The Barren Ground Caribou of Keewatin Part 10

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 28. Adult male Western Woodland Caribou (_Rangifer caribou sylvestris_) (No. 235361, U.S. Biol. Surveys Coll.). Stony Mountain, about 27 miles S. of Fort McMurray, Alberta, October 22, 1920. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.)]

On October 30 tracks indicated that half a dozen Caribou had swum across Little River near its mouth, breaking through a 10-foot rim of ice on the near side. When a herd of 2,000 or 3,000 crossed Windy River during an October night about 1944, as reported by Charles Schweder, they broke three channels through the thin ice that covered the river.

Once Charles saw a buck cross the 100-yard-wide Nahiline Rapids on Kasmere River, where it drops about 40 feet in a quarter of a mile; yet the animal did not seem to be carried far downstream. When about 10 Caribou (mostly big bucks) crossed the Windy River at our camp on June 24, the last two, I noted, were pointing almost upstream in the 6- to 8-mile-per-hour current.

The usual formation in which a small number of Caribou cross a bay or a quiet stretch of river is a single file, but a larger band is likely to make the pa.s.sage in several simultaneous files. The fawns, in particular, follow as closely as possible behind their mothers.

Although the Caribou are strong and speedy swimmers, the natives are able, in canoe or kayak, to overtake and spear them. In 1947 several fawns were speared in Windy Bay by Anoteelik.

Other notes on swimming may be found in the sections dealing with _Migrations_.

_References._--Back, 1836: 367; Simpson, 1843: 76, 310; Rae, 1850: 27; Richardson, 1852: 290; Schwatka, 1885: 68, 71-72; W. J. McLean, 1901: 6; R. M. Anderson, 1913b: 503; Blanchet, 1925: 34; Birket-Smith, 1929 (1): 109-110; Seton, 1929, +3+: 107; h.o.a.re, 1930: 27, 31; Jacobi, 1931: 216; Clarke, 1940: 88-90; Downes, 1943: 256; Harper, 1949: 227, 229, 230; Banfield, 1951a: 21.

_Shaking off moisture and insects_

The long, dense fur of the Caribou holds so much moisture that when the animal emerges from swimming it endeavors to rid itself of the extra burden and cooling agency. This is effected to a large extent by a vigorous shaking of the body, head, and ears and a switching of the tail. The initial performance, lasting for perhaps a second or two, may be undertaken while the animal's lower extremities are still in the water; and it is likely to be repeated from one to several times as it moves over the sh.o.r.e and ascends the adjacent ridge. The cloud of spray flying off is a sight to behold (fig. 9). The action is very much like that of a dog under similar circ.u.mstances. The fur may remain wet for a least 10 or 15 minutes after emergence from the water. In driving rain on September 5, I noticed an individual in a band of 20 Caribou shaking itself and sending the rain drops flying off in spray, just as when one emerges from the water.

The Caribou also go through a very similar but perhaps still more strenuous performance for the obvious purpose of shaking off flies (perhaps primarily the warble flies, _Oedemagena_). On August 20 a buck pa.s.sing along a ridge in the Barrens agitated the hide on its body several times with considerable vigor. A young animal (fawn or yearling) thus shook itself on August 28 as it approached the far side of Little River. I got the distinct impression that the hide was shaken horizontally in the case of moisture, but vertically in the case of insects; for the present, however, this is best considered as just an impression, and not a statement of fact. The muscles that agitate the skin of the sides should be particularly well developed through frequent practice with water and flies during the warmer part of the year.

At the mouth of Little River, on August 30, I heard one of the Caribou in a large band "blow its nose," so to speak, with vigor. The sound suggested that produced by a horse in vibrating its nostrils by forcefully expelling air through them. I suspect that the Caribou uses the same means, in an effort to fend off a nostril fly (_Cephenemyia_) bent on depositing its larvae.

_Reference._--Harper, 1949: 230.

_Signaling_

Apparently the commonest method employed by the Caribou for indicating or communicating suspicion or alarm is erecting the stub of a tail to a vertical position. This brings its white under side into full view, as the silent flas.h.i.+ng of a danger signal to other Caribou. However, a solitary animal will exhibit signaling behavior as well as one in a band. The tail remains erect, whether the animal stands to stare uneasily at a suspicious object or flees from it in alarm. The action is common to old and young of both s.e.xes. It is so characteristic of a fleeing animal as to give significance to the expression, "high-tailing it." In normal, unalarmed progress the tail extends backward in a drooping curve (figs. 11, 12).

