T.R. Michels
T.R. Michels is a professional
guide who specializes in trophy whitetail, turkey and bear hunts in
Minnesota. He has guided in the Rocky Mountains for elk and mule deer,
too. He publishes the Trinity Mountain Outdoors website at www.TRMichels.com.
Wolves of the Yellowstone Ecosystem Part One
Posted by: T.R. Michels / September 22, 2011
I recently receivd an e-mail with a link to a video on the Wolves of the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Here were my thoughts on it:
I watchced this film - on the wolves of Yellowstone http://bowhunting.net/video/2011/09/crying-wolf-movie/ - with interest,but as it went on I had a number of questions about what was beind said. And I did some in-depth checking on it.
It is not an investigative piece, it is obviously a personal opinion/desire piece, designed to sway the watcher into taking the side of the video maker. It does not present a balanced look at both sides of the issue. There is nothing wrong with trying to sway people, even if you present only one sideof the issue - I do it all the time on my Mineapolis Star Tribune Blog, But, one should always check their "facts' to be sure that the are in deed - facts. I, as s Christian, could not prsent this issue, or any other one, without making darn sure I have the facts on my side, and this video producer does not have them. It is inexcusable.
On the video:
Someone mentioned that wolves had never been a part of the Yellowstone Ecosystem. That is false, most westerners know that wolves were found all around it, and records that show they were in it. Nothing kept them out.
Someone said wolves killed more buffalo then whites and Indians combined. During some years that may have been true. Over the period of the existence of the wolf - certainly, because they werre here long before the Native Americans or Europeans. But, during the days of Wild Bill Cody, Buffalo Bill etc. hunters killed far more buffalo in a week, the wolves did in a year.
Someone mentiond 10's of thousands of wolves. There were only 50,000-70,000 wolves in the 80's - in all of North America - not the US - as implied. Currently the US has about 9,000 wolves, with about 4,00 of those in my home sate of Minnesota. And we do not complain like westeners do, and we do have livestock loses - becasue we do not have the large elk and bison herds that the west does. We do have whitetals, .
Someone said that wildlfe increase is healthy. That could be, but it is no healthy for the ecosystem, because many native plants are either in danger or no longer in existence in many areas, due to overgrazing by both cattle and wildlife. I'll write more about this later.
Someone said that a single wolf can raise 20 pups in 3 years, That is only true if there are abundant prey species in the area - every year. The Alpha female of a pck of wolved can have up to 6 pups per year, but- she is the only one of the pack (which may contain an average of 4 other females and 1-2 males (her pups) that normally has pups, and up to 80% of the pups born each year may die. So, out of a group of 100 wolves, there may be only 40 females, of which only 10 are Alpha females, that may raise to adulthood 10 wolves every 3 years - not 40. And in aera werh teh wolf populatin has reache balanced predator pry spcied number, that are also in balance with the ecosystem carrying capacity - enough wolves will die each year, from disease, injury or malnutrition - the ther is no increasein wolf number over th long term.
Here are the 2001 Yellowstone wolf study results.
Hopefully it will help you see the other side of this issue. There are several other articles there, relating to this issue. It is much broader than just wolves, elk, bison and livestock.
T.R.
There is no question that wolves have reduced the number of elk in the Yellowstone ecosystem. And it was known that this would happen, because, since big cattle ranches grew up on the edges of Yellowstone Park and the Teton National Wilderness Area, and the inception of the National Elk Refuge (mainly for the purpose of hunting, not for a balanced ecosystem) the number or elk, when considered as part of the ruminant species foraging on the wild plants of Yellowstone has, grown too big. The ruminant base has greatly impacted, and in some places destroyed, the native flora of that ecosystem.
