Continued from page one

An Overlooked Legacy at Oregon Caves

Virtually all of the structures at Oregon Caves National Monument are sheathed in bark of the Port Orford-cedar, Chamaecyparis lawsoniana. This detail is part of a site design aimed at blending buildings with their surroundings. Port Orford-cedar (the name is hyphenated because it is not a member of the genus Cedrus, or true cedar) occurs from the eastern Siskiyou Mountains to the coast. Although its relative abundance at one time has been greatly reduced by disease, fire, and logging, a number of stream drainages in the vicinity of Oregon Caves contain enough cedar to draw tree lovers.

All buildings at Oregon Caves National Monument are sheathed in cedar bark, including the Chateau, seen here in this 1937 photo by Francis Lange.

Below the cave entrance area, Port Orford-cedar can be seen on Cave Creek as you leave the monument and follow the trail toward Cave Creek Campground. The remaining trees are along the fringe of several clearcuts, but there are enough of them to make a worthwhile walk. In this part of the Siskiyou National Forest, Port Orford-cedar is found in riparian areas or places where seepage is a foot or less below the surface. The tree can be identified by elegantly sweeping boughs and lacy foliage, as well as by a red brown fluted bark that can weather to a slight silver tinge with age. In this setting, Port Orford-cedar is often associated with an attractive understory of Pacific rhododendron, Rhododendron macrophyllum, or western azalea, R. occidentale.

Many visitors to Oregon Caves are unaware that they can see Port Orford-cedar on the trail to Big Tree. The “cedar” occurs throughout this part of the monument’s mixed conifer forest, though many visitors focus on the large Douglas-fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii, such as Big Tree or sugar pine, Pinus lambertiana. A young stand of cedar can be seen amid the Douglas-fir and Bigleaf maple, Acer macrophyllum, in Panther Creek downslope of Big Tree with some off-trailhiking. More impressive stands can be seen by taking the longer segment of the loop trail to Big Tree. Although sometimes steep, this route also provides access to Mount Elijah or a return to the cave entrance area.

The most serious threat to Port Orford-cedar’s survival throughout its range is the pathogen Phytophthora lateralis, a root rot fungus. It has infected several stands just three miles from Oregon Caves, killing a number of trees. The cedar is particularly susceptible to Phytophthora’s waterborne spores because its roots intermingle with those of other trees in drainages downslope of where infection has occurred. U.S. Forest Service researchers hope that Port Orford-cedar’s genetic variability may allow for some resistance to the disease even in heavily infected areas.

Other than small numbers occurring in Redwood National Park, no unit of the National Park System perpetuates Port Orford-cedar apart from Oregon Caves National Monument. The cedar population in the 480 acre monument is so close to infected areas that measures are needed to prevent the root rot’s spread to the park. One preventative measure is to keep hikers and vehicles out of places where the fungus spores can be transported into uninfected areas. This is especially important in the spring, when wet boots and tires can become agents for transmitting the fungus.

Phytophthora has considerably less chance of infecting Port Orford-cedar in summer, but another threat – wildfire- increases as fuel moisture levels d op. Catastrophic fires can occur throughout the cedar’s range wherever the explosive combination of low fuel moisture, high winds, fuel loads, and an ignition source occurs. Although mature Port Orford-cedar can survive low intensity fire with its thick bark, it was only prompt action by fire crews that stopped the Caves Fire of 1989 from engulfing the monument.

If the Caves Fire had not been contained, more then the commercial and aesthetic qualities of a forest with some Port Orford-cedar component would have been lost. Oregon Caves National Monument has some of the finest rustic architecture in the national park system. One structure, the Oregon Caves Chateau, is a national historic landmark. It and four others comprise a district listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The bark on these and other structures has proven to be exceptionally durable, requiring only occasional replacement after 50 or more years. Port Orford-cedar’s durability and past availability are factors in the survival of some pioneer cabins in the Illinois Valley. With age, the wood bleaches white and is why the tree is sometimes called “white cedar.” Several examples of cabins that utilized white cedar are on display at the Kerbyville Museum.

Interestingly enough, the landscape architect who proposed that the monument’s buildings make use of cedar bark also was concerned about the rapid cutting of Port Orford-cedar on the Oregon Coast as early as 1925. He and other proponents of a state park thought it to be as distinctive as coast redwood, Sequoia sempervirens, and knew that the Port Orford-cedar shares some similar attributes with redwood. Efforts to establish a state park stalled, so the U.S. Forest Service set aside two areas on the Coquille River in Coos County as research natural areas in 1938.