I was not fortunate enough to detect any flas.h.i.+ng of the white throat, as described by Preble (1902: 42).

Another silent signal is a most peculiar sprawling posture of the hind legs, attained by thrusting one of them well out to one side and setting the foot down. The legs are not then symmetrically placed; the one not moved obviously bears most of the weight of the hind quarters. I managed to film this stance in a buck standing on a sky-line on August 24 (cover). On September 9 another buck a.s.sumed the posture while looking over our camp from a ridge on the opposite side of Windy River.

According to Charles Schweder, this is an expression of suspicion or alarm, designed to communicate the same feeling to other Caribou. When the others notice it, they stop and a.s.sume the same pose; it may be observed in does and even fawns. Charles added that the tail is erected at the same time--a very natural accompaniment, though I failed to notice it.

In all the literature on the Barren Ground Caribou, I have found just one reference to this posture, and that a distinctly fragmentary one:

"While [the Caribou are] thus circling around I have often been amused at the manner in which they carry one hind leg. A novice in the hunting field, after having fired a shot in their direction, would think that he had broken one hind leg of each member of the herd." (A. J. Stone, 1900: 53.)

The author makes this observation just after mentioning a herd sighted near the sh.o.r.e of Franklin Bay. A virtually identical posture in the Norway Reindeer has been sketched by Seton (1929, +3+: 112, pl. 18), who labels it "surprize." An a.n.a.logy to the posture of the Caribou might be found in a hand thrust out, with fingers spread, by a military scout as a signal of warning or caution to his fellow scouts. A sprawling leg is perhaps the nearest approximation to the human signal that a Caribou can attain.

As noted in the section on _Gaits_, an alarmed Caribou may set off by taking an initial leap into the air. According to Dugmore, such an act on the part of the Newfoundland Caribou plays an important role in its system of communications, not by means of sight or sound, but through the olfactory sense. He observes (1913: 89-90):

"For hours afterwards _every_ Caribou, on arriving at the place where the frightened ones had jumped, has started violently, and has on nearly every occasion turned and run in a manner that showed every indication of fear, even though my presence was entirely unknown to them. My idea is that when the animal is suddenly frightened it expels a certain fluid from the glands in the foot, and that this fluid is a signal of alarm, a silent and invisible warning, but none the less so positive that none dare ignore it."

As for the foot click--a presumptive means of communication (_cf._ Seton, 1929, +3+: 69; Jacobi, 1931: 212-216)--I must confess that I was always so engrossed with photography whenever the Caribou were close at hand (up to within a dozen feet) that I had no thought of this phenomenon and did not detect it.

_References._--Richardson, 1829: 242; A. J. Stone, 1900: 53; Preble, 1902: 42; Seton, 1929, +3+: 105; Murie, 1939: 245; Harper, 1949: 230; Banfield, 1951a: 19, 27.

_Food_

The ground lichens (including the various species of _Cladonia_) in the Windy River area in 1947 did not seem, for the most part, to have a height of more than 2 or 3 inches. The average length of several local specimens of _Cladonia_ is approximately 51 mm. This condition was in considerable contrast to the great spongy ma.s.ses I had noted in the Tazin River basin, between Athabaska and Great Slave lakes, in 1914.

I have no means of knowing whether the condition in Keewatin represented severe cropping by Caribou in past years and subsequent slow recovery, or whether it is a normal condition. According to Charles Schweder, the growth depends upon rain, and so varies from year to year. During the warmer months, from June to September, the local Caribou seemed to me to be feeding very largely on the higher vegetation, such as willow, dwarf birch, alder, and sedges. I had no definite evidence of their consuming lichens during that period. By early October the species of _Cladonia_ seemed to have attained a somewhat fuller growth than they had exhibited several months previously. Perez-Llano discusses (1944: 29-30) the utilization by Reindeer of various lichens. Dix has reported (1951) on a collection of lichens from the Windy River area.

