2007 Hunting Season

Too Many Elk, Not Enough Hunter Access to Private Land

Comment By Marion, 10-25-07

Darn those ranchers, destroying a good theory about how they have eliminated habitat for wildlife!

Comment By TZ, 10-25-07

Why are hunting license sales stagnant when state population continues to increase? Does this mean that Fish, Wildlife & Parks will have less resources to manage our wildlife?

Comment By mike, 10-25-07

Good grief, does the illustrious R. T. Fanning, Jr. and his eminently enlightened cohorts know about this overabundance of elk? It sure sounds like we need more wolves to help manage this excessive number of elk.

All joking aside, consistency in your information, constancy over time in your positions, and objective realism in your perspectives are the things that build credibility. When these things are glaringly absent, your credibility will not be sustained and you'll just be another fool with a cheap PC, a mediocre education, and a trailer park opinion.

Comment By David Nolt, 10-25-07

Perhaps credibility could be better sustained with a more expensive computer, an Ivy League education and an opinion formed in an abode slightly more dignified than the oh-so-deplorable trailer. You really got me pegged. It's something to shoot for, but I just had no idea elitism and snideness were such incubators for enlightened thought.

I'd honestly like to know what about this very general story is so glaringly inaccurate, unreal and biased. Perhaps you could enlighten me, mike. I'm open to criticism. Can you be more specific for this fool?

Comment By catnapping, 10-25-07

Well, shoot. Whaddya expect when you've got ranchers killing off all the natural predators in the state?

We NEED wolves and cats. The elk NEED wolves and cats. Balance, honey. It's all about balance.

Cat

http://theoddneighbor.blogspot.com/

Comment By MT Wilderness Hunter, 10-25-07

My gosh Marion, talking about good theories? What about your theory that the wolves are eating all the elk! So much for that one, eh?

Comment By pendejo, 10-25-07

I just read an opinion in the local newspaper where some presumably old-timer was complaining that he didn't see as many elk this opening day as he did 30 years ago, or some kind of off-the-wall comparison like that, and it MUST be because of the wolves. The wolves are to blame for his unsuccessful elk hunt and soon the big bad wolves will run out of elk and start eating children. I'm not joking; that's what he submitted and asked to be published for all of us to read!?

And now this...too many elk and not enough hunters or wolves to keep the stats down. Who is the logical, rational thinking person to believe? The old bitter dudes, or the stats from FWP? I'll take my chances with FWP.

And the subsidies for the ranchers just keep on rolling in, don't they?

Comment By mike, 10-25-07

David Nolt,

I'm not challenging the accuracy of your story. My frustrated comments were aimed at those who are claiming that reintroduced predators are eliminating elk from MT.

From the top, those of us who support wolf reintroduction have been badgered endlessly by an organization of zealot elk hunters led by this fellow R. T. Fanning, Jr. who claims that wolves and other predators are eliminating elk. He and his group refuse to accept data showing that drought and modified behavior are having a greater effect on our ability to find and count elk than they are on the actual overall elk numbers and they have worked with and tried to get the State of MT to fund a team of politically connected WY lawyers to get wolves removed. They do not seem to have a good understanding of the topic, but are very crudely vocal and have attempted to cause all sorts of problems.

My first concern, as voiced above, is that there is no consistent information being touted on elk behavior or populations. Areas with similar patterns of natural predation are claimed to have either increasing or decreasing elk populations on the basis of what seems to be the political axe being honed by whomever is reporting/interpreting the data. Some people want to hunt more elk; so, they either claim elk overpopulation or blame natural predators for their inability to find or skew enough data to point to elk overpopulation.

My second concern goes back a bit. My father and I would attend sessions and listen to arguments about the health of the northern Yellowstone range and the impact of elk and bison back in the 1950s when Starker Leopold would get relentlessly and rudely browbeaten for simply trying to be truthful. At that time, everybody, except the scientists, claimed that the northern range was being catastrophically overgrazed; but, nobody wanted wolves or other predators, except for bears that were to be kept fat and happy at the dumps. Hunters were roughly split into two sets. One set wanted nearly unlimited elk hunting, allegedly to solve the supposed problem with range conditions, but wanted neither a continuation of the massive culling being done by the NPS at the time nor any restrictions on livestock on the winter range outside the park. A second set of hunters included the fancier outfitters and wanted selective culling by the NPS coupled with restrictive hunting to engineer an elk herd with a limited number of tremendous trophy bulls. The rancher delegation used the alleged condition of the northern range as an excuse to advocate culling all but the barest minimum elk herd when what they really wanted was just to hog the maximum forage on the winter range for their own livestock.