That ecosystem did not develop into what it was before the National Elk Refuge, or modern hunting, without wolves as part of the equation, (along with bears, and mountain lions) to prey on the larger prey/fauna of ecosystem, in order to keep them in check within the carrying capacity of the habitat. It did not develop to hold that many elk, bison, mule deer, moose, bighorn sheep and pronghorns (but mainly elk) without wolves to keep them in check. Thus it was an unbalanced ecosystem - before ranching, and before the elk refuge. What it is now, is an artificially manage ecosystem, with wildlife viewing and hunting as two components of that management. This is not responsible ecosystem management – at all.
Most people today are unaware of what the Yellowstone area originally was, and what it was meant to be - by God (if you believe in Yahweh). All they know is the wolves reduce their precious elk numbers, which reduces the hunting availability. And that is all they care about. They do not care that the aspen, willow and cottonwood forests are no longer regenerating in some areas, making it hard for their precious elk to find forage in the winter, which, if it keeps up, can lead to starvation of their precious elk herds. The loss of those forests also affects songbird nesting and thus raptors; riparian forage habitat and thus waterfowl and shorebirds, shade to create cool streams and thus trout;, trout and thus wading birds, bears, mink fisher, weasels and otter; insects and crustaceans and mollusks and thus amphibians and reptiles. And on and on.
Now don't get me wrong, I probably know I enjoy watching, researching an hunting elk more than any hunter who is likely to respond to this post, because I have spent 10 years of my life guiding for elk, and 3 years researching elk. I like elk more than whitetails. If I could have my way, we would restore elk to all of the eastern 2/3s' fo North America, but is not feasible.
But wolf reintroduction is not about what ranchers or hunters want. It is about total ecosystem management, with a balanced predator / prey relationship, and keeping the prey species within the carrying capacity of the habitat.
Yellowstone never, at anytime in recent memory, developed into an ecosystem that was designed to hold as many bighorn sheep, mountain Goats, moose, mule deer and elk, as now live within the boundaries of the park. It currently holds more than 30,000 elk from 7-8 different herds in the summer, with approximately 15,000 to 22,000 wintering in the park. Lack of forage and deep snow depths are why elk and bison migrate out of the park every winter, and forage on the ranchers land and haystacks. There are too many elk in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Their number are artificially inflated because of the extinction of one of the keystone predators – the wolves, and the creation of the National Elk Refuge – for the purpose of wildlife watching and hunting.
Ranchers in the Yellowstone Ecosystem complain about the bison that leave the park every winter, because they may carry brucellosis. They would also complain about the elk, except that they would loose the money they get leasing the hunting rights to their property for elk hunts. But interestingly, it is not the ranchers that are complaining the most loudly about lower elk numbers, it is hunters, many of who do not have any economic stake in the area - just hunting rights - who complain most about the wolf reintroduction.
And they do it to save their hunting possibilities, with very little concern for the health of an entire very ecosystem. But, not just any ecosystem, the most beautiful, pristine, magnificent, geothermally active ecosystem, in the world.
If we do not restore all of Yellowstone to what it developed itself into being, we will eventually loose parts of it, and more parts, and more parts, until it can no longer maintain itself. All because hunters do not want the keystone predator of that ecosystem, to exist within it - just so they can keep hunting elk.
There is something really wrong with that thinking, or that lack of understanding and caring about our environment. No one, not ranchers, or hunters or developers - should have their voices be more relevant than the voices of the public as a whole, and the scientists.
May God help us all, to see the wisdom of total ecosystem management, helping it to become as close to natural as we can, or as close as we can maintain it.
God bless,
T.R.
source
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Wolves of Yellowstone: Part 3
In case the hunters have not figure it out yet - Wolf Reintroduction into the Yellowstone Ecosystem, is not solely about elk hunting opportunities.
An interesting article on the effects of wolf reintroduction looks at the fact that elk numbers have decreased after the reintroduction of wolves, probably as a result of the wolves. I never said that wolves would not decrease elk populations. And I doubt that any knowledgeable wolf biologist would suggest that elk numbers would not decline. In fact most biologists expected they would, because of the wolves. It was expected. And, I for one am not ducking that fact.
