Yellowstone elk increase as wolf numbers decline

[AspenBud]

Old article, found it interesting.

"The park's wolf population has dropped substantially since 2007. Park-wide, the number of wolves in Yellowstone declined from 171 in December 2007 to 82 in December 2012. Most of the decrease has been in packs on the northern range, where it has been attributed primarily to the decline in the elk population there. Disease, primarily distemper and possibly mange, have also been factors in the population decline. Wolves also have been killing each other in territorial contests."

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2015/feb/05/yellowstone-elk-show-increase-latest-count/

[JimmyHoffa]

Funny how that works out:  more wolves, less elk and less wolves, more elk. 

[AspenBud]

Funny how that works out:  more wolves, less elk and less wolves, more elk.

Ebb and flow

[gaddy]

Well, who'd have thought! Less wolves = more elk? What a concept.

[HUNTINCOUPLE]

Rocket Science I tell ya!

[AspenBud]

Apparently it is rocket science since they are attributing much of the wolf decline to lack of food, disease, and pack disputes.

[JimmyHoffa]

Apparently it is rocket science since they are attributing much of the wolf decline to lack of food, disease, and pack disputes.

Maybe the wolf population grew so fast they were strapped for food.  (more wolves, less elk)  Then had to kill each other off, starve and caught disease from malnutrition.  Enough died off that the elk could rebound. (less wolves, more elk)

[2labs]

I wonder what that studie cost us?.. Breaking news! Study suggests fat kids eat too much!

[AspenBud]

Apparently it is rocket science since they are attributing much of the wolf decline to lack of food, disease, and pack disputes.

Maybe the wolf population grew so fast they were strapped for food.  (more wolves, less elk)  Then had to kill each other off, starve and caught disease from malnutrition.  Enough died off that the elk could rebound. (less wolves, more elk)

I'm not disagreeing with that. But it's what a lot of bio's predicted and a lot of naysayers said wouldn't happen. If the assessment is accurate it would seem Yellowstone hit bottom finally.

I don't expect elk to rebound to 20,000 ever again down there however.

[Bob33]

http://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/news/02042015.htm

The Northern Yellowstone Cooperative Wildlife Working Group conducted its annual winter survey of the northern Yellowstone elk population on January 20, 2015. The survey, using three airplanes, was conducted by staff from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks and the National Park Service. Staff counted 4,844 elk, including 1130 elk (23%) inside Yellowstone National Park and 3,714 elk (77%) north of the park. Survey conditions were favorable across the region.

The 2015 count was 24% higher than the 3,915 elk counted in 2013 and was the highest since 6,037 elk were counted in 2010. Survey conditions in 2014 were poor and resulted in an inaccurate count.

[huntnphool]

http://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/news/02042015.htm

The Northern Yellowstone Cooperative Wildlife Working Group conducted its annual winter survey of the northern Yellowstone elk population on January 20, 2015. The survey, using three airplanes, was conducted by staff from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks and the National Park Service. Staff counted 4,844 elk, including 1130 elk (23%) inside Yellowstone National Park and 3,714 elk (77%) north of the park. Survey conditions were favorable across the region.

The 2015 count was 24% higher than the 3,915 elk counted in 2013 and was the highest since 6,037 elk were counted in 2010. Survey conditions in 2014 were poor and resulted in an inaccurate count.

 So they do their entire population study in 1 day, January 20, 2015 and then admit that "survey conditions in 2014 were poor and resulted in a inaccurate count", my guess is that again was only 1 day.

 Must be nice to base two years worth of herd numbers, hunting season quotas, wolf depredation, disease, etc. etc. etc, on two days worth of work out of 730.

[nwwanderer]

Sure, wolf killing wolf first, multiple diseases (distemper etc. and mange, a mite) second and other causes (hunting) third but I see no mention of dispersion.  Some of the DNA studies on Washington wolves show imported Alberta genetics and with the huge numbers in the park early in the process dispersion would be the major reason for decrease in the park.  With the mileage numbers we have seen from collared individuals, Washington should be considered normal range for Yellowstone wolves.  It is not unusual for them, it is what they do.