Everybody had and still has an axe to grind. Now that the politics have changed again, the concern over the condition of the northern range has evaporated and none of these interest groups remembers how they once supported the obscenely massive culling being done by the NPS. Now the local politics in fashion favor condemning the wolves for a take that amounts to only a fraction of what the NPS culling operations used to take, which is why I complain about a lack of constancy over time in these positions.

Finally, the MFWP can set target populations for elk all it wants, just like the NPS used cull elk populations back to where they wanted them back in the 1950s and 1960s; but, those targets were and still are based on human politics and not on any objective or real perspective about the natural system that is being jacked around. Humans, regardless of their assertions of knowledge, can draw comparisons between one herd in one area and another; but, nobody can't say with any precision that there are too many elk on private lands or too few elk coming out of the park; the elk and their environment decide these things. Wolves and other predators evolved to hunt elk and elk evolved to be "managed" by wolves, not by us. The populations of both wolves and elk will fluctuate around a balance point that they mutually set, in combination with weather and forage and terrain and parasites and disease and a host of other objective and real factors.

As for my perhaps too frustrated attitude about the lineage, character, and qualifications of some of the people in this debate, it results from over fifty years of watching the action and seeing the same kinds of people twist their positions to match the political flavor of the day and their own momentary whims and desires.

Comment By mike, 10-25-07

I forgot to say...

I am one of those crusty old ranchers. I live with cattle, elk, pronghorn, wolves, lions, and at least one bear that I know about. I do not have anything against shooting an individual predator that seems to be bent on causing a problem and teaching bad behavior to his relatives; but, I also haven't ever had to shoot very many and don't believe in either traps or poisons. At the same time, I generally am not eager to have hunters on my property because, despite their claims to be ethical sportsmen, they often, very often, do not understand how to behave and not trash the place.

Comment By sweed88, 10-25-07

We are fortunate to have access to a good sized herd of Elk on three adjoining private ranches with restricted access. The management rules are: If you can't shoot a bigger Bull than you have shot in the past or if the bull is not 6 point or better then shoot a dry cow. Access is limited to owners, friends, and friends of friends. No fees are assessed. It is sometimes difficult to pass up brush- heads and sometimes passing them by results in no kill at all. There are more big bulls. The smaller ones do grow up if allowed. Either sex tags help control the herd and keep it healthy. Deer are not shot. The wolves (yes there is a pack) nor grizzlies (yes there are grizzlies) have hurt the herd. They do tend to get more calves than the old and weak. You can control acquaintances but there is no controlling the general public. Even limited access does cause weed control problems. There is no perfect approach but cooperation and good faith between the parties helps in trying to do better.

Comment By Marion, 10-25-07

I have said that I am judging the elk by what is happening in Yellowstone, where the northern herd has dropped from 19,000 to 6700 a year ago. Since them the wolves alone will have eaten approximately 3000 elk at 2 elk per month per wolf (139-175 at present). Elk numbers outside of the park are reported by others.
There is little doubt that elk learn where the least predators are, and that is likely to be ranches, compliments of FWS control. Remember predators need to be controlled too. The fact that ranchers also ahve irrigated land much of the time means the habitat is really good too.
Now I want to end with this quote form George Weurther in another thread on this site:

"In Montana, as in most of the West, animal agriculture is the single largest factor in species decline.
In Montana, as in most of the West, animal agriculture is the single largest factor in species decline."

This is a direct contradiction to what you are posting.

