Wolves for Elk?

[greatwhitebuffalo]

A few points didn't quite add up in this piece, but maybe some of you biologists out there can clue me in?

25 years after returning to Yellowstone, wolves have helped stabilize the ecosystem

New research shows that by reducing populations and thinning out weak and sick animals, wolves have a role in creating resilient elk herds.

api.nationalgeographic.com

 

[kwyeewyk]

A few points didn't quite add up in this piece, but maybe some of you biologists out there can clue me in?

25 years after returning to Yellowstone, wolves have helped stabilize the ecosystem

New research shows that by reducing populations and thinning out weak and sick animals, wolves have a role in creating resilient elk herds.

api.nationalgeographic.com

Articles like this are hard because you don't get the real data, just an interpretation, really need the journal article to fully understand the statements being made. What points in particular were you wondering about?

 

[greatwhitebuffalo]

A few come to mind. But, I suppose the top three are:

1. Why exactly is THIS herd healthier NOW?
2. Since when did Colorado have an elk problem?
3. Why are wolves viewed as the best solution?

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

There is no analogous place in CO.

RMNP has 350 resident elk not 20,000 it’s 1/10 the size with the same number of visitors annually. The park is mostly high alpine, unlike Yellowstone.

Every other herd in Colorado is heavily hunted.

Whatever impact wolf introduction had on Yellowstone it has no bearing on Colorado.

 

[greatwhitebuffalo]

There is no analogous place in CO.

RMNP has 350 resident elk not 20,000 it’s 1/10 the size with the same number of visitors annually. The park is mostly high alpine, unlike Yellowstone.

Every other herd in Colorado is heavily hunted.

Whatever impact wolf introduction had on Yellowstone it has no bearing on Colorado.

Funny there's no mention of these facts in the article. Hmmm......

 

[kwyeewyk]

Honestly these are pretty complicated topics that I'm definitely not an expert in, but I'll take a stab at my interpretation.

As far as Yellowstone herd being healthier now, I think they're mostly saying that the wolves help clean out the weaker animals, both physically and genetically. Kinda of like thinning fruit from a tree, remove the weak one's that will never be very productive and it frees up resources for the healthy ones, so they grow better. The wolves prevent population spikes in productive vegetation years, so the extra vegetation is "banked" to some extent for future years when droughts or hard winters come. And the apparent selection of bulls in drought years seems to favor cow/calf survival in hard years. That kind of information is hard for most people to really believe or understand without being involved in the numbers and statistics behind it.

I don't think they explicitly say Colorado has an elk population problem, but they imply it by providing the 287,000 number and stating it is the largest population in US. So they're assuming that number would be "leveled out" by wolves and that similar benefits would occur in Colorado.

They also don't explicitly say wolves are the best solution, but imply it by saying the human management factors can't do what wolves can do. From a practical standpoint, there is no human substitution for the type of selective pressure natural predation provides to an ungulate population, it's just not feasible or cost effective to do. Not sure that means wolves are the best answer, but they certainly do things humans wouldn't be able to do otherwise, and there seems to be some benefit from that ecologically.

We don't like to think about it this way, but imagine if the human population were suddenly resubjected to constant predation. There would be a hell of lot more selection going on with our population, and a lot more "balance" in the ecological world. But it's not necessarily what we want in the human world, and like it or not humans are pretty much in charge of these things in the short term, so we don't always choose the best outcome ecologically, and the same applies to game management, we do what's best for humans, mostly.

 

[maconbacon]

I read the article and then the paper earlier today.
As you likely already expect, the author of the article made some leaps that the authors of the paper did not go into. The paper merely demonstrated that the quality of habitat/conditions in the preceding year partially drive which classes of elk wolves tend to target. In lean years, they killed more bulls and vice versa.
Of course they did not postulate this “stabilizes the ecosystem” like the nat geo author suggests, probably because that is clearly impossible to state based on such a focused study. Not to mention, as already pointed out, the silliness of trying to generalize the study even further to advocate for wolf reintroduction in CO

 

[greatwhitebuffalo]

Honestly these are pretty complicated topics that I'm definitely not an expert in, but I'll take a stab at my interpretation.

