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.