Comment By sweed7, 10-25-07

Who is this 88

Comment By Shawn, 10-25-07

I agree w/ Mike the "crusty old rancher". A lot of the hunting access problem comes from hunter behavior. We keep our gate locked because: 1- we don't like hauling away trash left by people (not just hunters) too cheap to pay 12 bucks at BFI; 2 - people who shoot before they figure out where the houses, livestock and people are; and 3 - people who are lousy or careless shots and are likely to wound an animal rather than ethically harvesting it. I hear a lot of rapid fire shooting during hunting season and I don't think it is because the guy (or gal) has 7 elk tags to fill.

When you think about it, if any stranger asked you if they could bring a bunch of their armed friends over to your back yard for some unsupervised gun play, you probably wouldn't just hand them your key. Granting hunting access is a big deal for a property owner.

Apologies to the many very ethical hunters out there. You know who you are and I'll bet most of you don't have any problems getting invited to go hunting on someone's land.

Comment By Taz Alago, 10-25-07

Mike –

That's the best summary of the truths, falsehoods, prejudices, and political expedients surrounding the rancorous debate about wolves, elk, predators, prey, hunters, grass, and land that I've read in a good while. You would do us a favor if you put it into an article for New West, so that it wouldn't be just the regular commenting crowd that reads it.

On the subject of traps, that bad time of year is coming around again and there are now three state-wide organizations taking a position against trapping whether for fur, fun or "management," one each in Nevada (http://trailsafe.org/), Montana (http://footloosemontana.org) and most recently in Oregon (http://trapfreeoregon.org).

Comment By Timothy Border, 10-26-07

David one correction, "Taxpayers funded this year’s program to the tune of $6 million, ... "

I believe if you look a bit deeper you will find that hunters, anglers, and sportspeople that buy a MT Conservation License are the ones that fund this program, not taxpayers.

Comment By David Nolt, 10-27-07

Timothy, you're absolutely right. Dumb mistake, and thanks for the correction. Always happy to see how much dialog stories about wildlife rile up. I could have delved more into the wolf issue, but I wanted to keep the story more based on hunting/hunter access issues. Of course, nothing is quite black and white, and any talk about one species--be it humans or elk or wolves--involves other species as well. A can of worms perhaps best left to readers for the time being.

Great comments everybody.

Comment By MT Wilderness Hunter, 10-27-07

For those interested, the latest issue of Montana Outdoors (publication of MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks) has a cover story detailing the history of elk management in Montana, ending with what they refer to today as the "keep out" era. It reads nicely along with David's article here.

Comment By Glenn Hockett, 10-28-07

David, thanks for writing this article. I just got back from our annual elk hunting camp. It is troubling to hear FWP say there are “too many elk”. That in my mind is clearly not the case. It seems to me we have a private property rights debate going on here where some landowners like elk on their property and some hate elk on their property or at least they see elk as an economic liability (they compete with some forms of agriculture). Where are there too many elk on public lands or private lands in the Block Management Program? I don’t buy the argument that there are too many elk in Montana. We could have a lot more elk in Montana. Are there too many fish because too many people catch and release them? Sorry, I believe that some landowners/politicians who perceive elk as a liability have leaned on FWP to set “objectives” that are far below natural carrying capacities. FWP admits in the elk plan that the objectives are largely socially (landowner tolerance) not ecologically based. I suggest FWP instead set minimum viable population levels and allowing hunting when population levels are safely above those minimums. Let’s get back to protecting and connecting habitat and managing the lands we can for reasonable public access and the animals we can for reasonable harvest levels. If some private landowner has a problem with too many elk give FWP a call and they can line up some hunters to help them out. Too many elk? I don't buy it. I am glad FWP is holding an Elk Summit in December to debate this important issue.

Comment By Greg Munther, 10-29-07

Could part of the problem be too much motorized access on public lands? Are we encouraging movement of elk onto private land where they find refuge from being continually harassed? If public land managers were to create and enforce large blocks of non-motorized security areas in good elk habitat (say 6 or more miles across) including both archery and general season, elk could find some places to hang without having to run to private land. This fall during archery season I saw large herds (up to 400 head on one occasion) on private non-irrigated lands immediately adjacent to public lands laced with ATV trails. As a non-motorized bow hunter I likely displace elk for 1-2 square miles a day, but a bowhunter on an ATV can displace elk from 10-20 square miles a day. MDFWP and sportsmen need to carry this too-much-motorized-access issue to public land managers across the State.