[HUNTINCOUPLE]

Sure, wolf killing wolf first, multiple diseases (distemper etc. and mange, a mite) second and other causes (hunting) third but I see no mention of dispersion.  Some of the DNA studies on Washington wolves show imported Alberta genetics and with the huge numbers in the park early in the process dispersion would be the major reason for decrease in the park.  With the mileage numbers we have seen from collared individuals, Washington should be considered normal range for Yellowstone wolves.  It is not unusual for them, it is what they do.

Yep its what they do all right! And Man is the dominant predator!!!!!!

[AspenBud]

Sure, wolf killing wolf first, multiple diseases (distemper etc. and mange, a mite) second and other causes (hunting) third but I see no mention of dispersion.  Some of the DNA studies on Washington wolves show imported Alberta genetics and with the huge numbers in the park early in the process dispersion would be the major reason for decrease in the park.  With the mileage numbers we have seen from collared individuals, Washington should be considered normal range for Yellowstone wolves.  It is not unusual for them, it is what they do.

I agree with all of that.

But according to some here that's not supposed to happen. They are supposed to create a predator pit and simply eat everything until a black hole forms and swallows the earth whole.

Like I said, I found the article interesting and it's a bit of good news (however small) for a change.

[7mmfan]

This is just the first cycle. This is the way nature has worked since the dawn of time. Anyone that thinks nature will eventually find "balance" is on crack. It's in constant ebb and flow. Anyone else who says man needs to but out of nature clearly doesn't realize that the last 50 years are the first time in man's history that he is not the apex predator and directly affecting nature/animal populations through hunting for food. We are a part of nature and always will be. We need to be involved in population control.

[Bob33]

http://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/news/02042015.htm

The Northern Yellowstone Cooperative Wildlife Working Group conducted its annual winter survey of the northern Yellowstone elk population on January 20, 2015. The survey, using three airplanes, was conducted by staff from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks and the National Park Service. Staff counted 4,844 elk, including 1130 elk (23%) inside Yellowstone National Park and 3,714 elk (77%) north of the park. Survey conditions were favorable across the region.

The 2015 count was 24% higher than the 3,915 elk counted in 2013 and was the highest since 6,037 elk were counted in 2010. Survey conditions in 2014 were poor and resulted in an inaccurate count.

 So they do their entire population study in 1 day, January 20, 2015 and then admit that "survey conditions in 2014 were poor and resulted in a inaccurate count", my guess is that again was only 1 day.

 Must be nice to base two years worth of herd numbers, hunting season quotas, wolf depredation, disease, etc. etc. etc, on two days worth of work out of 730.

I think they run out of fingers and toes after a day.

[bearpaw]

But according to some here that's not supposed to happen. They are supposed to create a predator pit and simply eat everything until a black hole forms and swallows the earth whole.
[/quote]

Please show us a quote backing up your absurd statement? 

[AspenBud]

But according to some here that's not supposed to happen. They are supposed to create a predator pit and simply eat everything until a black hole forms and swallows the earth whole.

Please show us a quote backing up your absurd statement? 
[/quote]

I can't, a wolf ate it.   

[AspenBud]

This is just the first cycle. This is the way nature has worked since the dawn of time. Anyone that thinks nature will eventually find "balance" is on crack. It's in constant ebb and flow. Anyone else who says man needs to but out of nature clearly doesn't realize that the last 50 years are the first time in man's history that he is not the apex predator and directly affecting nature/animal populations through hunting for food. We are a part of nature and always will be. We need to be involved in population control.

I think the study, if anything, proves that point. Reducing livestock/wolf encounters really does mean keeping ungulate numbers in check, via hunting, since less food for wolves means fewer pups survive. Having said that, you do also need some controls on wolf numbers via hunting and trapping as well, particularly if the management goal is larger numbers of ungulates.

[bearpaw]

YNP elk should be rebounding, the wolf population has dropped significantly, in addition to eating each other and moving to other areas to find prey, those wolves are also being hunted and their numbers further reduced when they leave the park.

