1. February 4, 2010
Mr. Carter Smith Via email and US Mail
Executive Director
Texas Parks & Wildlife
4200 Smith School Rd.
Austin, TX 78744
Dear Carter:
Thank you for your letter of December 8, 2009. The purpose of this response is to
discuss the Department’s elk policy with the request it be changed from extirpation to
management, as with our other indigenous species. I apologize in advance for asking
you to read a long letter but in my opinion the subject of Texas elk is complex and
worthy of a complete discussion. I realize that you are recently arrived at the
Department and not present when these policies were established. In expressing
disagreement I tried to be respectful to those who were. I hope you will accept that
intent as context for what follows.
When I received and read the Management Plan for the Sierra Diablo WMA (the Plan),
I was dismayed to read the following statements: “[The exotic species, elk] will be
lethally removed when encountered . . . populations will be controlled at the
lowest numbers possible, with a goal of total elimination.”
So I asked our field biologist, Misty Sumner, about it. We enjoy a close working
relationship on many things including helping to fund her multi-year mule deer study.
Misty says that on all properties in West Texas owned or managed by TPWD including
Sierra Diablo WMA, Elephant Mountain WMA, Black Gap WMA, and Big Bend Ranch,
one elk policy applies. Misty said I could quote her. It should not be construed that she
agrees with this letter. Mr. Mitch Lockwood, Big Game Program Director, basically
confirmed her comments in our conversation of January 29, 2010. He added, as if in
mitigation, that the Department lacks funds to fully implement this policy: “Elk are shot
whenever ‘opportunistically’ encountered including from helicopters.”
Texas Parks & Wildlife’s Mission is: “To manage and conserve the natural and cultural
resources of Texas and to provide hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation opportunities
for the use of present and future generations. . . . In fulfilling our mission we will rely on
sound science to guide conservation decisions . . .”
Anti-elk and anti-sheep attitudes within the Department: For many years and until about
1986, Mr. Charlie Winkler was the Big Game Director at the Department. Mr. Winkler
stated over many years that it was proven that neither elk nor sheep could survive in
West Texas, both being creatures of the mountains. In 2001 I was advised by the
Department’s elk expert in Austin against adding water for elk or sheep. In 2006, David
Holdermann, the Wildlife Diversity Biologist based in Alpine, told me elk could not

2. 2
survive in our West Texas mountains, were barely hanging on and that the effort “is not
worth the trouble.” He stated there had been no elk in the Sierra Diablos for at least
10,000 years. Today, as the Plan states, sheep and elk have proven themselves to
thrive in our habitats.
As a result, justification for the anti-elk conclusion now rests on redefining “indigenous.”
So many species have some group intent on their removal. Some Panhandle farmers
would eliminate pronghorn. Washington County dog hunters objected to whitetail
reintroductions. A former owner of Circle shot all javelina. Someone in the Sierra
Diablos killed the last bighorn. Previous owners of Circle Ranch killed the last wolf in
the range. Some ranchers would remove elk, and bighorn, under the theory that they
consume grass better used by cattle. Of course, many wildlife and environmental
activists would take all cattle and domestics off our grasslands: see the Plan on this.
Let’s not forget cougar, coyotes “varmints,” prairie dogs, hawks, eagles, venomous
snakes, etc. ad nauseam. Truly, there would be hardly anything left alive in our deserts
if all these folks acted on their collective removal impulses. It is fair to say that for the
Department, elk have for years been such a target.
It is incorrect there were no elk in the Sierra Diablos until released by Circle Ranch.
When our neighbor, Nelson Puett, put cow elk in a fenced enclosure, at least one free-
ranging bull came to those cows.
The elk shoot-on-sight policy will extirpate an indigenous animal from an area in which it
occurred naturally, based on a scientific conclusion that is wrong as matters of fact,
science, scholarship, and logic. The Department will deny the public the opportunity to
see and hunt the iconic game animal of North America. This directly violates the
mission of TPWD and the philosophy guidelines to which it is pledged, quoted above.
1. Fact: Texas Parks & Wildlife’s own literature says that these are native animals.
The Department states that “elk once inhabited the plains region of the Western United
States . . . and . . . because of human land use practices they have been forced into
yearlong habitation in mountains. Distribution: In Texas elk were once present only in
the Guadalupe Mountains.” And, as if for emphasis: “OTHER The only native elk in
Texas were (1) in the southern part of the Guadalupe Mountains and (2) belonged to
the species Cervus Merriam’s, which has been extinct since the early 1900’s. (TPWD 6-
2-2009, 3:55 pm)”
I believe the website incorrectly identifies Merriam’s as a species instead of subspecies.
Moreover, it is my understanding there is no proof of genetic distinction, let alone
confirmed observation-based classification of the Merriam’s subspecies because there
are so few specimens.
Leaving the above comment aside, the Borderlands Research Institute (BRI) disagrees
with the representation. “Historically elk occurred in portions of West Texas but the
extent and abundance in which they ranged is unknown.” (Dr. Louis Harveson Desert
Tracks fall/winter 2009.)