Comment By Glenn Hockett, 10-29-07

Greg, I agree, too much motorized access is a significant problem with displacement of elk to private lands. I also believe the FWP should take a much more active role in the proper management of public lands on a variety of fronts for better habitat protection and wildlife conservation. Attempting to kill more cow/calf elk through liberalized seasons has also significantly contributed to the problem of elk displacement to private land and/or elk going nocturnal. Remember the days when we had to hunt for a bull elk? I think limited cow tags with a focus on youth opportunity would help. If someone is complaining about too many elk, lets address that situation specifically where it is occurring.

Comment By Cliff B., 10-31-07

Look I'm just an outsider from N.Y.,but could it be that in some areas where wolves are abundant that elk populations have gone down? Throughout the state they are up overall. It would be for a variety of reasons.

Comment By Marion, 10-31-07

Thank you Cliff, for some common sense. It is all too easy to ignore the effect that 1500+ wolves are having on everything. Each wolf in Yellowstone is thought to be taking from 1.8 to 2.2 elk per month, that is a pretty significant number. It is probably some less out where the elk are less congregated.

Comment By Larry, 10-31-07

I keep rereading Marion's comments insisting the lower elk numbers in the Northern Yellowstone herd are a sign of over population of predators, especially wolves... Ma'am, all due respect but that herd was at an enormously, articifial high population before the reinstalling of wolves. I remember visitng Yellowstone for the first time in 1986, and there wasn't a stick of green -grass, leaves, shoots, nothing - under 6 feet off the ground.. no vegetation whatsoever in some places, totally overbrowsed but lotsa elk... that wasn't healthy, ma'am!! It is likely in my mind that the Northern Yellowstone elk herd is closer to a healthy herd at its present numbers than it ever was back then. Is the hunting less attractive when you don't have tens of thousands of elk coming out of the park's protection looking for food after the snow flies?? Maybe, but maybe I'm a purist because I prefer a real elk hunt, not a shooting line on Deckerd Flats. Know what you're comparing, please.

Comment By Glenn Hockett, 10-31-07

Does anyone out there believe there are too many elk? If so, could you please cite some examples.

Comment By Marion, 10-31-07

Larry, I am including a breakdown of the numbers of the Northern Elk Herd for all of the years it has been counted. You will note that they are now nearing historic low numbers that had followed artificially removing alrge numbers of the animals and very bad winters. The December count last year was 6700 elk, no late winter count was done in March. The last late winter count was 3649 in March 2006.
Even if there are 6000 elk left at the time we have only 8 packs of wolves, that will be 75 to 125 wolves each eating 2 elk per month. Average that at 200 per month and tell me how long the elk can last when the calf count has been in the teens, instead of the average 40-60 needed to keep a herd thriving.
On top of the elk eaten by the wolves there are 600 grizzlies at least and probably thuosands of black bears that are eating too. I doubt the blacks can take down a healthy elk easily, but a griz sure can. Throw in a few lions. Then top it off with a really bad winter which is overdue, and that can take out thousands of elk....if thousands are left.
As you can see from the table I'm posting, the elk are nearing historic lows, and there is nothing to give them any relief. If the elk are gone or scarce, I hardly thing the wolves will stay inside of the aprk, they will head for cattle and get killed.
Now you explain to me how you think that many wolves can continue in Yellowstone long term.

Comment By Marion, 10-31-07

Oooops, forgot the link:
http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/yellowstone_elk_counts.htm