But, the reduction in the size of the northern elk heard can also be attributed to the change from a moderate to liberal hunting harvest policy. And there has also been an increase in predation by a growing population of grizzly bears. But, the answers to why the elk herd has declined in recent years, are both elusive and often wrong, say scientists, citing the sheer complexity of the northern range ecosystem.
One of the latest studies has suggested that the northern elk herd decreased in numbers due to poor nutrition of adult elk and lower calf survival rates in that area. These are two unexpected results of the wolf reintroduction; which is to say that the scientists are still learning something from this study. Interestingly there appeared to be no connection between poor nutrition and lower calf survival rates. Poor nutrition was attributed to the elk being harassed more by wolves (which just makes sense). And lower calf survival was attributed to lower progesterone levels. You can read more about this study - and many more articles relating to the wolf re-introduction here:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031029064909.htm.
I, for one, have never suggested that wolf reintroduction would not result in lower elk numbers. In fact, I believed that wolf reintroduction would reduce the size of the elk herds, because wolves prey on elk. But, if we are talking about naturally balanced ecosystems, or those as natural as we can now hope to repair them to, then reducing the elk herds is a good thing, because there is no doubt that there are more elk in the ecosystem than it originally developed to hold.
The overly abundant elk herds are being kept at artificially high numbers, due in part to the National Elk Refuge feeding program in the winter, and the ability of the elk in the north to migrate out of the park and onto private land, where ranchers have maintained, improved or created hayfields and pastures suited to both elk and cattle, they also have large supplies of hay, in the form of haystacks for winter use, which the elk readily take advantage of. Take away the artificially maintained or created pasture and hayfields and haystacks, and the feeding program of the elk refuge, and elk numbers will decrease - due to starvation in large numbers. Such widespread elk deaths could lead to the appearance of deadly microorganisms, and the spread of diseases. So, no one is willing to take such a step, and I am not advocating it.
For many hunters, someplace between the time they first took up hunting, or learned to hunt, and where they are now, they have forgotten that hunting is a privilege, not a right, and that without good conservation measures, in this case total ecosystem management, we may not have either the habitat to support the game we love to hunt, or we may not have the game we love to hunt on that habitat, or both.
You would think that we would have learned from the past, when in the early 1900’s, due to unregulated hunting, we brought the populations of many game animals (white-tailed deer, elk, bison, turkey, pheasants, almost all waterfowl species) to the brink of extinction. In fact, about 100 years later, some of those species have still not recovered (wolves, bison, pheasants, swans and some species of ducks). At that point in time it was not so much the habitat that was in jeopardy, it was the game. But, without the habitat, the game cannot or will not survive, and now it is the habitat that we need to worry about. I’m referring to healthy habitat, brought about by balanced predator/prey relationships, and keeping prey species in balance with the carrying capacity of the land - as in its forage base for large herbivores. There is no question that the trees, shrubs, forbs, grasses, sedges etc. of he Yellowstone Ecosystem – are nowhere near as healthy as they once were – due in part to the removal of wolves in the ecosystem back as far as 1926 – 86 years ago.
To use the argument that the "trophic cascading" hypothesis (the loss or reduction of one species leads to the loss or reduction of another species) as a reason to justify removing wolves from the Yellowstone Ecosystem is not relevant to this post. I would suggest that in the case of the Yellowstone ecosystem, not enough time has elapsed after the removal of wolves from the ecosystem in 1926, to be able to tell if the loss of the wolves in the ecosystem than lead to declines or extinction of other species later. Even if this is not true, recent studies have shown that many plant species (that elk use as forage) that were formerly found in Yellowstone, are either reduced or in decline as a result of the removal of the wolves and the increase in elk numbers, almost 100 years ago.