3. 3
Forensic paleo-biology is not my field nor am I trained as a researcher. But, my brief
scan of the internet revealed the following:
• Above is a cave painting of an elk “The Red Elk” in the lower Pecos.
• Above is a cave painting of an elk at Meyers Springs, in Terrell County.

4. 4
• Above is a cave painting of a “Monster Elk” in the Big Bend region of Texas.
• Other cave paintings of elk are found in the Trans Pecos.
• Early Spaniards and later Americans reported these animals to the south, the
north, the east and the west.
• Above is a painting by George Catlin, an early painter of the West. It is called,
Elk and Buffalo Making Acquaintance, Texas, painted in around 1846 on the
upper Brazos. The Brazos River is entirely within Texas. This painting is on
display at the Smithsonian.

5. 5
• Above is another painting by George Catlin, called Elk and Buffalo Grazing
Among Prairie Flowers, Texas, 1848 in the Brazos River Valley. This painting is
on display at the Smithsonian.
• Catlin lived among the Wichita and Comanches on the Texas Panhandle
Canadian, and reported “The women of the Camanchees (sic) . . . are always
decently and comfortably clad, being covered generally with a gown or slip, that
reaches from the chin quite down to the ancles (sic), made of deer or elk skins;
often garnished very prettily, and ornamented with long fringes of elk’s teeth,
which are fastened on them in rolls and more valued than any other ornament
they can put upon them.”
• Discussing the native Texans of the plains: the website on Native American
groups in Texas under the section, “Native Texans of the plains,” states, “After
the Native Texans obtained horses, they were able to hunt and kill the buffalo
more efficiently. Some groups on the Texas plains also hunted elk, deer,
antelope or rabbits.
• The camp hunter for the Park’s Survey Expedition, in about 1851, reported
shooting at a “stag,“ (elk) between Delaware Springs and Ft. Davis.
• Dr. John Cunningham moved to Fannin County in 1867 and reported that “the
elk and buffalo moved westward as man approached . . . and the blood thirsty
savage . . . receded.” (Early Pioneer Days in Texas Chapter 10)
• The University of Texas’ website on Waco Lake states that “historic records
document the presence of elk (and) bison . . . “at the Bosque River sites below
present-day Waco Lake.
• The Long family and the Means family have found elk teeth in their yards near
Van Horn.
As shown by this superficial examination of the record, for hundreds, perhaps
thousands of years, elk have been depicted, observed, hunted and their physical
remains found across Texas as well as the area of the Sierra Diablos.

