New West Feature
Shooting Vs. Birth Control to Keep Elk in Check at Rocky Mountain National Park
The voracious ungulates have taken a huge toll on their habitat inside the park, and no wonder: The optimum population is between 600 and 800. Between 1997 and 2001, there were 2,800 and 3,500 elk within the boundaries. What to do? Read on.By Larry Keller, 5-17-11
![]() |
|
| Rocky Mountain National Park's elk. Photo by Flickr user Anne Hornyak. | |
The elk of Rocky Mountain National Park are wildlife’s couch potatoes. Rather than roam widely throughout the 415-square-mile park and the land outside it, they are content to laze around in meadows, eating, sleeping and mating.
With no predators, they can afford to be slackers. Many of them saunter into the tourist town of Estes Park outside the eastern entrance. There, they mosey along city streets and loiter on golf courses.
Their inertia has created problems in the park, however. Aspen and willow stands are denuded where the elk do much of their grazing. That habitat is vital to a variety of birds and butterflies, park officials say. The damage has also driven out most of the beavers that once populated the area, which in turn has caused a nearly 70-percent decline in surface water that helps nourish the very habitat being damaged.
After years of debate, Rocky Mountain National Park decided on a solution: Kill a portion of the voracious ungulates. It’s not an image coveted by the National Park Service – sharpshooters picking off the park’s most iconic creatures. The killing is done at dawn in winter with rifles equipped with sound suppressors.
There is, however, a nonlethal method that can potentially keep the elk in check and lessen the need to kill them: Birth control. In January, a team of researchers wrapped up a three-year field study in which dozens of cow elk were injected with a vaccine called GonaCon designed to prevent pregnancies. The vaccine worked well for up to two years. But is wildlife contraception a viable tool in controlling proliferating wildlife herds? If it is, it might also be one means of managing the size of rapidly-breeding wild horses in the West and nettlesome bison at Yellowstone National Park.
“I’m always very wary when we try to do Mother Nature’s job better than she does,” says Jenny Powers, a National Park Service wildlife veterinarian and one of three lead scientists who participated in the elk research.
But Stephanie Boyles, a wildlife scientist with the Humane Society of the United States, welcomes the prospect of family planning for elk. “As stewards, we are called on to do something to keep (wildlife) in balance with nature,” she says. “It’s a politically contentious area.”
***
Elk are native to the Rocky Mountain National Park area, but unregulated hunting wiped them out by the 1870s. Their only significant predators were wolves, and they were eradicated by 1900. Elk were reintroduced in 1913 and 1914, and the national park was established in 1915. Congress banned hunting within the park in 1929. The elk population quickly grew – so much that the animals decimated parts of the park’s vegetation. Between 1944 and 1969 park rangers culled some of the elk to keep their numbers more manageable. (Culling differs from hunting in that it’s not recreational and there’s no element of a fair chase.)
In 1969 the park began a “natural regulation policy” in the belief that hunting of elk outside the park would control their numbers inside it. That didn’t happen, in part because the park’s herd is less migratory and more concentrated than under natural conditions. Many of the elk spend winters in the eastern part of the park, where their munching has damaged some aspens to the point where they don’t grow back.
Park officials say the optimum population within the park is between 600 and 800. Between 1997 and 2001, the park estimates there were between 2,800 and 3,500 elk within the boundaries. There also are another 1,000 to 1,300 elk that winter outside the park.
The park began a $6-million, 20-year plan in 2008 to reduce the elk population and restore the plant life it damaged and destroyed. The plan calls for “gradual lethal reduction” and fencing around some of the most badly-damaged aspens and willows, while leaving open the options of fertility control and wolves.
Four alternatives were considered, including one that would have culled far greater numbers of elk in the park, and another that would have phased in a maximum of 14 gray wolves. The thinking was that the wolves would kill some of the elk and scare others into dispersing elsewhere in the park. Their grazing would then be over a wider area and be less destructive. Yet another alternative would have been the use of “fertility control agents,” but even doing this would have still required some culling to keep the elk’s numbers at an acceptable level.
Elk have now been culled inside the park three years in a row. Park service personnel and others, including 23 trained volunteers who get $7 a day to cull the elk, do the job. Some 122 females and one male that had the bad luck to be mistaken for a female have been killed in the past three years. (Seventy-nine of them of them were euthanized during the contraception research, while the remaining 44 were culled, according to Kyle Patterson, the park’s spokeswoman.)