If we look at the first portion of this article, we see that in fact, because wolves harass elk in northern Yellowstone, the elk have poor nutrition – which means they are either not eating as much, or they are eating different species, or they are feeding in different areas, or any combination of the three. This in turn suggests that some plant species that the elk were foraging on, are no longer being eaten by the elk. And we can conclude from that, that those plant species are either increasing, or not declining. Thus, there appears to have been a "cascading effect".
How About No Wolves?
Let us look at this from another aspect. Let us assume that the wolves do not affect elk numbers enough to allow any type of plant species to re-establish itself, prosper or stop declining in Yellowstone Park or the Yellowstone Ecosystem. The wolves did not have a secondary affect the flora in any way at all. The only thing they did was take down young, old or diseased elk, or other elk for some reason. If, for no other reason than the fact that they are culling the elk herd, to even a minor extent (hunters claim wolves are taking a lot of elk each year), would not that be enough to warrant keeping elk in the ecosystem? Or, wouldn’t the ability of park goers to see wolves, hear them howling, and photograph wolves, in a natural setting, in the most beautiful geothermal area of the world – be enough to justify keeping the wolves in the ecosystem? Would not the fact that there is now, or will be in the future, a balanced predator/prey relationship between the elk and wolves, be enough to justify keeping wolves in the ecosystem? I think the answer to those questions is a resounding yes.
Does wolf re-introduction have to be about total ecosystem balance, in order to justify having them in the Yellowstone Ecosystem? I think the answer to that question is no.
Should the wants and desires of a few very vocal and outspoken hunters and ranchers - outweigh the wants and desires of the United States public citizens as a whole, or should the wants and needs of the greater non-hunting public decide whether or not there are wolves in the Yellowstone ecosystem?
I’ve been in Yellowstone Park and the surrounding areas several times, starting as far back as the 1960’s. I’ve been there before there were any wolves there, when you could not find a bald eagle or a sandhill crane or trumpeter swan, and grizzly bears were abundant – in the garbage dumps. But, elk were hard to locate. And I’ve been there when there were lots of elk, a few grizzly and black bears, and a few wolves. I think the park, and the experience of visiting it, are enhanced by every species that has made a comeback or been re-introduced there. For many people, the animals of the area are what Yellowstone Park is all about, and that should be a good enough reason for keeping wolves in the ecosystem.
The park, and the surrounding ecosystem, are not there just for hunters. Yellowstone is for everyone, and for all the animal and plant species that belong there.
If you get a chance to visit Yellowstone Park, I’m sure you will enjoy seeing, hearing or photographing the wolf packs there. Do it soon, before it is gone.
If you have a positive Yellowstone story, I urge you to post it in the comments box.
God bless,
T.R.
source
I watchced this film - on the wolves of Yellowstone http://bowhunting.net/video/2011/09/crying-wolf-movie/ - with interest,but as it went on I had a number of questions about what was beind said. And I did some in-depth checking on it.
It is not an investigative piece, it is obviously a personal opinion/desire piece, designed to sway the watcher into taking the side of the video maker. It does not present a balanced look at both sides of the issue. There is nothing wrong with trying to sway people, even if you present only one sideof the issue - I do it all the time on my Mineapolis Star Tribune Blog, But, one should always check their "facts' to be sure that the are in deed - facts. I, as s Christian, could not prsent this issue, or any other one, without making darn sure I have the facts on my side, and this video producer does not have them. It is inexcusable.
This piece is filled with many misleading statements, half truths and "out and out" falsehoods.
Someone mentioned that wolves had never been a part of the Yellowstone Ecosystem. That is false, most westerners know that wolves were found all around it, and records that show they were in it. Nothing kept them out.
Someone said wolves killed more buffalo then whites and Indians combined. During some years that may have been true. Over the period of the existence of the wolf - certainly, because they werre here long before the Native Americans or Europeans. But, during the days of Wild Bill Cody, Buffalo Bill etc. hunters killed far more buffalo in a week, the wolves did in a year.