Comment By Larry, 10-31-07

Marion, the numbers you quote included each and every predator except wolf in the counts pre-wolf reintro. So, are wolves the dominating factor in the reduction?.. without a doubt they are. However, the point I was trying to make was that ALL the numbers you quote are from an abnormally high population of elk that far outnumbered the carrying capacity of the habitat.. and that happened in the presence of 3 of the four large predators... Biologists have been documenting that the majority of loss of young elk calves is to grizzly bears, not wolves. It seems unlikely that elk numbers will be reduced to zero, or then the wolves will all die from starvation. Already wolfpack numbers in Y-stone have stabilized and are no longer growing; amazingly, Mother Nature has added her own controls. Will they turn to cattle? Probably, and bison too... which are still over the Park's artifically determined quota... as a matter of fact, if there were fewer elk, the wolves will turn to bison sooner... it sure stinks for the elk hunter who likes the shooting lines, BUT if we can get Wyoming to play nice and we all get the wolf delisted, we can begin to control their numbers with hunting and bring BOTH species within "normal" population ranges based on the ability of the land to sustain 'em. Those low numbers you quote might just be closer to what should have been normal numbers, Ma'am, albeit I respect the fact, you don't like it! Answer Glen's question, are there too many elk? I am quite sure we don't have nearly enough to suitably fill the carrying capacity of the Montana elk habitat and it's not due to wolves, it's due to landowner tolerance! Just ask FWP, they'll confirm what I'm saying.

Comment By Marion, 10-31-07

Larry, are you saying that you believe that 6000 elk are way over the carrying capacity of Yellowstone? That doesn't make sense. By the way are you aware that the Washburn expedition estimated that they saw about 30,000 head of elk? they didn't begin to cover the whole of Yellowstone. Lt. Gustavus Doane recorded the wildlife they saw....guess what was missing.
The number of grizzlies were artificially decreased in the 60s when the NPS biologists decided to close all of the dumps simultaneously and then a lot of griz had to be killed for getting into human conflicts. They finally got them down to less than 200. they have been doing everything possible to get the numbers back up and are getting there simultaneously with the wolf introduction.
You are not paying attention to all of the news releases if you think the wolf numbers are staying steady. The Yellowstone count is 175, up from 139 this year. The overall count is 1575, up from 1300+ last year. You also are missing the news releases that admit approximately 40% of winter elk kills are calves. I am aware of the study showing the bears were getting the majority of calves, but they only released the information for the first few weeks of life, not the entire life.
While I imagine some mega packs could take down buffalo, I doubt that will ever be a major part of their diet, they are too big and mean, the whole bunch will attack a predator unlike other prey species. I believe they will leave the park and head for ranches.
No I do not believe there are too many elk overall. Individual ranchers may be inundated with them though.
I'm sure there will be a battle to prevent delisting wolves, no matter if there are 3000, if 5x the required number is not enough, there is no reason to beleive they will be satisfied with 10 times.
Before you cuss the ranchers for any intolerance, think about how much hay you are willing to buy for how many elk. I believe it is around $100/ton, that should last each elk for a couple months.

Comment By Marion, 10-31-07

I just went back and retrieved this years numbers from the FWS site:
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/weeklyrpt07/wk09272007.htm

State Year #Wolves Packs breeding pairs cattle killed sheep dogs other Wolves
MT 2006 316 60 21 32 4 4 2 53
MT 2007 394 71 37 48 19 1 1 50
ID 2006 673 69 40 29 205 4 0 45
ID 2007 788 75 41 36 150 7 0 40
WY 2006 311 40 25 123 38 0 1 44
WY 2007 362 33 27 28 16 2 0 45
Total 2006 1300 172 86 184 247 8 3 142
Total 2007 1545 179 105 111 185 10 1 134

Comment By mike, 10-31-07

Marion,

It was interesting that you, of all people, provided the URL for Ralph's elk population data.

What needs to be put right out on the table for the general readership to recognize is that the elk population numbers for much of the 1950s and 1960s are substantially similar to today's population numbers and those numbers from the 1950s and 1960s actually represent the rough target maximum population limits that the NPS set and maintained through an aggressive lethal culling program in those days. By the early 1960s, the NPS was slaughtering hundreds and thousands of elk each year, not on their own initiative, but to appease the continuous and crudely vocal complaints from cattle ranchers and sheepherders about the supposed overgrazed condition of the northern Yellowstone range. Those who were complaining might have even included members of your own family at the time. It seems ironic that today, fifty years later, you are complaining about wolves keeping the Yellowstone elk population down at the level that members of your family probably insisted on back then.

I guess that I might sound like a broken record; but, I just can't give much credence to the "hair-on-fire" ranting of some people. Those interest groups just aren't consistent enough to earn any credibility.