6. 6
2. Science: With utmost respect to the scientific staff at the Department, the idea as
stated in the Plan that elk pose a “competition” threat to native species and the eco-
systems of which they are part reflects a misunderstanding of the species, of natural
history, and, failure to consider that plants need animals as much as animals need
plants. The Plan says repeatedly that reestablishment of biodiversity is a major
objective. My understanding of the physiology, with which I recognize others may
disagree, is that restoring a diverse community of native plants will require the diverse
native animal community that was present until recent human impact. Only this can
properly function with and promote diverse plants, soil life, as well as efficient water,
mineral and sunlight cycles. Pronghorn, elk, bighorn, deer and bison are the five native
West Texas animals. Sheep, mule deer, and pronghorn all have similar dietary habits in
terms of being highly selective, concentrate feeders. Generally speaking, they are not
bulk consumers of grass. This leaves a huge unfilled niche in the form of this grass
resource. Bison and elk are bulk consumers of grass. Grass plants require animal
impact. While grass plants in our deserts will die if improperly grazed, they will also die
if never grazed. Cattle are a substitute for bison of which they are close cousins.
Exterminating elk and eliminating the bison substitute is neither natural, nor beneficial to
plants, since plants and animals coevolved, and consequently need one another.
This is not an argument against elk hunting: The mere presence of these animals does
not insure that they will interact with the habitat in a desirable way. Hunting of all
species is a necessity to control numbers and affect animal behavior. But this should
be done as part of an effort to manage populations across large areas, as with
pronghorn and bighorn. “Lethal removal . . . with a goal of total elimination” is not
species management: it is extermination. And all hunting on the WMA should be done
by the public, under Rules of Fair Chase.
Another “proof” I have been given that elk are not indigenous is that they require free
water and that such permanent water did not exist prehistorically. This reflects a “set-
stocking” perspective: this is a common misconception. Yes, elk require free water just
like bison, mule deer, desert bighorn sheep, and pronghorn. Water requirements for all
these overlap. Then as now, all moved around according to seasonal feed and water.
Where and when water existed for one, it existed for all. Historically, free water was
more abundant: we had flowing springs at Circle Ranch. As one can see from the
hand-dug well at one, the water table today is 30 feet lower than in 1880. Europeans
had not yet settled at every spring. It is likely that many of these springs flowed
seasonally: this would have forced the animals to move according to seasonal feed and
water. As on the High Plains, or the Serengeti, animals on what today is the WMA, and
everywhere else, would always have moved back and forth to such water.
The Plan says water shortage is a reason to extirpate elk. In so doing, the Department
is choosing one indigenous species over another. It could just as easily rationalize
killing all deer or pronghorn. Moreover, for years now, and predating the Plan, Circle
Ranch has offered to help extend permanent water to the WMA, and proposed ways to
fund the effort (July 18, 2007, and June 4, 2008 letters attached). There has never
been even a discussion about doing this. The indirect response has been that the WMA
has “no interest” in water supplementation, as WMA water is “adequate.” I have never
been able to understand this. Water expansion along with planned grazing underpins

7. 7
our wildlife success at Circle. This would also work at the WMA. Like at Circle, there
would be no shortage of water for any species.
In this day and age single species management is generally accepted as being
counterproductive. We have come to understand that plants, animals and soil life are
interdependent. Animals and plants interact as communities, not as individual species
co-existing with certain plants. Bighorn will best thrive as their habitat improves. This
happens best as animal diversity is restored, with animal behavior and herbivory that
mimics nature.
Exotics also targeted for elimination fill niches that once had native species which
became extinct as a result of human impact long ago. That is not an argument for
Aoudad: it is just a fact of our natural history that because of humans we are missing a
vast animal community including some creature like it. So often, this complexity of
natural systems is not considered as these dangerously simplistic eradication schemes
are pursued. Many times these have turned out to harm the animals they were meant
to help, sometimes disastrously.
Circle Ranch has the largest elk herd in the range, large and growing numbers of sheep
and other species, and improving habitat. We manage species and plants as
interdependent communities. We have multiple the number of sheep as before elk,
and, before we began our program of intensive, short-duration, low-frequency-long-
recovery planned cattle grazing.
Department staff informed me legislation declaring elk exotic “proves” they are not
indigenous. It is perplexing that biologists and scientists of what is without question
America’s foremost state wildlife department might justify the elimination of elk under
this rationale. Our legislature voted this animal “exotic” status to accommodate the
wishes of a few West Texas ranchers for its extirpation, and elk ranchers, for freedom
from regulation. In my opinion, that legislation, passed for two special interest groups,
is meaningless as to the scientific question of whether elk are, or are not, an indigenous
animal. Neither does the vote compel their extirpation: that is an internally-adopted
Department policy which logically should conform to the Mission and Guidelines quoted
on page 1. In fact, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation continues building support for policy
and legislation that once again would identify elk as a species under TPWD
management and remove the term “exotic.” A growing number of landowners of the
Trans Pecos see elk as a potentially important component of hunting opportunity and
landowner income (5. Economic Damage, page 8)
3. Scholarship: Any curious student of this question, in a few hours spent on the
internet could find every citation contained in pages 2 - 5. Moreover, unlike myself, the
Department has hundreds of employees trained in research techniques, budgets of
hundreds of millions and access to the vast and often restricted data bases and search
engines of academia.
4. Logic: The Southwest Guadalupes are less than 20 miles from the Northeast Sierra
Diablos. The ranges are similar in many ways. We know from current research and