Someone mentiond 10's of thousands of wolves. There were only 50,000-70,000 wolves in the 80's - in all of North America - not the US - as implied. Currently the US has about 9,000 wolves, with about 4,00 of those in my home sate of Minnesota. And we do not complain like westeners do, and we do have livestock loses - becasue we do not have the large elk and bison herds that the west does. We do have whitetals, .
Someone said that wildlfe increase is healthy. That could be, but it is no healthy for the ecosystem, because many native plants are either in danger or no longer in existence in many areas, due to overgrazing by both cattle and wildlife. I'll write more about this later.
Someone said that a single wolf can raise 20 pups in 3 years, That is only true if there are abundant prey species in the area - every year. The Alpha female of a pck of wolved can have up to 6 pups per year, but- she is the only one of the pack (which may contain an average of 4 other females and 1-2 males (her pups) that normally has pups, and up to 80% of the pups born each year may die. So, out of a group of 100 wolves, there may be only 40 females, of which only 10 are Alpha females, that may raise to adulthood 10 wolves every 3 years - not 40. And in aera werh teh wolf populatin has reache balanced predator pry spcied number, that are also in balance with the ecosystem carrying capacity - enough wolves will die each year, from disease, injury or malnutrition - the ther is no increasein wolf number over th long term.
Here are the 2001 Yellowstone wolf study results.
At the end of 2010, at least 97 wolves (11 packs and 6 loners) occupied Yellowstone National Park (YNP). This is nearly the same size population as in 2009 (96 wolves) and represents a stable population. Breeding pairs increased from six in 2009 to eight in 2010. The wolf population declined 43% from 2007 to 2010, primarily because of a smaller elk population, the main food of northern range wolves. The interior wolf population declined less, probably because they augment their diet with bison. The severity of mange declined in 2010 and there was no evidence of distemper being a mortality factor as it was in 1999, 2005, and 2008. Pack size ranged from 3 (Grayling Creek) to 16 (Mollie's) and averaged 8.3, slightly higher than in 2009 (7.1), but lower than the long-term average of 10 wolves per pack. Eight of the 11 packs reproduced (73%). The average number of pups per pack in early winter for packs that had at least one pup was 4.8, compared to the 2009 average of 3.8. A total of 38 pups in YNP survived to year end.
The pup ratio per 100 wolves was 38:100.Wolf Project staff detected 268 wolf kills in 2010 (definite, probable, and possible combined), including 211 elk (79%), 25 bison (9%), 7 deer (3%), 4 wolves (1%), 2 moose (<1%), 2 pronghorn (<1%), 2 grizzly bears (< 1%), 4 coyotes (1%), 2 ravens (<1%), and 10 unknown species (4%). The composition of elk kills was 43% cows, 25% calves, 18% bulls, and 15% elk of unknown sex and/or age. Bison kills included 4 calves, 6 cows, 7 bulls, and 8 unknown sex adults. Intensive winter and summer studies of wolf predation continued.
What wolf reintroduction to the
Yellowsoten Ecosystem is about, is a balanced "predator/prey/prey forage
base" system and the associated bird, insect, fish, reptile, amphibian,
crustacean, mullosk, and invertebrate populations - meaning that we
should take into account how the loss of one of those components -
impacts the whole ecosystem balance. In this case, when wolves were not
in the Yellowstone ecosystem, elk and bison number increases, which
resulted in the loss of many native plant speceis, and the suppression
of other species (shrubs and wildflowers) - mainly aspen, cottonwood and
willow, which are a primary food source for elk and moose during the
winter.
Here is one example of how the increase in elk, beyond blanced predator/pray number can affect an ecosystem.
... if the Northern Range elk population does not continue to decline -- their numbers are 40 percent of what they were before wolves -- many of Yellowstone's aspen stands are unlikely to recover
I suggest you read this account of scientific findings; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031029064909.htm.