Comment By Larry, 11-02-07

Marion, let's back up. My observations of NO green vegetation below 6 feet off the ground is fact. I observed it, there is no second hand BS to debate. It indicated a dramatic overutilization of the resource caused by large ungulates, elk and bison. I'm a biologist by training. Had I found this in an "unprotected" area, I would have immediately recommended a higher harvest. Wolves have essentially provided that added harvest. Is the current 67000 too many? You have reversed the logic I was making. As in any debate, reverse logic isn't valid, nor is your analogy... If the question is "is 6,700 closer to the actual healthy carrying capacity of the Northern Yellowstone Herd that migrates through the Gardiner area, I would happily answer, YES it is. You throw out numbers like the Washburn 30,000 . I'm not familiar with that observation, and will address that more after I check it out. If it was after 1886, then bison numbers didn't enter into the picture and they do now... It doesn't serve your purpose to try and mislead anyone on this post; if you're trying to convince the reader, let's do it with actual usable info. As for cussing ranchers???? What's up with that? I didn't cuss them, I merely related the truth. The truth is that elk population targets are based on landowner tolerance not on the carrying capacity of the land, period! It's true ask any biologist if more elk can live on the landscape and tehy'll confirm it. That isn't a slam. The reasons you give are valid reasons, but it doesn't make my statement a lie or a criticism. Playing the victim card seems to be a habit with you. "The wolves have victimized ranchers and hunters, the elk have victimized ranchers, the hunters haver victimized the ranchers" and on and on. No wonder the conversation has stalled. The sky isn't falling, let's work together to get the wolf delisted; their populations are approaching unnatural numbers, kinda like the Gardiner elk numbers were back in the 80's. We need to have the tools to fix that.

Comment By Marion, 11-02-07

The elk killed by NPS were for the same reason the Lake Trout are being killed today, it seemed to be the thing to do in their opinion. The hunting seasons outside of the park took care of any elk outside. Locals have never had any say in how the park is managed, and it sure is not managed for their benefit. It is true that ranchers feed a lot of wildlife, but that is true in southern Wyoming the same as near Yellowstone. This morning I ran up North Fork and into the Park, going thru Wapati Valley, one hay field must have had 150 deer on it. Have you thought about how many bales of the $5 hay they feed to wildlife....how much do you provide? They allow hunting otherwise they don't manage them.
Did you know that after bringing in buffalo to help restock Yellowstone in 1902, they were very concerned about the herd getting too big in 1920 when the numbers got up to about a thousand {re: Chittenden}? Since day one almost, the people with authority in Yellowstone have been "improving" it, and I suspect will continue to do so. The solution to what they felt was overgrazing by the 50s and 60s was to kill the elk, again that was a NPS decision, not rancher. The difference between low numbers then and now is they could stop killing and let the herd build back up. Now the slaughter continues. We have wolf pack killing wolf pack, grizzly bears fighting to the death, an increase in bear attacks, IMHO that is due to a lack of sufficient prey left, and there is no end to the killing in sight.
Larry, I have no idea what you mean by no green below 6 feet off the ground. I have trouble following what you are trying to say, guess I'm getting old and tired tonight or something. If the park can support more elk, why did they bring in wolves to kill them off?
I guess you haven't studied the history of the park too much, the Washburn expedition was the first exploration of the park by white men in 1871. The only whites prior to that were trappers going thru occasionally. They did make that trip during September primarily so the elk would have been bunched up for the rut.
No one is complaining about hunter imposing on ranchers except when they go in without permission onto private land and shoot cows instead of what they were supposed to shoot.
The wolves are a different situation, they are uncontrollable, there are far more than was originally stated, about 500% more. The worst part is the failure of the government and the enviros to keep their word that they would be delisted where there were 300 for 3 years as long as we kept at least that many. I do not know if they will ever be delisted, and the numbers increase outside of the park by about 20% per year despite the number killed by FWS. Whether you want to admit it or not, there are a lot of folks who hate ranchers and want them gone, and the wolves are their best shot. I am at a loss to understand that. We all need to eat, and as I have pointed out every cow feeds at least two families the protein they need for a year.