That’s far less than the maximum of 200 animals a year that park officials had said might have to be culled. Patterson cites a couple of reasons. A historic snowstorm in 2003 caused many of the elk to migrate out of the park toward the city of Loveland 30 miles to the east. And there was a record hunting harvest outside the park in 2006. All of that can be reversed with a series of mild winters or if the Loveland vagabonds return.
***
GonaCon was developed in the early 1990s by Lowell Miller and other scientists at the National Wildlife Research Center, the research arm of the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in Fort Collins, Colo. Sitting on 43 acres in the foothills, the center’s mission is to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts, whether by nonlethal or lethal means. Its work includes conducting research into reducing bird and aircraft collisions, developing nonlethal ways of lessening wildlife damage to forests and analyzing toxic concoctions aimed at killing tiny, nonnative coqui frogs in Hawaii.
GonaCon is registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for use on female white-tailed deer. The vaccine has also been tested on other animals, including Yellowstone bison, feral cats and dogs and California ground squirrels. Federal scientists also partnered with a private company on an oral contraception for use on urban Canada goose and feral pigeon populations, and are working on an oral contraceptive for feral hogs.
GonaCon works by stimulating the production of antibodies that reduce the ability of a hormone called GnRH to trigger the release of sex hormones. Females don’t go into heat and males aren’t amorous as long as there are sufficient levels of antibodies in the female’s body.
The Rocky Mountain National Park elk were vaccinated in the daunting cold of January 2008. First, the animals had to be shot with a tranquilizer dart – not easy on mornings when the drug froze inside the dart. The dart guns are accurate up to 45 meters, says Powers, the park service veterinarian. “The habituation of these animals and their fearlessness of humans made this possible,” Powers says. “There are very few (elk) populations close enough to dart them with a tranquilizer.”
Once sedated, the elk were rolled on to their chests so they could breathe easier, blindfolded, injected with the vaccine and fitted with a radio telemetry collar to locate them later. Samples of blood, feces and hair were extracted. Then they were injected with another drug to reverse the effects of the tranquilizer. The entire process took about 40 minutes, Powers says.
None of the critters died while being treated or examined, but one did give researchers a surprise when she got to her feet. Normally, elk bolt in the direction away from the scientists when they come to. “But this animal seemed disoriented and chased my colleague around and around the willow,” Powers says.
***
Elk that were subsequently recaptured were checked not only for pregnancy but chronic wasting disease, a transmissible, untreatable and fatal neurological disorder also found in deer. Hunters outside the park were asked not to shoot at elk wearing collars, and animals treated with GonaCon wore tags advising hunters not to consume their meat since the vaccine may not have cleared their bodies.
One year after injecting 60 Rocky Mountain National Park elk with GonaCon, 10 of the animals were recaptured. None was pregnant. Yet 90 percent of the control group recaptured – also composed of 60 females given a saline solution—were pregnant.
Powers declined to provide data for the animals recaptured after the second and third years until she and her colleagues publish the results in a scientific journal. But she says the vaccine, while still effective after the second year, was less so than after year one. And after three years, the percentage of pregnancies was greater than after two years. (In a small study of captive elk between 2004 and 2007, females injected with GonaCon actually were more infertile with each passing year. The percentages were 86, 90 and 100 percent in one group, and 90, 100 and 100 percent in a second group given a stronger dose of vaccine).
Powers thinks GonaCon might be effective in free-roaming elk for a year or two, but she’s equivocal about its potential. Some animals that have been treated may leave the park and never return, while others living outside the park – like the Loveland emigrants—may return, she says. Those sorts of variables dilute GonaCon’s effectiveness. She also points out that determining how much impact a contraceptive has on reducing a herd’s numbers is imprecise because severe weather and deaths from chronic wasting disease kill an undetermined number every year.
She’s not alone in her guardedness. “It’s just a bit too early to tell where we’re going to go next,” says John Mack, the park’s branch chief of natural resources. “We need to wait and be patient.”
Every one of the elk in the GonaCon study had an abscess at the injection site, Powers says. The researchers found nothing to suggest that the sore spots became infected, hindered them in foraging or made them lame. Nor were they aware of behavioral changes caused by the vaccine. Since they didn’t monitor the elk year-round, they just don’t know. “Free-ranging wild behavior with GonaCon has not been answered,” Powers says.
Still, there is reason to believe that wildlife contraception may become a more common method for controlling wildlife populations. Another contraceptive, Porcine Zona Pellucida or PZP, has been field-tested for nearly 30 years. The Bureau of Land Management, in cooperation with the Humane Society of the United States, is treating nearly 900 mares from wild horse herds in Idaho, Nevada and Utah this year in an effort to control that species.
