The recovery of Yellowstone Lake
- Thread starter JLS
- Start date
Scott85
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2018
- Messages
- 2,997
Thanks for sharing.
el unit
Well-known member
Excellent news! Thanks for sharing the article.
RobG
Well-known member
It's good they are getting ahead of it. I was skeptical it could be done. I'm scratching my head on how putting whole carcasses on the spawning bed attracted grizzlies. They must have been floating to the surface.
I wondered the same as well. Bears with scuba gear?
JM77
Well-known member
Sorry to be such a sceptic, but it's hard to believe the ecosystem changed as described. Truth is, birds are more in peril by wind turbines than lake trout. And how many grizzlies actually relied on spawning cutthroats, so much so, to more heavily depredate on elk calves? The Park Service wanted to reduce elk herds anyway, and have done so without the help of bears.
I get it, it's a shame that the Yellowstone Lake cutthroat has taken a beating like it has. I wish it never happened, but it did. Now man will have to spend millions of dollars every year just to keep those lakers in check? They will never rid the lake completely and they can never stop the netting.
Meanwhile, nearby in Teton Park, Jenny and Jackson lakes both have populations of lake trout and cutthroats. Jackson Lake also has populations of brown trout, chinook salmon and whitefish. I guess the Park Service accepted the ecological change there a long time ago.
I get it, it's a shame that the Yellowstone Lake cutthroat has taken a beating like it has. I wish it never happened, but it did. Now man will have to spend millions of dollars every year just to keep those lakers in check? They will never rid the lake completely and they can never stop the netting.
Meanwhile, nearby in Teton Park, Jenny and Jackson lakes both have populations of lake trout and cutthroats. Jackson Lake also has populations of brown trout, chinook salmon and whitefish. I guess the Park Service accepted the ecological change there a long time ago.
There used to be a phenomenon in the Thoroughfare where you could watch the bears lining up to eat spawners that came out of the Lake. That ended a while ago. Cuttthroat are historically an important food source for Grizzlies, and that's well documented going back to before white settlement. The declines in those runs are also one of the leading arguments against delisting from groups seeking permanent federal protection for the great bear.
You're also looking at an endangered species listing issue if you don't protect and restore native populations. If you think federal management of terrestrial species is problematic for the west, then wait till you see what happens when we can't utilize water like we have over the last 150 years in arid climates. As far as the funding goes, my recollection is the the Yellowstone Park Foundation pays for at least 1/2 of the price tag for removal. That's a 50% match for federal funds, and it's a decent investment in our natural resources.
Ultimately, the cost of this program is going to be a net positive when you consider how it helps stave off a listing of Ystone Cutts, and how it can help ensure delisting of Grizzlies. This is the ounce of prevention that is better than a pound of cure (ESA).
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Sorry to derail, but at work we joke around that when one of us wins the lottery we're gonna taxidermy a sage grouse looking fierce and angry, with an arctic grayling in it's claws, and we will donate it to the good ranchers of the Big Hole Valley. They are surrounded by threatened species and live on the precipice of your sentence above.
JM77
Well-known member
I get all that you are saying Ben, but take into account the length of the spawn and the question arises as to how important it is to the bears. Yellowstone Lake is but one small part of the grizzly bear recovery area. Without a doubt, the majority of the recovered population doesn't even go there.
I like to celebrate removal of a non-native species that has impacted native species. Good work and good results where native species will benefit.
Now, if only we could do the same lethal means in the case of non-native feral horses and the negative impacts they are having on native wildlife and landscapes. Removal of those feral non-natives would result in great benefit to natives.
I am astute enough to understand the emotional warm and fuzzies about horses, though I refuse to see any scientific/biological difference in the parallels between removing lake trout from Yellowstone Lake and removing feral horses from the intermountain west.
Now, if only we could do the same lethal means in the case of non-native feral horses and the negative impacts they are having on native wildlife and landscapes. Removal of those feral non-natives would result in great benefit to natives.
I am astute enough to understand the emotional warm and fuzzies about horses, though I refuse to see any scientific/biological difference in the parallels between removing lake trout from Yellowstone Lake and removing feral horses from the intermountain west.
Couldn't agree more.
I'm all in on both those efforts. Sure way to improve one's Facebook engagement is to share articles advocating lethal removal of either. Speaking from experience.
npaden
Well-known member
Here kitty kitty.....
Pre-Facebook days there was a website that some guys in Iowa or someplace were running that was all about the elimination of feral cats. I think they called them ditch tigers or something like that. I tried finding it the other day but was unable to locate their website.
Australia seems to have a pretty good plan for them though - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/magazine/australia-cat-killing.html
Pre-Facebook days there was a website that some guys in Iowa or someplace were running that was all about the elimination of feral cats. I think they called them ditch tigers or something like that. I tried finding it the other day but was unable to locate their website.
Australia seems to have a pretty good plan for them though - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/magazine/australia-cat-killing.html
Think about the GYE like a thin crust pizza. The edges are not.nearly.as juicy or filled with toppings as the center. That center is YNP & the variety of food sources. It's the cheesy, Canadian bacon, mushroom & olive smothered center that you want to eat the most.
That's Yellowstone lake & the tributaries. Not all habitat is created equally and when you remove the juiciest toppings (cutts & white bark), you can still eat the pizza & sustain, but you won't get the most nutritious parts, like removing the bacon & mushrooms and leaving just the olives. That hurts all bears, and it hurts delisting. Especially when states traditionally.rely on Yellowstone to hold the core population of animals necessary for robust populations.
In the spirit of going slightly further off topic: I was watching a USFS webinar today about a forest plan revision for a forest that permits grazing for 27,000 domestic sheep each year, and also includes portions of 10 RM bighorn sheep herds and 1 desert bighorn sheep herd. When they got to the part about noxious and invasive plant species, I couldn't help but reflect on how differently they manage harmful, non-native plants vs. harmful, non-native animals. And although I do think pack goats are a risk to bighorns, I did smirk to myself when the participant from NAPgA asked why they were proposing to ban pack goats from the forest and yet were still grazing thousands of domestic sheep.
Similar threads