Comment By mike, 11-04-07

Gollee, Marion, you must have stayed awake for days for even your mind to have come up with this incredibly contrived and twisted way to deny and defy logic. Is there no way, no circumstance, under which you might actually take in new information that does not fit your own calcified self-image, rethink your own perfection, and see things from any, any, any new perspective? No matter what the reality, no matter what the facts, no matter what the situation, you always, always, always start with your "center-of-the-universe" biases and how you want the world to be and then chew the realities down to a sufficiently unrecognizable mush that you can remold to fit your desired views and outcomes, all the while accusing others of trying to impose their views on you. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you, which is a wrong and potentially enabling response; but, you are and really always have been so trapped by your own prejudices and it has left such a visible mark. The real tragedy has probably been the effect on those who may have used you as model.

Comment By David Nolt, 11-04-07

This is obviously a very important issue to a lot of people, and I really appreciate the conversation that's developed off this story. Seeing as everybody seems to have solid numbers and facts and certainly opinions, can we please try to stick to substance and leave out the personal attacks? Thanks everybody.

Comment By Larry, 11-05-07

David, as a moderator, your job isn't easy when some commenters frustrate the remaining commenters. I will only try one more time - the third -to describe my observations of the 1980's , then I wil;l presume the other comenter just refuses to accept any part of wht I'm trying to say. I visited the Park's northern edge. I was amazed at the overgrazed and over browsed conditions. No green leaf, no green twig, no green blade of grass under 6 feet off the ground, I found this overgrazed/browsed condition almost everywhere...At that time huge herds of elk would leave the park and lotsa hunters would get their elk during the "Gardiner Hunt"... that huge elk herd and associated harvest was due to a huge overpopulation of elk in that part of the park. The herd numbers of today represent a more-closely natural population, so the Gardiner Hunt is a thing of past years. The wolf isn't a bloodthirsty beast, it's a natural predator, and in balanced numbers will benefit our elk herds by keeping thme healthy... who knows, it may stop the influx of CWD into Montana from Wyoming by eating the sick elk and deer before they get here, who knows?..and Marion, I am answering your question: there were too many elk in the Park in 1986, they were eating each other out of house and home... the wolves have brought those numbers back closer to healthy numbers... I won't repeat this analogy again, either you understand what I'm saying or you don't. Doesn't matter to me which.

Comment By Marion, 11-05-07

I don't know exactly what gives your opinion any more weight than anyone else's, but if you notice the elk numbers dropped again probably due to a bad winter.
The Gardiner Late Hunt was a big money maker for Montana F&G;. That money goes into habitat etc for wildlife. The 2800 licenses that were the most given are now 100 and maybe they will end altogether.
The fact remains the predators are killing each other and leaving Yellowstone to try to find food. There is no way now to stop that destruction except watch it. There are at a minimum of two grizzly battles leading to the death of 2 females this year, in addition oen pack of wolves was taken out by another the other day in Hayden Valley. There may have been pups survive, but the alpha pair are gone.
Couple these things with a real increase in bear/human conflicts, and wolves moving in closer and closer to towns. A mangy wolf was killed last week near a subdivision in Cody. Cody and Powell are the biggest metropolitan centers in the Big Horn basin. Once more FWS had to kiil a bunch of wolves that had been preying on livestock between the two towns (20 miles).
the biggest problem with the wolves is that they cannot be controlled.
By the way as far as CWD, it has increased it's area since the wolves were brought in, it was found in the NE part of the state this year. Plus they have their own diseases they are bringing in.

Comment By Larry, 11-06-07

Yes, I know... your opinion is certainly yours alone. Montana still doesn't have CWD, I hope Wyoming gets to keep it. I was trying to make the point that the elk numbers were artificially high numbers when the Gardiner hunt was at its pea, that's all. Whatever financial benfits that FWP enjoyed were at the cost of the park's ecosystems... beaver were about eliminated because their food, willows, were eaten to the bare earth... You can't treat wildlife like livestock, Ma'am! What you gain on a temporary basis, you lose in the long run. Wyoming lost its brucelosis free status from feedlot elk, another good example of treating wildlife like livestock... you brought it on yourself... there's a big difference between facts and opinion, Ma'am!...but I won't confuse you with the facts, your mind is already made up!!.. and by the way.. if teh rpedators are killing each other off, isn't that Mother Nature solving another overpopulation problem??? Besides, I hear no solutions in your comments, only complaints.