8. 8
observation that elk regularly move across larger distances. We know that they thrive in
deserts and dry environments.
The Department‘s elk website correctly observes that native elk herds were in constant
motion, choosing ranges seasonally. When Europeans arrived on this continent, elk
were the most widely distributed hoofed animal in North America. They were
everywhere including the mountains. Lewis and Clark recorded over 500 entries on
these animals as the Corps of Discovery crossed mountains, deserts and plains. Elk
were often reported across Texas and, logically, these would not have been just
Merriam’s, as the Department website says.
Let us ignore the prehistoric and historic records of elk and ask ourselves the following:
Why would there have been elk in the New Mexico Rio Grande, but not just downriver in
Texas? Why would elk have been on the north bank of the Red River but not the south
bank? Why would the Canadian River drainage have held elk in New Mexico, lost them
across the Texas Panhandle, only to recover elk in Oklahoma? Why would elk have
been in the mountain ranges south of the Rio Grande but not north, across the river?
Why would they have been in the American south, but not have crossed the Sabine?
And why would elk have been in the southern Guadalupes but never, ever the northern
Diablos 20 miles away?
Like sheep, deer, cattle, bison and pronghorn, elk have proven that they thrive in our
mountains. The Plan says this. As the Department states, they do great, statewide,
today. It is illogical to say they would not have thrived in the better habitat of long ago,
in all the same places they do now, even if we ignore the extensive historic and
prehistoric record that confirms this common sense conclusion.
The logical explanation for low elk numbers in 1881 is human hunting. Elk, like bison,
deer and pronghorn, are extremely vulnerable to firearms. The Eastern subspecies,
originally the most numerous, was hunted to extinction by the early 1800’s. It took a
relative handful of hunters only 25 years to virtually exterminate the vast bison herds, as
well as elk. The ancestors of Apaches and Comanches, on foot and with stone
weapons hunted the mammoths and 80% of the mega-faunal genera (Lord knows how
many species) to extinction in a short time. And for 200 years before 1881, Indians in
far-West Texas and statewide had guns, horses and steel weapons. Because this
would have reduced elk numbers in far-West Texas, 1881 snapshots used to reach
conclusions about which species were indigenous are unreliable to the extent this fact is
ignored.
Here is a final comment on logic: the Department finds a way to protect squirrels,
gafftops and even exotic pheasant from China, while exterminating elk in a range 20
miles from where it says they were indigenous.
5. Economic damage: Elk are nomadic animals that move constantly through our
mountain ranges. According to the latest research by BRI, a typical bull covers 85,000
acres. This confirms what we know from studies on the Jack Morrow Hills herd, the
largest desert elk herd in America: these animals are constantly moving, in elliptical
orbits perhaps three miles wide and 25 to 50 miles long. Sooner or later all the elk in