Some miscellaneous observations along Windy and Little rivers follow: June 16, 20 Caribou feeding apparently on patches of crowberry (_Empetrum_) and dwarf birch (_Betula glandulosa_) on a ridge; June 29, a Caribou feeding apparently on dwarf birches; June 30, a buck grazing in a sedge bog; August 26, several bucks browsing on willow tops (probably _Salix planifolia_) in a riverside thicket, and some does on dwarf birch and perhaps tall gra.s.s or low willow; August 27, numbers feeding largely on willow and dwarf birch; August 28 and 30, low alders, willow, and dwarf birches nibbled off. By early October the leaves of the three last-mentioned shrubs were no longer available, having dropped off. During the summer they had seemed to be preferred above the lichens. Cabot has remarked (1912: 46) on the fondness of _Rangifer arcticus caboti_ for dwarf birch in Labrador.

Charles Schweder reported as follows on the food of Caribou. In summer they live chiefly upon leaves, especially those of dwarf birch, and to some extent upon "gra.s.s" (probably largely sedges). Toward the last of June a Caribou was killed with fat an inch thick on its haunches--perhaps the effect of recent feeding on the fresh green vegetation. In August and September the animals also eat mushrooms and get very fat on them; they seem to be especially fond of a certain red kind, which Charles has found in their stomachs. The Eskimos' name for mushrooms signifies "deer food." The Caribou feed upon dead "gra.s.s"

(perhaps mostly sedges) in the fall, but not in the winter. Charles has seen them digging through 4 feet of snow to get at the reindeer lichens; but for the most part their winter feeding in this region is on the tops of the hills, which remain bare. They also eat tree lichens, especially in the winter time.

Charles has seen Caribou chew the cud while standing as well as while lying down. He once saw a buck thus occupied while standing on a hill for half a day in a breeze that kept the mosquitoes down.

Among the hundreds of Caribou observed at the river crossings and elsewhere, I do not recall seeing a single one pause to drink.

The _Influence of food supply on distribution_ of the Barren Ground Caribou has been discussed in a previous section.

_References._--Hearne, 1795: 317; Franklin, 1823: 242; Richardson, "1825": 329, and 1829: 243; G.o.dman, 1831, +2+: 284; Richardson, in Back, 1836: 498, and 1861: 275; Murray, 1858: 202; B. R. Ross, 1861: 439; k.u.mlien, 1879: 54; J. B. Tyrrell, 1894: 441; Russell, 1898: 226; J. W. Tyrrell, 1908 (1898): 80; Lydekker, 1898: 49; Elliot, 1902: 276; Stone and Cram, 1904: 53; Buchanan, 1920: 105-106, 131; Hewitt, 1921: 61; Blanchet, 1925: 33; Seton, 1929, +3+: 107-108; Kitto, 1930: 87; Jacobi, 1931: 223; Harper, 1932: 30; Sutton and Hamilton, 1932: 84; Weyer, 1932: 39; Hornby, 1934: 105; Murie, 1939: 245; Clarke, 1940: 106-107; G. M. Allen, 1942: 299; Soper, 1942: 143; Downes, 1943: 228; Porsild, 1943: 383; R. M. Anderson, 1948: 15; Manning, 1948: 26-28; Rand, 1948a: 212; Harper, 1949: 230; Banfield, 1951a: 11, 19-20, 28-29; Barnett, 1954: 106.

_Scatology_

The pellets of the Caribou are small, more or less blackish, very irregular in shape, somewhat compressed, and generally deposited in little piles, in which the individual components do not stand out very distinctly, being pressed against each other. They are quite unlike the oblong, curvilinear, comparatively symmetrical scats of the White-tailed Deer and the Moose. I did not observe, nor learn of, any particular seasonal variation in the shape or other characters.

_References._--Sutton and Hamilton, 1932: 81; Manning, 1943a: 50.

_Voice_

My impression of the adult Caribou is that it is a comparatively silent animal during most of the year. At the rutting season, however, when the bucks do their fighting with a clash of antlers, their voice is heard, as Fred Schweder, Jr., informed me. It is about as loud as the fawn's grunt, but a different sort of sound. Fred has also known a doe to call when its fawn was shot.