As far as Yellowstone herd being healthier now, I think they're mostly saying that the wolves help clean out the weaker animals, both physically and genetically. Kinda of like thinning fruit from a tree, remove the weak one's that will never be very productive and it frees up resources for the healthy ones, so they grow better. The wolves prevent population spikes in productive vegetation years, so the extra vegetation is "banked" to some extent for future years when droughts or hard winters come. And the apparent selection of bulls in drought years seems to favor cow/calf survival in hard years. That kind of information is hard for most people to really believe or understand without being involved in the numbers and statistics behind it.

I don't think they explicitly say Colorado has an elk population problem, but they imply it by providing the 287,000 number and stating it is the largest population in US. So they're assuming that number would be "leveled out" by wolves and that similar benefits would occur in Colorado.

They also don't explicitly say wolves are the best solution, but imply it by saying the human management factors can't do what wolves can do. From a practical standpoint, there is no human substitution for the type of selective pressure natural predation provides to an ungulate population, it's just not feasible or cost effective to do. Not sure that means wolves are the best answer, but they certainly do things humans wouldn't be able to do otherwise, and there seems to be some benefit from that ecologically.

We don't like to think about it this way, but imagine if the human population were suddenly resubjected to constant predation. There would be a hell of lot more selection going on with our population, and a lot more "balance" in the ecological world. But it's not necessarily what we want in the human world, and like it or not humans are pretty much in charge of these things in the short term, so we don't always choose the best outcome ecologically, and the same applies to game management, we do what's best for humans, mostly.

Good points.

 

[MTLabrador]

Where I grew up and liked to hunt when I lived in Montana, which is the Absarokas, Gallatin, and Madison, there have been some huge changes in the last 15 or so years. Wolves were absolutely a large part of it, and poor elk management by FWP, including very liberal general seasons, season extensions, and very liberal late cow seasons, were another huge part of it.

The northern Yellowstone herd is absolutely NOT healthy right now. 2:100 bull to cow ratio (which is due to terrible elk management and overhunting, especially by one outfitter) and consistently terrible recruitment (which is due to wolves and bears) is not an indicator of a healthy elk population. The ridiculously low 2 wolf quota around Gardiner doesn’t help. Wolves have contributed to the private land harboring problem as well.

The most frustrating part of the situation to me is that people on both sides are so infuriatingly political about wolves. To steal a quote from @Big Fin ”wolves are not some magical creature shooting rainbows out of their ass”. Some people absolutely refuse to admit that wolves might possibly have a negative impact on elk populations no matter what. At the same time, if you tell the Toby Bridges morons that there’s more happening to these elk than just wolves and that we need to revisit our elk management, you get labeled a wolf hugging commie.

 

[Sytes]

@MTLabrador

Preach it brother!

Amen!

 

[MTLabrador]

@MTLabrador

Preach it brother!

Amen!

I might have a little pent up frustration...

 

[greatwhitebuffalo]

Where I grew up and liked to hunt when I lived in Montana, which is the Absarokas, Gallatin, and Madison, there have been some huge changes in the last 15 or so years. Wolves were absolutely a large part of it, and poor elk management by FWP, including very liberal general seasons, season extensions, and very liberal late cow seasons, were another huge part of it.

The northern Yellowstone herd is absolutely NOT healthy right now. 2:100 bull to cow ratio (which is due to terrible elk management and overhunting, especially by one outfitter) and consistently terrible recruitment (which is due to wolves and bears) is not an indicator of a healthy elk population. The ridiculously low 2 wolf quota around Gardiner doesn’t help. Wolves have contributed to the private land harboring problem as well.

The most frustrating part of the situation to me is that people on both sides are so infuriatingly political about wolves. To steal a quote from @Big Fin ”wolves are not some magical creature shooting rainbows out of their ass”. Some people absolutely refuse to admit that wolves might possibly have a negative impact on elk populations no matter what. At the same time, if you tell the Toby Bridges morons that there’s more happening to these elk than just wolves and that we need to revisit our elk management, you get labeled a wolf hugging commie.

You should copy and paste this as a Nat Geo letter to the editor.

 

[Wildabeest]

You should copy and paste this as a Nat Geo letter to the editor.

And copy Montana Outdoors!

 

[greatwhitebuffalo]

This was really good information. It just really bothered me that a publication like this came up so short-sighted. Especially with an audience that might be (almost) entirely composed of non-hunters.

In the mean time; I wish CO the best in keeping these things out.

 

[LuketheDog]

There is no analogous place in CO.

RMNP has 350 resident elk not 20,000 it’s 1/10 the size with the same number of visitors annually. The park is mostly high alpine, unlike Yellowstone.