9. 9
the Sierra Diablos will be on the WMA, just as substantially all the sheep on the range
will sometimes be found on Circle Ranch. Any indisputably-native elk moving from the
Guadalupe herd into the Sierra Diablos and the WMA will be shot on sight. Because a
circle with a radius of only 30 miles contains 1.8 million acres, it takes only one neighbor
in hundreds of thousands of acres with the Department’s mindset to extirpate the
species from the entire range, especially if helicopters are used. In conjunction with the
same practices at Elephant Mountain, Black Gap, and Big Bend Ranch, elk numbers
will be harmed across several millions of acres, not just land specifically held or
managed by TPWD.
The Department’s elk eradication policy assaults the economics and the land values of
the ranches in the range and region, in addition to nullifying stated Department
objectives regarding protection of indigenous species, the restoration of their habitat,
expansion of public hunting opportunities and making all decisions based on science.
This fall we sold our first bull elk hunt for $10,000. That is the equivalent of 20 beef
calves. We have continued releases of small numbers of bred cows descended from
and bred back to B&C 550+ bulls. Free-ranging elk of this size, on the Apache
reservations can go for over $150,000 per bull: twice a Desert Bighorn permit! We have
the opportunity to establish a free-ranging herd of the largest B&C scoring elk in the
United States. Imagine the economic potential to our ranchers and the recreational
resource for the public. Imagine the resources to encourage and support progressive
wildlife practices on private land.
Circle Ranch, through in-kind auction gifts and specific solicitations has raised over
$400,000 for organizations like Borderlands Research Institute, Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department Operation Game Thief, Quail Unlimited, Texas Bighorn Society,
Texas Wildlife Association, Safari Club International, Coastal Conservation Association.
All of these organizations use their funds in close cooperation with TPWD. Circle has
put in water improvements which, if done as on the WMA would have cost over $1
million. We have spent $50,000 on elk reintroductions. Contemporaneously the
Department has cost us no less than $50,000 in lost elk hunt sales, and our neighbors
multiples of that, using public money and funds raised in part by ourselves for
helicopters to achieve this “goal of total elimination” of that which was recognized as a
game animal only a short time ago.
Through a combination of misinformation and bad example, neighbors are told that elk
are not indigenous, and, are harmful to pronghorn, mule deer and sheep. Landowners
are advised that elk are an invader and pest. The Department advises by word and
example that these be removed, and, that in doing this anything goes. Those who
might disagree understandably conclude that the cow, calf or immature bull they might
spare will be shot anyway by the Department, or a neighbor following its advice and
example.
While the economic consequences of blocking elk restoration affects every landowner
to some degree, it falls mostly upon that far larger group of landowners who will never
get a sheep permit but could have elk hunting almost immediately.

10. 10
6. Health: I am not sure from your letter if you realize that there has never been a
CWD danger associated with the Circle elk release. Drawing an inference that such a
danger justifies killing out elk is not supported by fact. At the time that we bought and
released elk at Circle Ranch there were no importation health requirements.
Nevertheless, we were extremely careful regarding health issues. We tested the
animals for tuberculosis, brucellosis and other diseases. We sourced them from a
CWD-free herd. We established that the herd from which that herd had descended was
also CWD-free. All this was explained to the Department, which had no rules of its own.
The procedures we followed then are more stringent than the procedures that were put
in place following our importation.
It is appropriate to mention that CWD is a disease likely created and later spread by
policies, or non-policies, of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. The cautionary lesson is
that wildlife agencies have sometimes done great harm to wildlife.
7. Public Relations: While some people do not like elk, multiples more like them
enormously. The shoot-on-sight policy of North America’s emblematic and most
cherished big-game animal, when understood by the public poses a serious imminent
problem for the Department. Relations with ranch owners, conservation groups,
donors, the state legislature and the huge elk constituency within, and outside of Texas
will be harmed with consequences that are hard to predict.
Alternatively, the Department could lead in the restoration of this magnificent native
animal. Elk hunting would provide new revenues to the Department, career opportunity
to staff, badly-needed economic activity to West Texas communities, and increase land
values. By setting a stewardship standard all could admire and follow, by leading,
teaching and inspiring by example, the Department would demonstrate to a public
deeply skeptical of government agencies that Texas is blessed with wildlife leadership
worthy of the public’s support, committed to the welfare of native animals, their habitat,
and the expansion of hunting opportunities for the public; making all its decisions based
on sound science. Such a choice would be in the best interest of the Department, of
wildlife including Desert Bighorn sheep, and of current and future generations.
For decades my family and I have been active supporters of the Department in its
efforts for fisheries, animals, habitat and the public. When I said to you that “If you cut
me I bleed Parks and Wildlife green,” I was not exaggerating. And therefore I want to
protect Texas elk in a way that does not harm the Department. That is why I have
written you this letter. I can’t believe this ill-advised policy will survive thoughtful review.
Again Carter, I appreciate very much your forwarding the Plan. This conversation is late
in coming: as you can see from the enclosed letter, I originally requested this on June
4, 2008. About eight months later, I asked the assistant WMA manager why it had not
been sent and was told no written plan existed. The Plan states that the WMA will
“schedule contact with Sierra Diablo landowners for review of management activities.”
Now that I have learned of the Department’s elk eradication policy and so that I can
understand how this plan fits with the other Department areas, may I please receive the
Management Plan for Elephant Mountain, Black Gap, and Big Bend Ranch? How many