Comment By Marion, 11-06-07

Larry, there are no solutions when predators are protected, and they are eating themselves out of house and home. Again, there is no historical evidence of wolves in anything but occasional numbers in Yellowstone itself, none. The only guy that "found" wolves was the guy who was put in charge of controlling wolves, a man named Bailey. He like Bangs, et al, made a living off of wolves,and found what was necessary to keep that cushy job.
I have posted the very easily found numbers ad nauseum, 14 wolves were killed by the US Army over 32 years, then after they had a predator control specialist, they manged to kill another 122 over the next 14 years, 80 of which were pups. I'll leave it up to your imagination what kind of pups since they were worth money, and no DNA. That is a total of 136 wolves in 42 years, there are more than that today at one time.
There is absolutley no difference between the manipulation done in the early 1900s and the manipulation now, except it is going in the opposite direction. It is partly man trying to prove himself superior to nature and partly well paid positions "saving" a species. It is manipulation nonetheless.

Comment By Larry, 11-06-07

Whatever you say, Ma'am... I still look forward to wolf's delisting and a better balance between elk and wolves... and maybe a chance at a wolf rug... One big part of that "manipulation" by man, as you call it, is required by law; the ESA is the law of the land and as public servants they are bound by it. Wolves were extinct in Montana. Whether or not you like it, doesn't count for much.

Comment By Marion, 11-06-07

Actually Larry, you need to read more. The wolves were designated as experimental non-essential to keep from breaking the law because they were introduced outside of their own range. They are not listed as endangered, they are just managed that way. That also relieved FWS of liability if it was found that the introduced wolves killed off or otherwise damaged a remnant native population. Delisting will not change the dynamics in Yellowstone itself.

Comment By Larry, 11-06-07

The wolves in Yellowstone were indeed an experimental population until delisting. After delisting things will change. Here in Montana, we also have a lot of wolves that repopulated naturally down through the North Fork of the Flathead River that spread southward from Canada. So, no Marion our Montana wolves are not just the Yellowstone imports. Experimental populations are an accepted technique for restoring T&E;species to former ranges which makes the reintro not outside normal biology. Your own quotes of a trapper killing wolves in the park confirm that the park was part of their original range, or they would not have been there AT ALL!!!

I read plenty Marion, I don't just read what suits my preconceived notions about wolves. I'm speaking from the perspective of a biologist. All of us, including you, advocate for what we believe in; it just happens to be very different points of view.

Comment By MT Wilderness Hunter, 11-09-07

Marion, Thought you might like to know that somehow, despite fresh wolf tracks and literally being surrounded by coyotes at close range for about one hour (true story, honest) I managed to find lots of elk in a local, Montana Wilderness area and bring one of 'em home. It's hanging in the garage right now. I don't know how in the world I managed to do this with all these other predators devouring all the elk.

Comment By mw, 11-17-07

Wow! Much narrative. Marion, I have a question about your remark concerning Lake Trout. Are you saying that Lake Trout--exotic species--should not be controlled & be allowed to displace the Yellowstone Cuttethroat??

Comment By Marion, 11-17-07

Nope, I'm asking that you reverse the situation, would you be willing to kill any of the wolves if they start displacing the grizzlies or if the elk numbers drop below a sustainable number? If you are willing to control one and not the other, why?
The things you need to remember, the lake trout occur naturally in Lewis and Heart Lake inside of the park and 2 Ocean lake over the divide outside. It would be pretty simple for birds to transfer eggs from one to another. Wouldn't that be natural?
Historically we know wolves never lived in Yellowstone in any numbers even remotely approaching what are there now.
The point is, what is the difference in the manipulation being done today to improve the park and what was done 150 years ago?

This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/city/article/too_many_elk_not_enough_hunter_access_to_private_land/C396/L396/