Every other herd in Colorado is heavily hunted.

Whatever impact wolf introduction had on Yellowstone it has no bearing on Colorado.

Plus Yellowstone had a GIANT devastating fire that changed the entire ecosystem for decades...

...and RMNP has ~3,000 elk, you missed a zero

 

[Deleted member 28227]

[QUOTE

Plus Yellowstone had a GIANT devastating fire that changed the entire ecosystem for decades...

...and RMNP has ~3,000 elk, you missed a zero

Resident.

https://www.facebook.com/RockyNPS/posts/2112896195396310

Park herd objective is set at 600-800.

Culls haven’t been warranted since ‘11 denoting population isn’t over objective. Thus wolves wouldn’t help “solve a problem”. Though watching them killing elk in the city park in Estes would be a trip.

On another thread I posted a ton of citations about this... I’m lazy today.

Colorado wolves

Anyone have any insight on this comment "Did you know that this ballot will only force CPW to look at the possibility to reintroduce wolves? It does not mean that reintroduction would happen. This measure would cost CPW millions of dollars as the ballot states that CPW would be responsible for...

www.hunttalk.com

Elk & Vegetation Management Plan Fact Sheet - Rocky Mountain National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

 

[Deleted member 28227]

They also don't explicitly say wolves are the best solution, but imply it by saying the human management factors can't do what wolves can do. From a practical standpoint, there is no human substitution for the type of selective pressure natural predation provides to an ungulate population, it's just not feasible or cost effective to do. Not sure that means wolves are the best answer, but they certainly do things humans wouldn't be able to do otherwise, and there seems to be some benefit from that ecologically.

This is not true. Wolves cannot manage elk herds the way humans do. Colorado made $70 million last year managing elk and deer.

CPW monitors populations, fly's summer range doing counts, sets quotas, then over 300,000 hunters target specific sex and age class of elk across the state based on the strategy promulgated by CPW.

The only reason "wolves in Yellowstone" is a thing is because humans had decided we wouldn't manage the Yellowstone population through hunting.

I'm sorry it's 2020, there are no wild places, humans manage everything (or try to) at this point it's not a debate about whether wolves would be good for ecosystems it's if humans will tolerate wolves. That mind sound a bit brutal, but I think everyone realizes this is the true.

I think the Yellowstone predator prey interaction studies are valuable and interesting, but in many ways no different than Isle Royal. The results in both of these studies are not indicative of how these relationship works in a system with humans.

I'm not trying to beat up on biologist, I think if you talked to the authors of most of those (scientific not popular science) articles that they would agree, their findings in Yellowstone and Isle Royal should not be seen as indicative of what predator prey relationships look like outside of those system.

If we really want to try and understand what wolf dispersal into Colorado will look like a much better comparison would be SW MT and Eastern Idaho. We need to look at the addition of a major predator into an already managed system. I'm sure many on this forum and the larger hunting community find it frustrating that Yellowstone is being used as the template not Lolo.

I'm not anti-wolf.

I'm just sick and tired of people trying to piss down my neck, there seems to be a line around the block and their ain't a cloud in the sky.

 

[LuketheDog]

Culls haven’t been warranted since ‘11 denoting population isn’t over objective. Thus wolves wouldn’t help “solve a problem”. Though watching them killing elk in the city park in Estes would be a trip.

In front of a crowd of tourists? I'd happily pay to see that...

 

[Deleted member 28227]

In front of a crowd of tourists? I'd happily pay to see that...

Elk in RMNP in people's minds...


Reality...


$50 dollars says that by 2040 a lady from Boulder has called the cops on a wolf for trying to kill an elk.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Wolves cannot manage elk herds the way humans do.

That is absolutely true, but my statement wasn't about wolves managing elk, simply the selective pressure they apply in the context of survival of the fittest. We could mimick that to some extent with selective hunting or culling, but it's not quite the same as what the wolves do. "Managing" elk is a purely human concept, wolves might be a tool in management, but they certainly aren't doing the managing, they're just surviving. And clearly we can manage elk well enough without them, like you say, it's not a question of the benefit, but the tolerance, it's just not going to be worth the benefit vs. the conflict in most cases outside of Yellowstone.

Definitely agree that you can't apply it to other areas, and that we're long beyond "natural ecosystem management" pretty much for most of the planet.