Feasibility studies for a Port Orford-cedar national monument by the National Park Service were the impetus for attempts to expand Oregon Caves National Monument in the 1940s. A fine sample of Port Orford- cedar existed along the ridgeline from the national monument to Grayback Campground, but logging during the 1960s and 1970s dealt a severe blow to hopes for a larger park. Nevertheless, part of Grayback Creek is still lined with Port Orford-cedar, as any adventurous motorist will discover if they take the road toward Low Divide and Williams.

Port Orford-cedar branch and cone Cedar branch: George Seedworth, Forest trees of the Pacific Slope,Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1909, p. 173; Cone: Hickman, p. 113.

Stands that Elijah Davidson would have seen on his way from Williams to discover Oregon Caves in 1874 persist, but in dwindling numbers. The cumulative impacts of disease, fire, and logging are compounded by the practice of replacing Port Orford-cedar in managed forest with other conifers. Consequently, the perpetuation of the tree in its native habitat will be difficult because its standing volume has been reduced to 15 percent of what it was estimated to be in 1850.

Although timber cruisers are quick to recognize Port Orford-cedar’s value because it has commanded the highest stumpage price of any commercial softwood for the past 40 years, it remains relatively unknown by the public. Unlike the coast redwood, Port Orford-cedar does not dwarf its surrounding conifers and rarely occurs in pure stands. In addition, Port Orford-cedar and Incense-cedar, Calocedrus decurrens are often confused with each other. Indeed, the Port Orford-cedar is so highly imitative in adapting to a wide range of environments that many tree lovers do not suspect that it occurs among the coast redwood of Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park. As a result, Port Orford-cedar’s significance has been largely overlooked. It can only be hoped, however, that the tree does not become a lost legacy.

On the Trail of Winter Animals

Winter at Crater Lake is a time of deep snow cover. Many animals avoid these difficult living conditions either by migrating or hibernating. Yet quite a few animal species found in the park remain active throughout the winter. Many of these animals spend at least some of their time on the surface of the snow, leaving tracks that are not easily observed in other seasons. In fact, winter is the best time to see evidence of some less commonly observed species such as pine martens, martes americana.

Where and When to Find Tracks

The abundance of wildlife here makes finding interesting tracks especially easy. Tracks can be found just about anywhere in the park, even in the sparse vegetation and harsh conditions on exposed peaks and ridges. Most people who visit Crater Lake in winter stop et Rim Village, where large numbers of pine marten and squirrel tracks can be seen. Park Headquarters, an area with less severe weather conditions and more diverse forest has a wider variety of tracks.

The best times to look for winter tracks are the first few days after snowstorms. During storms, animals are generally less active and any tracks will be quickly covered by new snow. The older a track is, the more likely it will be obscured or erased by drifting, melting, or drippings from trees. Some of the older windswept tracks may still be partly visible, however, as a raised pattern above the surrounding snow. These marks remain because the snow which had compressed to form the track is less susceptible to drifting.

Identifying Animals by Tracks

Almost all animal tracks have distinguishing characteristics which allow identification of their maker. Some of these tell-tale features are: appearance of individual prints (size, shape, presence of claws, number of toes), distance between sets of prints, distance between left and right feet, and the general pattern of the track. The appearance of a single print is the least useful means of identifying tracks because the clarity of a print varies depending on the snow conditions, the age of the print, the typical walking gait of the animal, and what the animal was doing when it left the print. The most useful pieces of information for identifying an animal by its track are the general pattern of the track, determined by the animal’s gait and the spacing of the prints. In snow, even weathered tracks usually provide this much information.

Animal tracks are easily divided into three groupings. The groups are: an alternating track, the two-print bound, and the four-print bound. These divisions usually relate more to the appearance of the track pattern rather than the animal’s gait. Most animals have some variations in their track patterns, but if the track is followed any distance, it will usually revert to one of the main groups.

The alternating track, common to all dogs and cats, is generally made with a walking or trotting gait. It is characterized by legs moving diagonally together, with the hind feet placed in or near the prints of the front feet. An alternating track can also result from side to side stepping, such as in the porcupine’s waddle.

The two-print bound is most commonly seen in members of the weasel family. It occurs when the animal leaps and lands on the two front feet, then lifts the front feet for the next bound as the rear feet land in the prints of the front feet.

