Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Missing: A Quarter of Yellowstone's Elk

Syndicate

Syndicate content
Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!

Hunting Recent Posts

Categories

Recent Comments

Archives

Hunting
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

January 13, 2011
Missing: A Quarter of Yellowstone's Elk - 6

This just in: A full quarter of the elk in Yellowstone National Park are unaccounted for.
 
But park officials are looking at every possibility, short of peeking under the vintage rugs at Old Faithful Lodge, for the disappearance of 1,400 wapiti since this time last year.
 
They could instead acknowledge what most other watchers of the park have already concluded: that predation by wolves and bears has pushed the legendary elk herd past the tipping point.
 
Here’s just a rough glimpse at the numbers:
 
In 1995, the year that wolves were introduced to the park, the elk herd stood at 16,791, down slightly from the nearly 20,000 at its peak in the early 1990s.
 
The elk population, which is widely acknowledged to have been well larger than the carrying capacity of the park’s fragile habitat, started to decline in 1998, and by last year stood at 6,070 head. This year the aerial survey turned up just 4,635 elk.
 
Wolf recovery leaders note that they can account for only 37 wolves in the park’s northern elk range, and insist that not even the hungriest wolf can eat the missing 1,400 elk. But they haven’t acknowledged the long-term impact of predation, that cows are stressed, that calf mortality is spiking, and that the breeding population of elk are comprised mainly of older, less productive cows. And that predation by wolves, on top of predation by black and grizzly bears and coyotes, is resulting in anemic age classes and scattered herds, which are vulnerable to hunting pressure, habitat fragmentation and mortality from tough winters and highways.
 
So you don’t have to actually eat an elk in order to impact the population. The distressing thing for many Western elk hunters is that, as goes Yellowstone, so goes elk populations elsewhere in their range. Especially those places where they share the range with protected wolves.

Comments (6)

Top Rated
All Comments
from MNwhitetailHunter wrote 3 years 27 weeks ago

BY THE TIME THEY RELIZE THAT WOVLVES/PREDATION IS REALY CUASING OUR DEERFAMILY NUMBERS TO GO WAYYY DOWN, THERE WILL BE ONLY A FEW LEFT. HOPEFULLY it wont take them this long...BTW, there are at least 3000 wolves in Minnesota,

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from DSMbirddog wrote 3 years 28 weeks ago

Wolves need to be managed just like any other game species. They don't have to be a detriment to hunting but must be controlled and as always emotions need to be kept out of the equation.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ishi wrote 3 years 28 weeks ago

I am convinced that without sound biological evidence the wolf debate will continue like two drunks fighting at a bar. Both sides making fools of themselves while making no sense at all.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from prairieghost wrote 3 years 28 weeks ago

and these counts do not include elk populations adjacent to the park, like the gallatin valley and madison valley, where elk numbers have also plummeted.
see today's Billings Gazette:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_bd057...

to understand the extent to which this "introduced" population has actually expanded. 37 wolves in the northern part of the park, don't worry. they've moved north for better (easier) ranch-raised meals

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from benjaminwc wrote 3 years 28 weeks ago

hmmmmmm, only 37 wolves in the northern range? Looks like the wolf reintorduction has failed. I be the smart people will want to reintroduce more.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from charlie elk wrote 3 years 28 weeks ago

Wolves and bears? Couldn't be no? Best check under their den rugs too....

later,
charlie

+2 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

from DSMbirddog wrote 3 years 28 weeks ago

Wolves need to be managed just like any other game species. They don't have to be a detriment to hunting but must be controlled and as always emotions need to be kept out of the equation.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from charlie elk wrote 3 years 28 weeks ago

Wolves and bears? Couldn't be no? Best check under their den rugs too....

later,
charlie

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from MNwhitetailHunter wrote 3 years 27 weeks ago

BY THE TIME THEY RELIZE THAT WOVLVES/PREDATION IS REALY CUASING OUR DEERFAMILY NUMBERS TO GO WAYYY DOWN, THERE WILL BE ONLY A FEW LEFT. HOPEFULLY it wont take them this long...BTW, there are at least 3000 wolves in Minnesota,

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from benjaminwc wrote 3 years 28 weeks ago

hmmmmmm, only 37 wolves in the northern range? Looks like the wolf reintorduction has failed. I be the smart people will want to reintroduce more.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ishi wrote 3 years 28 weeks ago

I am convinced that without sound biological evidence the wolf debate will continue like two drunks fighting at a bar. Both sides making fools of themselves while making no sense at all.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from prairieghost wrote 3 years 28 weeks ago

and these counts do not include elk populations adjacent to the park, like the gallatin valley and madison valley, where elk numbers have also plummeted.
see today's Billings Gazette:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_bd057...

to understand the extent to which this "introduced" population has actually expanded. 37 wolves in the northern part of the park, don't worry. they've moved north for better (easier) ranch-raised meals

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)