Hopefully it will help you see the other side of this issue. There are several other articles there, relating to this issue. It is much broader than just wolves, elk, bison and livestock.
What people around the world need
to think about - if they want to continue to enjoy nature and its
widllife - is total ecosystem based conservation - not just the wants,
needs or desires of a few people - concerned for their own welfare.
God bless,
T.R.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wolves of the Yellowstone Ecosystem, Part 2
Posted by: T.R. Michels / September 25, 2011There is no question that wolves have reduced the number of elk in the Yellowstone ecosystem. And it was known that this would happen, because, since big cattle ranches grew up on the edges of Yellowstone Park and the Teton National Wilderness Area, and the inception of the National Elk Refuge (mainly for the purpose of hunting, not for a balanced ecosystem) the number or elk, when considered as part of the ruminant species foraging on the wild plants of Yellowstone has, grown too big. The ruminant base has greatly impacted, and in some places destroyed, the native flora of that ecosystem.
That ecosystem did not develop into what it was before the National Elk Refuge, or modern hunting, without wolves as part of the equation, (along with bears, and mountain lions) to prey on the larger prey/fauna of ecosystem, in order to keep them in check within the carrying capacity of the habitat. It did not develop to hold that many elk, bison, mule deer, moose, bighorn sheep and pronghorns (but mainly elk) without wolves to keep them in check. Thus it was an unbalanced ecosystem - before ranching, and before the elk refuge. What it is now, is an artificially manage ecosystem, with wildlife viewing and hunting as two components of that management. This is not responsible ecosystem management – at all.
Most people today are unaware of what the Yellowstone area originally was, and what it was meant to be - by God (if you believe in Yahweh). All they know is the wolves reduce their precious elk numbers, which reduces the hunting availability. And that is all they care about. They do not care that the aspen, willow and cottonwood forests are no longer regenerating in some areas, making it hard for their precious elk to find forage in the winter, which, if it keeps up, can lead to starvation of their precious elk herds. The loss of those forests also affects songbird nesting and thus raptors; riparian forage habitat and thus waterfowl and shorebirds, shade to create cool streams and thus trout;, trout and thus wading birds, bears, mink fisher, weasels and otter; insects and crustaceans and mollusks and thus amphibians and reptiles. And on and on.
Now don't get me wrong, I probably know I enjoy watching, researching an hunting elk more than any hunter who is likely to respond to this post, because I have spent 10 years of my life guiding for elk, and 3 years researching elk. I like elk more than whitetails. If I could have my way, we would restore elk to all of the eastern 2/3s' fo North America, but is not feasible.
But wolf reintroduction is not about what ranchers or hunters want. It is about total ecosystem management, with a balanced predator / prey relationship, and keeping the prey species within the carrying capacity of the habitat.
Yellowstone never, at anytime in recent memory, developed into an ecosystem that was designed to hold as many bighorn sheep, mountain Goats, moose, mule deer and elk, as now live within the boundaries of the park. It currently holds more than 30,000 elk from 7-8 different herds in the summer, with approximately 15,000 to 22,000 wintering in the park. Lack of forage and deep snow depths are why elk and bison migrate out of the park every winter, and forage on the ranchers land and haystacks. There are too many elk in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Their number are artificially inflated because of the extinction of one of the keystone predators – the wolves, and the creation of the National Elk Refuge – for the purpose of wildlife watching and hunting.
Ranchers in the Yellowstone Ecosystem complain about the bison that leave the park every winter, because they may carry brucellosis. They would also complain about the elk, except that they would loose the money they get leasing the hunting rights to their property for elk hunts. But interestingly, it is not the ranchers that are complaining the most loudly about lower elk numbers, it is hunters, many of who do not have any economic stake in the area - just hunting rights - who complain most about the wolf reintroduction.
And they do it to save their hunting possibilities, with very little concern for the health of an entire very ecosystem. But, not just any ecosystem, the most beautiful, pristine, magnificent, geothermally active ecosystem, in the world.