Unlike GonaCon, PZP doesn’t have to be injected manually, says Stephanie Boyles, the Humane Society wildlife scientist. Wild horses are drawn to temporary corrals baited with food or water, injected by a dart containing the PZP and released. That’s a big improvement over the BLM’s current program of rounding up frightened horses by helicopter and confining them in holding pens, Boyles says. “The technology continues to get better and better all the time,” she adds.
Even Congress has taken notice. In February, Rep. James Moran, D-Virginia, called the BLM’s use of holding pens for wild horses “enormously wasteful and misguided” and said contraception would be cheaper and more humane.
Skeptics, however, question whether contraception should be used on wildlife at all. When public input was solicited on various proposals for dealing with the elk and the damage to their habitat, some people were “strongly in favor of fertility control, and some were strongly opposed who felt it was unnatural,” Patterson says.
“Some things are meant to be wild,” Powers says. “At some point, do we not want to treat them like domestic animals and be handling them? I think it’s important to point out that this is no silver bullet so that we don’t have to kill wild animals. Any time we’re manipulative with wild animals, we’re messing with natural selection.”
Boyles counters, “Any intervention could be construed as tampering with the natural process”—including culling. “If that’s not animal husbandry as well, I don’t know what is.” The reason there are wildlife imbalances, she notes, is because humans eradicated predators, such as at Rocky Mountain National Park.
Powers agrees. “We’ve changed the ecosystem,” she says. “We’ve created an artificial situation.”
Few argue that free-ranging wildlife populations can be reduced by contraception alone. Its best use may be with animals that are confined to some extent by either geography or fences, Powers says.
“It probably is more valuable in a confined setting than an open setting,” Lowell Miller, the lead researcher in the development of GonaCon, says of that vaccine. “It’s a lot more work (in an open setting), but it can be effective. I think as time goes on, we’ll determine how practical a tool it is.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.





Comments
Instead they opt for an expensive, experimental birth control process? Why can't these professionals trained in the field of science and ecology stick to ecological principles that have stood the test of time since time began? Predation works...be it in the form of natural predators or humans establishing a temporary hunting season.
This article is frustrating to read...I'm shaking my head on this one.
Wolves would return the ecosystem back to normal, as they've done in the Greater Yellowstone. However, Interior and CDoW don't want to mess with wolves just now -- not before the 2012 elections.
Adam, if you think tinkering with contraception is a bit extreme, take a look at the feeding grounds in Wyoming, where WYG&F;are artificially maintaining an elk population that exceeds the carrying capacity of the area, just to keep hunters and outfitters happy. Meanwhile, the feeding grounds are a Petri dish that infects the herds with brucellosis and will inevitably infect the herds with chronic wasting disease. You're right. It is all quite insane.
Allowing hunting would provide food for humans and would also be controllable. The could decrease or even eliminate permits when the population dropped below desired numbers. Why anyone would consider, much less promote, the destruction that has happened in Yellowstone is beyond comprehension.
Either establish a hunt, a real hunt, or -- do it the Wyoming way:
Put a couple packs in Rocky Park with a 10 or 20 mile no-shoot buffer. Wolves would be okay inside that line, dead meat outside. Simple, sensible, and with morons like Moran in Congress, impossible.
Sadly, I don't see Wolves being brought into Colorado thanks to the cattle and sheep barons who think they own the world.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100901111636.htm
Personally I think that the birth control is going to be found to be a bad idea. You are messing with natural instincts and to an extent it could have a potential psychological impact on both the bulls and cows. And as mentioned, you are interfering with natural selection. Are you picking the best cows for testing and leaving inferior gene pools? Do you know which cows would have the stronger offspring?
As usual APHIS thinks they may have the answer. Funny thing is, they were the ones who introduced CWD into Colorado through their testing programs. Hopefully this isn't another one of their disasters in the making.
Please spend a few moments with Google Scholar and search for articles containing the word "wolves" AND "aspen regeneration." If you narrow the search to say, the last few years, you'll find the research that has you all excited. Take a few minutes more, and you'll find many more scholarly papers that say the exact opposite, even claiming photographic evidence that aspen are regenerating under the influence that wolves have on elk winter movements.
Now, I cannot explain the discrepancy. Nor, I imagine, can you. As painful and potentially traumatic as this might be, perhaps you could be just a teensy-bit less dogmatic? It appears that the study you cite is something of an outlier, and while interesting, is not the final word on the issue -- even though you want it to be.
