Rancher changes tune about wolves in real estate ad

[Ithaca 37]

This is the rancher who claimed the Yellowstone elk herd would be extinct by 2004!!!


By Todd Wilkinson
regional columnist and author

I don't have a license to sell real estate, and I doubt I'll receive a penny of commission if anyone, upon reading this advertisement, decides to part with $1.1 million to buy the Next Right Thing Ranch.

Situated in Montana's Paradise Valley, some 25 miles north of Yellowstone National Park, the Next Right Thing recently came on the market and what follows, verbatim, is the owner-seller's description of his property:

"At the Next Right Thing Ranch, wildlife are your closest neighbors. Moose, big horn sheep, grizzly bears, wolves, mule and white-tailed deer all share the neighborhood, as do a wide variety of smaller species, such as beaver and coyotes. One of the most visible wildlife species is elk that winter on the adjacent Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation's Winter Range. Herds numbering in the thousands are not uncommon."

Yes, the place sounds an awful lot like Nirvana (and it is), if you're the kind of person who appreciates having true wildness out the back door and all of the various elements that come with it. The seller goes on to explain that the Paradise Valley "should have been a national park on the scale of Yellowstone"; that's how ecologically rich it is.

In the name of full disclosure, I should note the Next Right Thing Ranch isn't owned by just anyone in this breathtaking dell chock-full of movie stars, corporate CEOs and other bigwigs who merely want a place where they can relax anonymously and not be hounded.

This 41-acre tract is owned by Robert T. Fanning, Jr., one of the most vocal anti-wolf crusaders in the American West, who has gone before western state legislators, members of Congress, Wise Use groups, and TV cameras tirelessly informing the public how wolves have decimated the landscape near his ranch and transformed Yellowstone into "a biological desert."

In fact, you read right here how Mr. Fanning, a few years ago, declared that by 2004, the "largest migrating elk herd on Earth (Yellowstone's northern elk herd, which inhabits land around Mr. Fanning's property) will be completely extinct."

Mr. Fanning added that: "We predict entire communities in Montana will vanish because no one spoke up for social justice for the people who were forced to live with wolves."

More recently, he claimed the nearby Absaroka-Beartooth mountains, which he called "continental America's most productive public hunting grounds and Montana's most popular hunting grounds" are "now destroyed by wolf predation."

Being a lowly journalist, I admit that I don't know much about the real estate business, but I do know that, by law, the sellers of private property and their agents have to tell the truth when they are listing a piece of land.

A guy can get sued for lying or deliberately misleading prospective buyers if the property is not what it is claimed to be.

Mr. Fanning's real estate representatives have him quoted as saying, "Anyone who buys this ranch won't be disappointed. It is a one-of-a-kind, end-of-the road ranch, providing one of the last chances to live in Paradise Valley – a place that is indeed paradise for anyone who loves wild things and wild places."

I was thinking that maybe Mr. Fanning could clear up what appears to be a significant contradiction.

In the past, Bob Fanning and other sportsmen in the anti-wolf movement have promoted a vision of wolves turning the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem into a wasteland devoid of big game, especially elk.

But in his real estate ad — read it at www.nextrightthingranch.com — he creates a visual scene of a landscape teeming with wildlife. ... "One of the most visible wildlife species is elk that winter on the adjacent winter range."

Mr. Fanning says "Herds numbering in the thousands are not uncommon."

Once and for all, Bob, set the record straight: Are the public lands around your $1.1 million ranch a wildlife shangri-la or a wasteland; are there good numbers of elk or are there not?

Tell us, in the name of full legal disclosure: Is having wolves and abundant wildlife an asset or a liability to the value of your land? You're not under oath, but someday you could be.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Wilkinson lives in Bozeman and writes about the West for the Christian Science Monitor and other publications.

 

[Bambistew]

Hey Ithica, how do you explain the loss of elk in the "wolf" ecosystem. By as much as 50% in some areas?

 

[BuzzH]

Bambi,

Give Tom Lemke (MTFWP biologist) a call, he'll explain it to you.

Has to do with population dynamics, herd age structure, drought, winter range conditions, carrying capacities, predation, hunting, wolves, lions, etc. etc. etc. etc.

 

[Bambistew]

Now that you mention age structure that makes sence... kind of. There most certainly was a surge in poplulation after the fires in 88, that would put those "baby boomers" at the ripe age of retirement over the last few years. Couple that with poor feed and fewer calves being thrown because of that, would reslut in fewer elk... Also the only data that I could find suporting elk counts only showed that the northern heard is down a couple thousand. With the trend going down even more... where will it stop? The wolves are eating at least a 1000elk/75wolves a year right?

web page

Well the "experts" predicted that 75 wolves would kill 1000 elk a winter... if that is true then wouldn't the estimated 700 wolves be killing roughly 10,000 elk a winter??? thats a lot of elk...

Gray wolves, eliminated from the park by the 1930s, are being restored, but not because park managers think the wolves will "control" the number of elk. Instead, 15 North American wolf experts predicted that 100 wolves in Yellowstone would reduce the elk by less than 20%, 10 years after reintroduction. Computer modeling of population dynamics on the northern winter range predicts that 75 wolves would kill 1,000 elk per winter, but that elk would be able to maintain their populations under this level of predation, and with only a slight decrease in hunter harvest. Since the restoration of wolves to Yellowstone began in January 1995, scientists have begun to document the effects of wolves on elk and other species. Wolves are preying predominantly on elk, as expected. They have also occasionally preyed upon moose, bison, deer, and even one pronghorn antelope.

web page

How do you dispute these experts?

 

[BuzzH]

Bambi,

Beings how the yellowstone herd is what, 20,000, seems to me like there ought to be about 2 elk left in the park by your figures.