If we do not restore all of Yellowstone to what it developed itself into being, we will eventually loose parts of it, and more parts, and more parts, until it can no longer maintain itself. All because hunters do not want the keystone predator of that ecosystem, to exist within it - just so they can keep hunting elk.
There is something really wrong with that thinking, or that lack of understanding and caring about our environment. No one, not ranchers, or hunters or developers - should have their voices be more relevant than the voices of the public as a whole, and the scientists.
May God help us all, to see the wisdom of total ecosystem management, helping it to become as close to natural as we can, or as close as we can maintain it.
God bless,
T.R.
source
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yellowstone Wolf Reintroduction is not all about Elk Hunting!!!
Posted by: T.R. Michels / September 26, 2011The Wolves of Yellowstone: Part 3
In case the hunters have not figure it out yet - Wolf Reintroduction into the Yellowstone Ecosystem, is not solely about elk hunting opportunities.
An interesting article on the effects of wolf reintroduction looks at the fact that elk numbers have decreased after the reintroduction of wolves, probably as a result of the wolves. I never said that wolves would not decrease elk populations. And I doubt that any knowledgeable wolf biologist would suggest that elk numbers would not decline. In fact most biologists expected they would, because of the wolves. It was expected. And, I for one am not ducking that fact.
But, the reduction in the size of the northern elk heard can also be attributed to the change from a moderate to liberal hunting harvest policy. And there has also been an increase in predation by a growing population of grizzly bears. But, the answers to why the elk herd has declined in recent years, are both elusive and often wrong, say scientists, citing the sheer complexity of the northern range ecosystem.
One of the latest studies has suggested that the northern elk herd decreased in numbers due to poor nutrition of adult elk and lower calf survival rates in that area. These are two unexpected results of the wolf reintroduction; which is to say that the scientists are still learning something from this study. Interestingly there appeared to be no connection between poor nutrition and lower calf survival rates. Poor nutrition was attributed to the elk being harassed more by wolves (which just makes sense). And lower calf survival was attributed to lower progesterone levels. You can read more about this study - and many more articles relating to the wolf re-introduction here:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031029064909.htm.
I, for one, have never suggested that wolf reintroduction would not result in lower elk numbers. In fact, I believed that wolf reintroduction would reduce the size of the elk herds, because wolves prey on elk. But, if we are talking about naturally balanced ecosystems, or those as natural as we can now hope to repair them to, then reducing the elk herds is a good thing, because there is no doubt that there are more elk in the ecosystem than it originally developed to hold.
The overly abundant elk herds are being kept at artificially high numbers, due in part to the National Elk Refuge feeding program in the winter, and the ability of the elk in the north to migrate out of the park and onto private land, where ranchers have maintained, improved or created hayfields and pastures suited to both elk and cattle, they also have large supplies of hay, in the form of haystacks for winter use, which the elk readily take advantage of. Take away the artificially maintained or created pasture and hayfields and haystacks, and the feeding program of the elk refuge, and elk numbers will decrease - due to starvation in large numbers. Such widespread elk deaths could lead to the appearance of deadly microorganisms, and the spread of diseases. So, no one is willing to take such a step, and I am not advocating it.
For many hunters, someplace between the time they first took up hunting, or learned to hunt, and where they are now, they have forgotten that hunting is a privilege, not a right, and that without good conservation measures, in this case total ecosystem management, we may not have either the habitat to support the game we love to hunt, or we may not have the game we love to hunt on that habitat, or both.