Since wolves have been hunted extensively in Idaho elk numbers in many areas where wolf numbers have been reduced are rebounding. Wolf impacts are really not much different than cougar impacts, roughly the same amount of game is killed by one wolf as one cougar. Wolves need to be hunted heavily to keep numbers at a level where they don't overly impact other wildlife, the big problem is when wolves are not managed due to greenie agendas.

[bearpaw]

But according to some here that's not supposed to happen. They are supposed to create a predator pit and simply eat everything until a black hole forms and swallows the earth whole.

Please show us a quote backing up your absurd statement? 

I can't, a wolf ate it.   

Exactly as I thought, just more verbal imaginary nonsense supporting wolves!

[AspenBud]

Since wolves have been hunted extensively in Idaho elk numbers in many areas where wolf numbers have been reduced are rebounding. Wolf impacts are really not much different than cougar impacts, roughly the same amount of game is killed by one wolf as one cougar. Wolves need to be hunted heavily to keep numbers at a level where they don't overly impact other wildlife, the big problem is when wolves are not managed due to greenie agendas.

What would be nice is to see a target number of ungulates, by species, and then see a target number of wolves, put out by the state. So for example, if the state wants 20,000 deer then they should manage for that. If they want 5000, they should manage for that. People can quibble over the details, but the laissez faire mentality the state appears to have towards the problem isn't right. If they can come out with concrete numbers for what they want to see out there and document progress towards those goals, then it simply becomes an argument of how many we want here, not one of potential impacts. Saying the deer population looks good given hunter success isn't good management. Neither is half hearted wolf counts.

[AspenBud]

But according to some here that's not supposed to happen. They are supposed to create a predator pit and simply eat everything until a black hole forms and swallows the earth whole.

Please show us a quote backing up your absurd statement? 

I can't, a wolf ate it.   

Exactly as I thought, just more verbal imaginary nonsense supporting wolves!
[/quote]

[bearpaw]

Since wolves have been hunted extensively in Idaho elk numbers in many areas where wolf numbers have been reduced are rebounding. Wolf impacts are really not much different than cougar impacts, roughly the same amount of game is killed by one wolf as one cougar. Wolves need to be hunted heavily to keep numbers at a level where they don't overly impact other wildlife, the big problem is when wolves are not managed due to greenie agendas.

What would be nice is to see a target number of ungulates, by species, and then see a target number of wolves, put out by the state. So for example, if the state wants 20,000 deer then they should manage for that. If they want 5000, they should manage for that. People can quibble over the details, but the laissez faire mentality the state appears to have towards the problem isn't right. If they can come out with concrete numbers for what they want to see out there and document progress towards those goals, then it simply becomes an argument of how many we want here, not one of potential impacts. Saying the deer population looks good given hunter success isn't good management. Neither is half hearted wolf counts.

I agree that the state needs to manage for certain ungulate numbers.

But you better increase that deer number significantly if you want to support several hundred wolves that will eat on average 44 deer per year according to government studies! We already have an admitted 61 wolves (isn't that the number they are throwing around) and we are not anywhere close to the 15 bp's for 3 consecutive years as required in the wolf plan. I expect at least 200 to 400 wolves statewide before they confirm 15 bp's for 3 consecutive years. Let's say there are 300 wolves, based on the government statistics that many wolves would eat about 13,200 deer per year. I don't know how many additional deer might be killed with surplus killing by the wolves. If the wolf numbers expanded to 800 or 1000 like they did in Idaho, 800 wolves could eat 35,200 deer per year.

[gaddy]

That number seems unacceptable to me, given that we also have other predators affecting our ungulate populations as well.

[AspenBud]

But according to some here that's not supposed to happen. They are supposed to create a predator pit and simply eat everything until a black hole forms and swallows the earth whole.

Please show us a quote backing up your absurd statement? 
[/quote]

FYI - I just came across an example.   

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,48084.0.html

Happy hunting this weekend!!

[bearpaw]

But according to some here that's not supposed to happen. They are supposed to create a predator pit and simply eat everything until a black hole forms and swallows the earth whole.

Please show us a quote backing up your absurd statement? 

FYI - I just came across an example.   