The only vocal sound that I heard from the Caribou was the grunt or bawling of the fawns on the fall migration, and only during the last week of August, when the "big movement" was under way. It was uttered chiefly at the river crossings, apparently as a result of the fawns'

anxiety lest they be separated from their mothers during the slight uncertainty or confusion of these pa.s.sages, when a considerable number of animals were partic.i.p.ating. It seemed to be a fair equivalent of a human child's crying out: "Don't leave me behind!" or "Where are you, mamma?" The grunt is very different from the bleating of a lamb or the bawling of a domestic calf. It is a surprisingly raucous or guttural, almost explosive, yet not very loud note, which I rendered at various times as _gwuf_, _goff_, _gowk_, or _gorr_. Perhaps the last rendering comes nearest to the actual sound. With one or two exceptions, I did not identify any individual uttering one of these grunts; but the Schweder boys, from their intimate knowledge of the species, a.s.sured me that this was the voice of the fawn. In one case the sound came rather definitely from a fawn that had become somewhat separated from its band in going up the adjacent ridge after crossing Little River. But for the most part the grunts seemed to come from swimming animals.

On August 30 another sort of sound--probably not a vocal one--seemed to come from one of the older animals among a large band crossing Little River. It was probably produced by a vigorous vibration of the nostrils.

It is further discussed in the section on _Shaking off moisture and insects_.

It is rather astonis.h.i.+ng that Seton, after seeing and studying many Caribou at close range in Mackenzie, should say no more about their voice than: "They snort a good deal and grunt a little" (1911: 210). In his later monographic account he practically ignores the topic, merely referring to the animals' "sniffing, snorting" (1929, 3: 105).

_References._--Lyon, 1824: 336; Pike, 1917 (1892): 89; Stone and Cram, 1904: 53; Seton, 1911: 210, and 1929, +3+: 105; Hornaday, 1914, +2+: 103; Critch.e.l.l-Bullock, 1930: 193; Sutton and Hamilton, 1932: 84; Murie, 1939: 245; Downes, 1943: 226, 256-257; Harper, 1949: 230; Banfield, 1951a: 22.

_Reproduction_

By the time the rutting season arrived in mid-October, there were comparatively few Caribou left in the Windy River area. Consequently my information on the subject was derived mainly from Charles Schweder and Fred Schweder, Jr. Weeks before the scheduled season, there were certain manifestations of the s.e.xual urge. For example, on September 5 about 20 Caribou were pa.s.sing the Bear Slough. The band consisted mostly of does and fawns, but included several middle-aged bucks (with antlers much less than the maximum size) and possibly some younger bucks. Twice I saw one of the animals attempt to cover another, but driving rain and the compactness of the band prevented me from determining the s.e.x or age of those involved. During a trip to the Kazan River, lasting from September 17 to October 1, Fred observed a good deal of fighting among the Caribou--obviously a prelude to the mating season. In Charles' opinion, these early contests are not very much in earnest; the real fighting begins about October 15. On October 8 Charles and Fred referred to fighting that was going on among a herd of about 100 between Glacier Pond and Lake Charles. Perhaps less than a quarter of this herd were older bucks; the rest, younger bucks, does, and fawns.

In former years, while living at the "Old Post" on Red River, Charles used to go out and watch the fighting on a big open muskeg, about a mile square, where the Caribou would congregate practically every year at the rutting season, up to a thousand strong. They would stay for three or four days, then disappear. Nothing on the same scale had come to his notice in the vicinity of the Windy River post. At this season, when the animals are in large herds, the bucks utter their calls, as mentioned in the section on _Voice_. According to Fred, one sees in October a good many bucks with an antler broken off in the fighting. The break generally occurs at about the middle of the antler. On September 29 Charles reported a buck with a broken antler, which he interpreted as evidence of the beginning of the fighting season. During the rutting season he once shot a buck with a broken jaw, and another with an eye gone. The possible inference was that these injuries had been sustained in fighting. A buck secured on October 16 had apparently been wounded in fighting; there was pus in its neck, and it was considered unfit for eating. I heard nothing as to the possible use of hoofs in contests between bucks, as reported by Jacobi (1931: 233) for the Reindeer.

During the rutting season the herd is likely to be a large one, and to do little traveling. It is composed of fawns as well as adults. The bucks pursue the does, and sometimes chase each other. Charles thinks the young bucks keep away from the does at this time, being unable to fight the older bucks with larger antlers. Fred reports a proportion of about 10 bucks to 50 does in these herds--a probable indication of polygamy. He expressed the opinion that the bucks do not mate until 8-10 years old, and the does not until about four years old. However, he was basing his estimate of the age on the total number of points on the antlers--one point for each year; and on this basis the age was probably much overestimated. Earlier s.e.xual maturity on the part of the doe might be another indication of polygamy in the species.