The four-print bound is a signature of the common rabbit hop. This pattern is created when the front feet land first after the leap, followed by the hind feet landing on the outside and ahead of the front feet.

These three groups encompass tracks from very small animals, such as mice, to the largest mammals active in winter. To narrow the animal identification, two measurements are useful. One is the straddle of the track, which measures the width of the track between the outside edges of the prints. The other is stride, or the distance from one foot print in a track to the next print made by the same foot (diagram b). A ruler or any object (such as a knife or a ski pole) can be used for measurement.

If snow conditions are conducive, the footprint itself can be very instructive. The three main distinctions in prints are: presence or absence of claws, number and spacing of toes, and dimensions of the print. Persistence in following a back can often lead to finding a clear print.

In addition to characteristics of track pattern and print, the habitat where a track was made can help identify a track. At high mountain settings like the park, many animals are only present in certain elevation ranges. Similar looking tracks, such as pine marten and mink, mustela vison, can be distinguished in part by their location — such as running between trees (pine marten) or to and from streams (mink).

The chart offers a summary of tracks and some of their characteristics for animals active in winter at Crater Lake. This is, of course, simplified as there are a number of books available on animal tracks and behavior for more comprehensive study.

Be aware that other phenomena can produce track-like patterns in the snow: drippings from trees, small amounts of snow rolling down steep slopes, wind drifts. Being alert to unusual tracks, such as those made by bird feet or wing beats, can also add to an outing.

For those enjoying the backcountry at Crater Lake National Park in winter, or on a quick visit to the Rim Village area, the ever-present snow cover can reveal the often missed world of animal movement and behavior. Tracking yields the same excitement as solving a good mystery, with the added benefits of outdoor exercise and education. Tracking may even provide valuable information on rare or endangered species which often go unseen in the park.

Animal	Track group	Avg. straddle Avg. stride	Where found
Common Tracks
Pine Marten	2-print bound	3-4.5″ 24″	Throughout park
Douglas Squirrel	4-print bound	2.5-3.5″ 19″	All park forests
Deer Mouse	4-print bound	1.4-1.8″ 3.7″	Throughout park
Bushtail Woodrat	4-print bound	2.3-2.7″ 11″	Rock slides, pines, buildings
Snowshoe Hare	4-print bound	6-8″ 32″	All park forests
Long-tailed Weasel	2-print bound	1.8-2.8″ 20″	Throughout park, may be near water
Less Common Tracks
Coyote	alternating	4-7″ 18″	Throughout park
Mink	2-print bound	2.3-3.5″ 22″	Near creeks
Porcupine	alternating	5.5-9″ 7″	Throughout park
Rare Tracks
Bobcat	alternating	5-7″ 12″	Low elevations
Short-tailed Weasel	2-print bound	1.1-1.7″ 14″	Throughout park
Nutall’s Cottontail	4-print bound	4-5″ 24″	Ponderosa pine forests
Northern Water Shrew	4-print bound	0.9-1.1″ 3.5″	Near streams
Meadow Vole	2-print bound	1.3-2″ 6.5″	High mountain open areas

Table 1. Animal tracks. Direction of travel is left to right.

Further Information

Tom Brown, Jr. and Morgan Brandt, Tom Brown’s Field Guide to Nature Observation and Tracking, New York: Berkeley Books, 1983.

Louise R. Forrest, Field Guide to Tracking Animals in Snow, Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1988.

James Halfpenny, A Field Guide to Mammal Tracking in North America, Boulder, CO: Johnson Books, 1986.

Donald W. Stokes, A Guide to Nature in Winter, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1976.

Donald and Lillian Stokes, Animal Tracking and Behavior, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1986.

A Fish Tale You Can Believe

During my summer seasons as a ranger, I have answered many questions about America’s deepest lake. “Are there fish in the lake?” is one of the most frequently asked. The answer is yes, but the explanation cannot end there. How the fish arrived in Crater Lake is relevant because no streams breach the caldera wall.

In 1888, William Gladstone Steel — who was later known as the park’s founder — decided that people needed a recreational diversion upon arrival at the Lake of Blue Waters. As if the breathtaking beauty was not enough! So Steel decided to stock Crater Lake.