11. 11
elk have been shot on these other areas? How many have been killed from
helicopters? Is this also happening at Big Bend National Park and how many have
been killed there?
In drafting this letter I have tried to disagree without being disagreeable. I have tried to
express my thinking in terms of logic, fact and science and above all in a manner that is
courteous towards you personally and the Department as an institution. If I have failed
to do so then I hope you will forgive this inability to express myself as I would like: the
fault of being unable to convey my thinking is mine not the reader’s. I apologize for any
such deficiency and ask that you consider my thoughts anyway.
I will be pleased to receive an answer of any length, at your convenience, but there is
one question that is central: is the WMA “Lethal removal . . . with a goal of total
elimination . . . ” policy at Sierra Diablo and elsewhere the on-going policy? Could you
please give me an early answer to this first question?
Your, and the Department’s friend, sincerely,
Christopher Gill
CG:sp
Enclosures:
Christopher Gill to Michael Pittman, July 18, 2007, pp. 12-13
Christopher Gill to Michael Pittman, June 4, 2008, pp. 14-15

12. 12
July 18, 2007
Michael T. Pittman
Trans-Pecos Wildlife Management Area Project
Sierra Diablo Wildlife Management Area
109 South Cockrell
Alpine, Texas 79830
Dear Mike:
It was a pleasure visiting with you on July 16th regarding the possibility of collaborative efforts
between ourselves and the WMA. We have previously offered SDWMA water extensions out of
our mountain area, into the south part of the WMA. We recently commissioned a water survey
for Circle Ranch. To our surprise, we are said to be sitting on 21,000-acre feet of water, 7.5
billion gallons. According to the report, about half of that is in the north part of the ranch and
close to the WMA. If our hydrologist is right, we can drill virtually as many 20-50 gallon-a-
minute wells as we want up there, and do so along power lines. I am thinking that this could
allow us to create a well and pump station for the purpose of supplying the northern portions of
the WMA.
If confirmed by drilling, the development of these northern and southern water projects should
mean that there is no longer any reason for to think in terms of permanent water shortages at the
WMA. A water development program might allow planned grazing on part or all of the WMA.
I understand planned grazing to have been very effective at Elephant Mountain. For us at Circle,
especially, in our prime deer, sheep and elk habitat in the mountains in the southeast corner of
the ranch, results from planned grazing are remarkable.
With respect to funding of the water project, I have offered David Wetzel mule deer hunts to be
auctioned at the TBS annual event. We just sold a mule deer hunt at the TWA auction for
$11,500. This could be seed money: our part of cost sharing for wells and water, if we could get
such people as the NRCS or US Fish & Wildlife or others interested. Water for bighorn sheep
and their public-owned habitat would seem to be a no-brainer, given adequate forethought and
sound planning, and the “co-sponsorship” of the Department.
In summary, Circle Ranch would like to once again offer to help, and participate, in a
collaborative effort in wildlife management and planned grazing of our respective properties. I
believe this would be an excellent thing for the WMA. Parks & Wildlife, by following its own
often-proffered advice in favor of water development, planned grazing and cooperative efforts
between landowners, would lead by example and thereby inspire other landowners to do the
same. Who knows: maybe we could get Jeff Bezos involved and have 500,000 or more acres
under a unified wildlife effort. This would offset some of the fragmentation in our area that
we’re all so concerned about.