You would think that we would have learned from the past, when in the early 1900’s, due to unregulated hunting, we brought the populations of many game animals (white-tailed deer, elk, bison, turkey, pheasants, almost all waterfowl species) to the brink of extinction. In fact, about 100 years later, some of those species have still not recovered (wolves, bison, pheasants, swans and some species of ducks). At that point in time it was not so much the habitat that was in jeopardy, it was the game. But, without the habitat, the game cannot or will not survive, and now it is the habitat that we need to worry about. I’m referring to healthy habitat, brought about by balanced predator/prey relationships, and keeping prey species in balance with the carrying capacity of the land - as in its forage base for large herbivores. There is no question that the trees, shrubs, forbs, grasses, sedges etc. of he Yellowstone Ecosystem – are nowhere near as healthy as they once were – due in part to the removal of wolves in the ecosystem back as far as 1926 – 86 years ago.
To use the argument that the "trophic cascading" hypothesis (the loss or reduction of one species leads to the loss or reduction of another species) as a reason to justify removing wolves from the Yellowstone Ecosystem is not relevant to this post. I would suggest that in the case of the Yellowstone ecosystem, not enough time has elapsed after the removal of wolves from the ecosystem in 1926, to be able to tell if the loss of the wolves in the ecosystem than lead to declines or extinction of other species later. Even if this is not true, recent studies have shown that many plant species (that elk use as forage) that were formerly found in Yellowstone, are either reduced or in decline as a result of the removal of the wolves and the increase in elk numbers, almost 100 years ago.
If we look at the first portion of this article, we see that in fact, because wolves harass elk in northern Yellowstone, the elk have poor nutrition – which means they are either not eating as much, or they are eating different species, or they are feeding in different areas, or any combination of the three. This in turn suggests that some plant species that the elk were foraging on, are no longer being eaten by the elk. And we can conclude from that, that those plant species are either increasing, or not declining. Thus, there appears to have been a "cascading effect".
How About No Wolves?
Let us look at this from another aspect. Let us assume that the wolves do not affect elk numbers enough to allow any type of plant species to re-establish itself, prosper or stop declining in Yellowstone Park or the Yellowstone Ecosystem. The wolves did not have a secondary affect the flora in any way at all. The only thing they did was take down young, old or diseased elk, or other elk for some reason. If, for no other reason than the fact that they are culling the elk herd, to even a minor extent (hunters claim wolves are taking a lot of elk each year), would not that be enough to warrant keeping elk in the ecosystem? Or, wouldn’t the ability of park goers to see wolves, hear them howling, and photograph wolves, in a natural setting, in the most beautiful geothermal area of the world – be enough to justify keeping the wolves in the ecosystem? Would not the fact that there is now, or will be in the future, a balanced predator/prey relationship between the elk and wolves, be enough to justify keeping wolves in the ecosystem? I think the answer to those questions is a resounding yes.
Does wolf re-introduction have to be about total ecosystem balance, in order to justify having them in the Yellowstone Ecosystem? I think the answer to that question is no.
Should the wants and desires of a few very vocal and outspoken hunters and ranchers - outweigh the wants and desires of the United States public citizens as a whole, or should the wants and needs of the greater non-hunting public decide whether or not there are wolves in the Yellowstone ecosystem?
I’ve been in Yellowstone Park and the surrounding areas several times, starting as far back as the 1960’s. I’ve been there before there were any wolves there, when you could not find a bald eagle or a sandhill crane or trumpeter swan, and grizzly bears were abundant – in the garbage dumps. But, elk were hard to locate. And I’ve been there when there were lots of elk, a few grizzly and black bears, and a few wolves. I think the park, and the experience of visiting it, are enhanced by every species that has made a comeback or been re-introduced there. For many people, the animals of the area are what Yellowstone Park is all about, and that should be a good enough reason for keeping wolves in the ecosystem.
The park, and the surrounding ecosystem, are not there just for hunters. Yellowstone is for everyone, and for all the animal and plant species that belong there.
If you get a chance to visit Yellowstone Park, I’m sure you will enjoy seeing, hearing or photographing the wolf packs there. Do it soon, before it is gone.
If you have a positive Yellowstone story, I urge you to post it in the comments box.
God bless,
T.R.
No comments:
Post a Comment