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,48084.0.html

Happy hunting this weekend!!

Sorry, but I don't see that quote in the post you note?

You have a nice weekend too!

[PA BEN]

Read this one, http://discovermagazine.com/2014/may/16-elk-vanishing-act, It's not the wolves it's grizzlies. It boils down to fishermen who released trout in Yellowstone.

[timberfaller]

Took the time to read through the article BEST part, were the comments!!! 

Love it when a University sends out "students" to do research then label it as Truth and Facts.

Quick question,  Doesn't the state wildlife departments have their own "biologist"?? or are THEY questionable too?? 

How many "excuses" do you come up with out of that article?

"released trout" and Climate Disruption, what a hoot!!

[elkboy]

Took the time to read through the article BEST part, were the comments!!! 

Love it when a University sends out "students" to do research then label it as Truth and Facts.

Quick question,  Doesn't the state wildlife departments have their own "biologist"?? or are THEY questionable too?? 

How many "excuses" do you come up with out of that article?

"released trout" and Climate Disruption, what a hoot!!

Is there a better term than "students" for people who are conducting research as a part of earning an advanced degree in wildlife management or natural resources?  As far as "truth and facts", the vast majority of scientists use phrases like "the best model given the currently available data" or some similar phrase for their findings. 
State agencies employ a lot of qualified scientists.  University researchers work on resource issues when their specific expertise is needed, and when the research needs in the state agency are too great for their available staff. 

I think most agree hungry grizzlies have a real impact on elk.  And grizzlies get hungrier when major food sources like cutthroat trout (introduced lake trout and 'whirling disease') and whitebark pine (blister rust, bark beetles) decline in the landscape.       
 
And Bearpaw is right, if we're going to sustain predators (and hunting too), we need more deer and elk out there, an idea I think most of us can get behind.

[CAMPMEAT]

I wonder if Idaho/Wyoming had to spend $850,000 to have a facilitator figure this one out...??

[JLS]

YNP elk should be rebounding, the wolf population has dropped significantly, in addition to eating each other and moving to other areas to find prey, those wolves are also being hunted and their numbers further reduced when they leave the park.

You will never see the YNP elk herd rebound to the levels of the early 1990s, unless the Elk Management Plan in MT is substantially revised.

If you read the plan, you will note that the YNP herd and adjacent Gardiner units are AT objective.  FWP is mandated by law to manage AT or BELOW the objectives for the EMU.  Any hopes for 20k elk again are about as likely as wishing for unicorns.

[AspenBud]

 

YNP elk should be rebounding, the wolf population has dropped significantly, in addition to eating each other and moving to other areas to find prey, those wolves are also being hunted and their numbers further reduced when they leave the park.

You will never see the YNP elk herd rebound to the levels of the early 1990s, unless the Elk Management Plan in MT is substantially revised.

If you read the plan, you will note that the YNP herd and adjacent Gardiner units are AT objective.  FWP is mandated by law to manage AT or BELOW the objectives for the EMU.  Any hopes for 20k elk again are about as likely as wishing for unicorns.

It was always the plan. Once you get past the fact that they turned wolves loose to do the job instead of increasing tags/limits it's a fact that the herd was going to be culled, big time.

[JLS]

YNP elk should be rebounding, the wolf population has dropped significantly, in addition to eating each other and moving to other areas to find prey, those wolves are also being hunted and their numbers further reduced when they leave the park.

You will never see the YNP elk herd rebound to the levels of the early 1990s, unless the Elk Management Plan in MT is substantially revised.

If you read the plan, you will note that the YNP herd and adjacent Gardiner units are AT objective.  FWP is mandated by law to manage AT or BELOW the objectives for the EMU.  Any hopes for 20k elk again are about as likely as wishing for unicorns.

It was always the plan. Once you get past the fact that they turned wolves loose to do the job instead of increasing tags/limits it's a fact that the herd was going to be culled, big time.

It's the stockgrowers lobby that is behind this.

Edit:  Not behind the wolf intro, but behind the EMU objective numbers and legislative mandate. You could kill every wolf, griz, and cougar in Park Co and you'll still never see an increase in elk numbers.