The enviro-nazi's have only themselves to blame for the lack of local support for wolves! The ESA has put quite a few paychecks on the bank deposits for they did it because the poorly written ESA allows them to play the system like a puppet!
Wolves are out of the question. What has happened to yellowstone should never be allowed to happen again. Another ecological mistake done by the do gooders who care little about other peoples livihoods.
As stated above, you did it to yourselves wolf lovers. If we had control by the states in the beginning, none of this mess would have gotten out of hand. Yet wolves would still be found in Montana and Idaho. Of course, millions could not have been made off of frivilous lawsuits either.
The worse thing possible would be to introduce canadian wolves to Colorado. The mess that would create.....
What are the side effects?
I could be very wrong but GnRH is relatively new (for deer) and manipulating an animals hormones messes with the social and sexual behavior of the animal. Also consider that these vaccines mess with the immune system and can have inhumane side effects in a portion of the animals (i.e. the abcess). The risk of unwanted side effects has traditionally been high.
Contraception, culling, administering a hunting season, and/or introducing predators such as wolves, are all all rather expensive solutions to this problem. The cheapest solution is to do nothign and accept the degredation. Contraception is by far the most expensive and has so far been the least practical. Therefore, managers, as well as the citizens of this country and the polititians they influence, are going to have to weigh the pros and cons, and decide whether or not they want to spend the extra money using a less effective method, considering the side effects (which may not be as "humane" as we initially thought). We need to look at the long term effects on the animal.
My personal opinion is that it's potentially a lot of meat to feed people. In these times, free range, all natural, 100% organic meat is a valued comodity. ...and for the record, I am not a fan of high stocking densities to satisfy hunters.
I found this page:
http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/solutions/statistics_on_payments_from_the_defenders_wildlife_foundation_wolf_compensation_trust.pdf
According to this link, compensations had risen over the years and peaked at $226,891 in 2008. I don't know how much it costs to put on an elk hunting season, but I would bet it wouldn't cost any less. Groups such as Defenders of Wildlife added much to this wolf compensation trust.
Hence reintroducing wolves is looking better and better.
In particular, with the eager environmentalists who seem to care little about the people who live in an area with some endanged species or some newly introduced one. The funny thing is that it does not matter if the animal is endangered or not. Bring something in that has been gone for a hundred or more years, such as wolves or buffalo, use the court system to help fund your effort and alot of kind hearted people to send in money and you can become rich in no time. Just get the ball rolling, don't have a conscious about the people or the other wildlife, and you can make it big.
The beauty of it all is that you don't have to be accountable to anyone. Let em gripe. You are rich and can hide from the attention.
Colorado has alot more people than Montana or Idaho. You think we have problems with wolves? Colorado will make us look like small potatoes.
I cannot see how fish and game departments cannot make a buck selling elk tags at 20 bucks a pop. Crimmany, the feds could do it and regulate the heck out of it. In no time the problem would be resolved.
paul
One would think that Yellowstone will always remain in the unbalance low side of things the herds are now approaching because wolves will always be unmanaged, protected in the park and replenished from the managed population of wolves. They will never get the that starvation numbers, hence never give the park a break from all these aspen trees. Just as we saw to many elk in Yellowstone(because hunting was not allowed on elk) will we see too few….( because hunting was not allowed on wolves).
What's your idea of 'management' anyway, and how did all this occur before the first pair of blue eyes walked into the Rockies? Or Massachusetts, for that matter. Are you terminally anthropocentric ? Man is neither the Decider nor the Dynamo he makes himself out to be...that's just arrogance getting dressed up for the masked ball.[ But he definitely might be the Destroyer. ]
Wolf populations have already tapered off, plateaued, or even shrunk inside YNP. Read the annual reports and weekly summaries at USFWS. Doug Smith thinks that in a couple more seasons there will only be two large packs in the park and maybe a couple of small ( <5 animal) packs on the periphery.
One Reality22 is one too many, though. By an order of magnitude, actually.
Scott Becker, now the USFWS wolf management specialist for northwest Wyoming based in Cody , was in his recent past life a Wyo G&F;biologist and researcher . He happened to study moose a lot, especially why the population was decreasing.
Scott wrote his thesis on Wyoming Shiras Moose viability, published in 2008 . Here's the UWyo link:
http://www.uwyo.edu/wycoopunit/showthesis.asp?thesisid=321
Read the last line of the summary , Dumbkopf22 from Wisconsin.
Moose in NW Wyoming were declining long before the Wolf v.2.0 ever showed up.