You think thats true?

Give the experts a call and ask them how many elk are in the park.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Bambi., Your other "expert" predicted Yellowstone's northern elk herd would be extinct by 2004.

 

[Bambistew]

I'm not quite ready for the elk apocholyps either just trying to bring up something for discussion other than politics...

Just wanted to point out that the pro-wolf "experts" are showing damning information to their cause... are they not? 75 wolves eat 1000 elk... 20% loss of hunting opportunity

About the only thing I've seen change with the elk is that they don't hang in quite as big of groups in the montains... more broken up and seem to travel a bit further. It seems like there is still more than enough to go around however...

One thing that I would like to dispute is the number of wolves shot... I think a few of the "relocated" may have been relocated all right.

Did you see the picture that I posted with the wolf skulls this spring? 24 skulls from just last winter...from around the state. those were just the ones sent in for "cleaning"! I think ol Eddy may be off a few there. Maybe thats a good thing, keeping the wolf lovers in the dark so to speak...

I think it will be intresting to see the calf crop this year, with all the good grass this year. My guess is it will be up around normal or more than likely better.

here is an articel by "Mr. Wolf"... I'd like to see some of that data...

Official: Wolves not decimating elk population
By MIKE STARK
Gazette Wyoming Bureau

Gray wolves in and around Yellowstone National Park haven't had a severe impact on elk populations or the agriculture industry, according to the lead coordinator for wolf recovery in the region.

Ed Bangs, who heads up wolf recovery in the northern Rocky Mountains for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said science and the numbers don't support speculation that wolves are decimating elk and other ungulates.

"There's no doubt wolves eat elk, we all know that," Bangs said Monday, adding that the wolves are bringing subtle changes in the age structure and number of calves in elk populations. "But we haven't seen the kind of draconian changes that some people were predicting."

One of the most contentious issues surrounding the reintroduction of wolves in 1995 and 1996 has been what effect they would have on livestock and elk populations. Citizen groups, hunters and others have claimed that the wolves - one of the top predators in the food chain - are driving down elk numbers in Wyoming and Montana.


In preparation for a meeting with members of the Montana Legislature last week, Bangs put together a "discussion paper" detailing what's known about the relationship between wolves, elk and livestock.

The paper comes as Montana, Wyoming and Idaho prepare to take over management of the wolves in the coming years. There have been significant public comment and concern from some about making sure that big-game herds are protected when wolves are no longer covered by the Endangered Species Act.

Bangs said there are fluctuations in elk numbers that can be attributed to wolves, but there are a number of other factors at play, too, including drought, winter severity, hunting and other animals.

An environmental impact statement written before wolves were introduced predicted that wolves might cause some elk herds to decline by 5 to 30 percent. When the population reductions exceeded that amount, wildlife managers would intervene to trim to wolf population and allow the elk to recover.

So far, Bangs said, that hasn't happened.

"To date, no significant effect on overall ungulate herd levels has been documented," he said, "and consequently no wolves have been moved to reduce predation pressure." He said there probably will be times when an elk population dips because of wolves. When that happens, he said, wildlife managers can take "control actions" against a specific pack until the elk herd bounces back.

Elk numbers healthy

In Wyoming, Bangs looked at all six elk herds surrounding Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks. Overall, the elk population of 34,255 is exceeding objectives, Bangs said.

At the National Elk Refuge near Jackson, elk numbers have topped state and federal objectives sine 1987. Although the ratio between elk calves and cows - one of the key indicators of the health of an elk herd - is lower than in the early 1980s on the refuge, "it has not been determined that wolf predation is responsible," Bangs said.

"There has been a prolonged drought and herds not exposed to wolf predation have also witnessed similar decreases in cow/calf ratios," he said.

Bangs noted that Wyoming Game and Fish has been trying to reduce the number of elk around the national parks in recent years and has not scaled back the number of elk that can be hunted because of the wolves.

In Montana, all but one of the elk herds around Yellowstone are at or above the state's management goals.

In Yellowstone s Northern Range, the elk herd has averaged about 13,000 over the last 20 years, fluctuating between 9,000 and 19,000. Last winter, 12,000 were counted.

But a winter study of that elk population this year showed that the calf/cow ratio dropped to the lowest levels in more than 20 years.

Although many attributed the decline largely to wolf predation, Bangs said the drought is suspected as the major contributor "although wolves and other predators undoubtedly had some impact."

Researchers are still trying to pin down the relationship between elk and wolves. Several studies are continuing in and around Yellowstone, "but at this time the purported drastic effects claimed by some have not been documented by scientific inquiry," Bangs said.

Stock losses small

There has been ample documentation and publicity about wolves killing livestock. Although the killings can have a significant effect on individual ranchers, Bangs said, the overall impact has been small.

Since 1995, wolves are known to have killed 41 cattle, 256 sheep and 23 dogs in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.

Before wolves were reintroduced, livestock producers estimated they were losing 8,340 cattle and 12,993 sheep a year, mostly from problems other than predation.

Bangs said livestock losses to wolves are a fraction of the losses caused by predators. Last year, wolves were known to be responsible for 1 percent of the cattle killed by predators and .4 percent of sheep killed by predators.

"This means that wolves caused the death of approximately three of every 10,000 cattle and 134 of every 10,000 sheep that died from all causes last year in the three states," Bangs said. Despite that, he said, the Fish and Wildlife Service treats livestock depredation as a serious issue.

He acknowledged there are times when wolves kill livestock but it is never documented.

So far, 34 wolves have been killed for attacking livestock and 42 more have been relocated.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to request removing the wolves from the Endangered Species List early next year. Management of the wolves will then be turned over to Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Thanks for the article.