13. 13
July 18, 2007
Page Two
Road Seminar: We are putting on a road seminar September 20-22. I hope you and other
department members will attend this. We have the well-known teacher in erosion control, Bill
Zeedyk (who is also a mountain turkey expert), coming out to demonstrate ways that we can
modify our substandard roads to harvest water back onto, and reestablish sheet flows across, the
pastures through which these roads pass. Zeedyk is to desert erosion control what Allan Savory
is to planned grazing: the most recognized individual in the field. Our draft letters on this subject
are included along with the water report.
Please save those September 20-22 dates, and maybe just before those you and I could visit the
WMA and strategize water and grazing projects. We might get Bill Zeedyk to go up there with
us and give us his thoughts.
Sincerely,
Christopher Gill
CG:sp
cc: Ruben Cantu
David Wetzel
Enclosures: Road Seminar letters
Road Seminar Flyer
Water Report

14. 14
June 4, 2008
Michael T. Pittman
Trans-Pecos Wildlife Management Area Project
Sierra Diablo Wildlife Management Area
109 South Cockrell
Alpine, Texas 79830
Dear Mike:
Wayne Zachary forwarded to me your email and comments on water shortages, aoudad, elk,
lamas, etc. When I read those, I recalled that you had asked me for a copy of our Circle Ranch
Strategic Plan. It is enclosed herewith; please forgive my forgetfulness. The Plan sets forth our
objectives, practices, and thinking. As we have demonstrated these are working very well. I
assume there is a management plan in place for the Sierra Diablo Wildlife Management Area.
May I have a copy of this? I am interested to see what steps you are taking to restore habitat at
the WMA, and its ability to support larger numbers of animals, and, the rationales that underlie
these practices.
If there is one thing that desert range scientists have proven over the last 75 years it is that
destocking does not restore perennial desert grasslands. An excellent example is Big Bend Park.
The most important insight of holistic planned grazing, which explains why this is so, concerns
the damage caused by over-rest. Total and partial rest are the very best means of restoring
habitat in relatively moist environments, but are lethal to perennial desert grasslands. Under-
standing why this is so, and fashioning practices to avoid over-rest while also eliminating over-
grazing, is the most important single step that practitioners must embrace and is at the heart of
cutting-edge range science worldwide. Practices which seem intuitively obvious when viewed
through the prism of over-grazing alone, like depopulating animal communities, are revealed as
obviously wrong when we seek to eliminate over-rest while avoiding over-grazing.
Parks & Wildlife routinely recommends to West Texas landowners that we act collaboratively in
our grazing and our wildlife management practices to counteract fragmentation. As the
Department so often observes, our wild species cannot be managed over 30,000 acres, to say
nothing of only 10,000. Circle Ranch wishes to take the Department’s advice, and to act
collaboratively with the Sierra Diablo Wildlife Management Area. We have offered to
collaborate with the WMA on water extensions and planned grazing. That offer stands. If we
can collaborate on our habitat and wildlife practices in ways that address over-grazing and over-
resting, then over time, and leading by example, we can persuade others to join the effort.
I have no doubt that some of our practices are mistaken. A wise man observed that it is not what
you don’t know that gets you in trouble, but rather, what you know that is wrong. Holistic
managers assume they are wrong and constantly reassess their practices to identify and address

15. 15
June 4, 2008
Page Two
their mistakes. We are open to changing our range and wildlife practices provided changes rest
on the best range science: (1) A complete natural history. (2) Holistic principles including
recognition of the symbiotic nature of plant, animal, and micro-organic communities; and the
interconnections between these and water, mineral and sunlight cycles. (3) A commitment to
follow the best science even when doing so conflicts with deeply-held beliefs and dogma. If we
are willing to approach our differences within this framework there is no question we can
synthesize better practices than either of us are following now. This would be of immense value
to the community, and is absolutely necessary if we are to achieve our shared objective to protect
wildlife and restore its habitats.
I look forward to getting your plan, and response.
Sincerely,
Christopher Gill
CG:sp
Enclosure: Circle Ranch Strategic Plan
cc: Ruben Cantu
Wayne Zachary (Circle Ranch Strategic Plan)
Louis Harveson