Dewey, don't grind that axe for me - you're making a fool of yourself! Most of the readers know that I was the one to expose your multi-user issues!
If you'd asked me when I was 30 if I'd still be alive at 60, I would have said no way. Today , I say way. Tomorrow...WTF ?
Even that goofy old Senator Al Simpson broadcast my b-day on the radio talk show this morning. Totally unsolicited. You can run, but you can't hide from Al's All Seeing orifice.
Now to business at hand:
Reality22- got any more lies or aspersions up your orifice ?
You are so hateful and deconstructive. Is it your purpose in life to monkeywrench any conservation website counter to your own skewed beliefs ?
Of course I have multiple log-in ID's...that's just common sense in the internet age and age of identity theft. I have a sheet in my locked drawer here that show me using 26 log in names and about 60 passwords for my various web accounts; financial, social, newssites...the gamut. I use three computers online and have sewven e-mail accounts. You'd be stupid to stay with the same name and log-in across all your web trax. I notice you seem to do that since some of your diatribe has ended up in my own hometown paper of late.
Sometimes my log-ins overlap at the same site, depending on which Macintosh I'm beaming in from. No attempt to hide anything or use a doppelganger, honestly. It was more a function of some websites upgrading and changing their systems .
So you point is.....?
You exposed nothing but clear blue sky or whatever is on the back of your eyelids that only you can see.
You are so hateful and deconstructive. Is it your purpose in life to monkeywrench any conservation website counter to your own skewed beliefs ? Sure seems like it to me , at least on these neutral or pro-wolf conservations news sites. Who appointed you to be a hatchet man, a deconstructor ?
As a matter of fact it is what your narrowmindedly call " global warming" ( which reveals your ignorance of global climate change -at-large ) that is largely causing Moose to dwindle, for a variety of reasons. The shady dense old growth forests are going away . That's where the Moose hangout, and are seldom counted. The increase of parasites is due to milder climates keeping larva more viable. Many disease zootics and parasite cycles will fluorish as climate changes progressively. Moose, being a holdover from the Pleistocene, probably should've died out with the rest of the megafauna 10-12,500 years ago , but I guess they didn't get the memo.
We seem to have plenty of Moose in the Shosnone River headwaters these days. More than I've seen in years,a ctually . For whatever reason. If I can't explain it, I don;t, and I say so. Moose guard their secrets well,e ven from themselves. You on the other hand ascribe unfounded evil and enviro-nazi machinations as a root cause of everything you dislike.
Which is why you have small credibility here.
Same ol same ol.....
Shosnone is spelt Shoshone
Monkeywrench is Monkey wrench
newssite??; sewven?? (what? - German for 1000?)
narrowmindedly is narrow mindedly
a ctually is actually
Don:t is don't
E ven is even & "So you point is ....?" "WTF" (childish & a whitehead in the writing arena!)
Dewey, your loosing it at 60. Area 38, 42, 1 & 27 are the best units to get a moose tag in the state of Wyoming and they could not be further from Yellowstone & your wolves. Why are these moose doing OK? Your area 11 was once an excellent choice for moose, tons of good habitat & moose, but no more.... the numbers for moose in and around Yellowstone speak for themselves & your wolves.
http://www.huntaddicts.com/hunting_information/tophunts/wyoming.html#wyomingmoose
My but aren't you the contemptuous nitpicker...lost in the fabric without seeing the tapestry... the forest for trees...the message for the pixels , ibid. Is that really all you have ?
My family's homestead on top of Bald Ridge NW of Cody was always home to a family of moose and lots of guest moose when growing up. Old growth forest ; springs that ran in winter, 50 acres of meadows , willows...everything a moose could want. They were also family. i watched many moose grow up. I used to find old moose antlers and even bison skulls in the bogs as a kid.
Then the trees got sick. Early pine beetle infestation. Logging. The Moose got scarcer all over the immediate area, not just our place ( which was isolated). The decline of our local moose began in the early 1980's, about 15 years before the wolves were brought back. I cannot say if it was the slowly but surely growing number of grizzlies who got to the moose...we never found a carcass. The moose just went away. We had a griz den within 3 miles of the cabin but had to be told that , because we never saw a G. bear there, just some naughty blacks.
It's not an uncommon story at all where I live. Habitat and the creatures in it change over time, in cycles or sometimes abruptly . Why don't you just blame Hurricane Katrina on Northern Rockies Wolves, because your claims about wolves eating all the moose are falling on sad eyes and ears. But the dysphoria I have is for the moose and the wolf, not the Trolls...