horse in good country."

So we've talked about the, ambitious is the nice way to say the plans that you have in place that are in place for the park.

Do you have time to get on a good horse in good country to have time to enjoy the park yourself in the way that you want others to?

- Not as much as I'd like, but I do over 200 miles in the back country every year.

That's kind of my goal, and I've been able to hit that or more every year that I've been here, and it's really the real park.

I mean, when you get out into some of the remote areas, and they're, the number of visitors once you're a half mile to a mile away from the car, the parking lot, I mean, there's been 20 mile sections I've seen no one, and so you truly get a much better feel for the wildness, the remoteness of this park, and it gives you kind of a different sense and purpose in relationship to what we're doing here together as Americans in protecting Yellowstone.

(dramatic music)