Elk herd flourishes with proper #wolf management

George Wuerthner

The author

George Wuerthner is an ecologist who specializes in predator ecology among other areas. He has published 37 books on environmental and natural history topics. He is a former resident of Livingston Mont., adjacent to Yellowstone National Park, and holds an outfitting license in the park.

Posted: Friday, May 2, 2014 

By GEORGE WUERTHNER Guest Writer
 

I’d like to respond to the misinformation in Paul Clark’s guest column in the April 14 Herald and News, which focused primarily on wolves and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As background, I have participated in studies on wolves, worked as a hunting guide in Montana, and lived for many years adjacent to Yellowstone National Park, where wolves were reintroduced in 1995, so I have much familiarity with both wolf ecology, as well as the specific landscapes that Clark mentions in his editorial.
 

Clark says wolves have “devastated” ranchers, as well as elk, deer, and other big game populations in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. Perhaps Mr. Clark should go directly to the state wildlife agencies for his numbers. In 1992, according to the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, there were an estimated 89,000 elk in the state.

Wolves were restored to Yellowstone and Central Idaho in 1995. From these transplants, as well as natural recolonization, wolves spread throughout Montana, so by 2013 there were about 600-plus wolves in Montana. And today, the “devastated” elk herd has nearly doubled to 150,000 animals.

In fact, out of 127 elk management units in Montana, 68 were “over objectives,” meaning the wildlife agency considered the herds too large for the carrying capacity. Some 47 were meeting objectives, and only 12 were below objectives, and the reasons for a few areas not meeting objectives were not only due to wolves.

For instance, in one well- known instance of the southern Bitterroot Valley, where elk numbers had declined, MDFWP readily admits it permitted hunters to kill too many cow elk, which led to a depressed elk population. Wolves had nothing to do with the low elk recruitment.

Similar statistics are available for Idaho and Wyoming. In 2013, Wyoming elk hunters killed the second greatest number of elk in history, with the previous year, 2012, the highest kill ever recorded. Indeed, elk hunters had a 45- percent success rate, a slight decline from the 46 percent success in 2012. Apparently, Wyoming hunters must be killing imaginary elk because according to Mr. Clark all those Wyoming wolves are “devastating” the Wyoming elk herds. Check out this video from the Wyoming Fish and Game bragging about the high hunter success rate in 2012.

This is not to suggest that wolves and other predators don’t occasionally cause big game numbers to decline, but such decline is typically in combination with other factors like habitat quality losses. For instance, in a well- known instance, elk herds in the Lolo Pass area of Idaho have declined because of forest recovery after large wildfires earlier in the century that had previously created a lot favorable browse for elk.

Due to fire suppression, forests have replaced the shrubs that used to support larger elk populations. In essence, elk numbers had to decline and were already well in decline in this area long before wolves recolonized it.

As for “devastation of the livestock industry,” again perspective is needed. Sure wolves will occasionally kill livestock. But it’s hardly “devastating” the livestock industry. I will again use Montana statistics, since I am very familiar with the issue in that state.

In 2013, documented wolf kills accounted for a total of 60 cattle out of a total state-wide population of 2.5 million cattle. To suggest that the loss of less than a hundred cattle across a huge state like Montana is devastating the livestock industry borders on hyperbole. Check out the statistics yourself at Montana Department of Livestock website: liv.mt.gov/LLB/lossdata_2013.mcpx. Again, similar small losses were reported in other states with wolves.

Even Clark’s use of reported wolf losses across the entire country requires context. First, the statistics he uses are “self-reported” losses, not documented losses. As many experts will attest, many reported predator losses are due to other factors, and ranchers tend to exaggerate and/or blame predators for losses that have other explanations. Even if we take Clark’s and the rancher’s numbers at face value, the loss of 8,000 cattle presumably lost to wolves is from a nation-wide cattle herd that numbers close to 100 million animals.

Again, the loss of 8,000 cattle to wolves out of a total of 100 million animals cannot be considered “devastation” by any stretch of the imagination. That is not to suggest any loss to an individual might not be traumatic, but many other factors including disease, calving problems, and poison plants kill more cattle than wolves. Even domestic dogs kill three times as many cattle as wolves across the nation. So again, perspective is needed to understand and put Clark’s numbers in context.

The point is that wolves have not “devastated” big game herds. Hunter success has continued to be high in most places, and the livestock industry is hardly threatened by wolf depredation.

Paul Clark’s article can be found at www.heraldandnews.com/members/forum/guest_commentary/article_1f0b6f96-c200-11e3-9cff-001a4bcf887a.html

source