Initially, fingerlings (rainbow trout) were brought from the Rogue River to Crater Lake. Over a period of 40-50 years, five more species of fish were introduced: brook and brown trout, steelhead, coho (silver) salmon, and kokonee salmon. I am no ichthyologist, but it seems strange that Will and his associates placed steelhead (a rainbow trout that spends part of its life cycle in the ocean) and coho salmon in a lake with no inlets or outlets. Since both of these species move from ocean to fresh water streams to spawn, neither of them would survive very long in the closed system of Crater Lake.

For that matter, there have been no sightings of brook or brown trout since the 1960s. Among the six introduced to the lake, the only survivors appear to be the rainbow trout and kokonee salmon. Both are well equipped for Crater Lake’s cold, deep water.

Since the two existing species of fish in the lake were put there for recreational purposes, I bet all you anglers are wondering how the fishing is at Crater Lake. Writing as one who has been on a four year quest to catch the “Crater Lake Monster,” I feel qualified to provide some insight. Whether or not you will tell fishing stories about Crater Lake depends on what your expectations are before you start to fish.

If you come to the seventh deepest lake in the world and expect to fish the whole lake, you are badly mistaken. Just one trail provides access to the lake’s shoreline. The Cleetwood Cove Trail is one mile long and involves 700 feet of elevation change. Open only during the months of snowfree weather (generally July, August and September), the trail allows people to walk along the shoreline for roughly one quarter mile.

Shoreline fishing is one of the two options you have. The second involves taking the concessioner’s boat tour, which makes a stop et Wizard lsland. Since fishing from the tour boat is not allowed, the island is probably the best place to cast a line. I enjoy taking the morning’s first boat (usually 10 a.m.) and staying on the island until the

Before you invest in a boat tour to reach the island, you should know a few things. Crater Lake’s rainbow trout are a finicky species, but can grow rather large in this lake with few natural predators. Notwithstanding their larger size, the rainbow trout are fewer in number than the smaller and more plentiful kokonee salmon. You should not be surprised if, on your first five casts, you reel in a kokonee instead of a rainbow. It has happened to me on many occasions. In fact, there are days when getting a cast fully retrieved without a kokonee on the line can be the toughest challenge of all.

Rangers displaying catch, 1938.

Another challenge is making your way around the shoreline of Wizard Island. The sharp, loose lava is known for extracting bits and pieces of skin from brave visitors, primarily from the knees and palms. If you survive the ever-biting kokonee and all the scrapes and scratches, then you may be ready for a large rainbow trout to come your way. How large? Well, the rumors do fly!

Like most fishing spots, the size of the largest rainbow trout ever caught in the lake is debatable. The park’s aquatic biologist, Mark Buktenica, believes it to be the six pound, 27 inch monster retrieved m one of his research nets during the summer of 1991. I happened to be on the lake with Mark the day this fish was captured, so I can confirm this claim. The biggest rainbow trout I have caught with hook and line measured 21 inches long and weighed just under three pounds.

What did I use to catch this beast? I don’t mind sharing my secrets because the fish were introduced and really have no natural place in the lake’s ecosystem. Consequently, as long as they remain there, I will do my part m removing them and perhaps you can do your fair share, too. A steel blue-colored rooster tail is what helped me to catch that 21 inch trophy rainbow. Depending on the time of season, other “hot” lures to use are: crawdads (the plastic variety, as no live or organic bait is allowed), any variety of orange, black or yellow rooster tails, flat fish (bright silver works well). If you’re a purist, flies are always a good bet (a caddie-like offering may work especially well in mid to late summer).

Not only is the type of lure you choose important to your success, but so is your delivery style. The key to delivery is to be unobtrusive. Whether you are drifting a fly through shallow coves or fishing the deep dropoffs with a spinning setup, approach your target slowly and quietly. There is so little natural disturbance around the island that even the slightest shadow or rockfall will announce your presence. If the rainbow see you before your delivery is made it is best to move somewhere else because your chance at that spot is gone.

This fish story about Crater Lake would not be complete without two final details. First, if you are planning to fish all day from Wizard Island, be sure to leave yourself enough time to get back to the dock for the last boat tour of the day. Hurrying over the loose lava is never a good idea and it is just bad manners to make the ranger look for you. Second, remember that whatever you decide to take home or back to camp must make the 700 foot ascent back up the Cleetwood Cove trail. Making friends with some of the more sturdy looking folks on your boat ride back to the dock at Cleetwood Cove may be a good idea if you happen to catch the “Crater Lake Monster.”

Illustration by L. Howard Crawford, Nature Notes from Crater Lake, 1935.

Other pages in this section