Welfare Ranchers, Wolves, and the Externalization of Costs
By George Wuerthner, 8-24-10
 |
|
 | |
| Cows are routinely left to forage without any supervision, making them vulnerable to predators. | |
|
We continuously hear the livestock industry talking about “problem” wolves—those animals that attack untended livestock. Yet the real issue is “problem ranchers” who externalize one of the costs of doing business—namely operating a livestock operation in a manner that reduces or eliminates predator opportunity.
To make an analogy think of how we used to let polluting industries use our rivers as open sewers, often resulting in fish kills and polluted waters that were unfit for swimming and domestic water use. Thankfully, we passed legislation that made many of these industries internalize the cost of production by making it illegal to dump pollutants in our waterways.
Thus far, however, we have not applied the same legal requirements upon ranchers who have successfully transferred one of the legitimate business costs of livestock production—namely animal husbandry practices that result in a reduction of predator opportunity—on to the public at large, and on to the backs of predators.
For several hundred years, livestock producers have enjoyed a largely predator-free landscape. Typically they had the public fund their war on predators. Starting with the Massachusetts Bay Colony that in 1630 put a bounty on wolves, livestock producers have succeeded in getting others to pay to exterminate predators. The eradication of wolves from the landscape continued with settlement of the West. In 1843 one of the very first political action by Oregon settlers was creation a tax on all citizens, not to pay for things like roads or schools, but rather a wolf bounty. Similarly, some 80,730 wolves were killed in Montana for taxpayer-funded bounty between 1883 and 1918.
The common assumption was that what was good for ranchers was good for society as a whole, much as the old saw suggested that what was good for General Motors was a benefit to the country as a whole. At least that is how the livestock industry has successfully sold the idea that taxpayers should subsidize their business operations.
When bounties did not completely eliminate predators like wolves, the livestock industry successfully lobbied to have the federal government (you know the hated feds) create the Biological Survey in 1914. At its height of predator control efforts, the Biological Survey had more than 200 agents hired whose chief duty was to track down and kill the last predators, including extirpation of wolves from national parks like Yellowstone.
Today ranchers continue to enjoy taxpayer funded federal predator control. This federal subsidy has allowed the West’s welfare ranchers to avoid one of the costs of production—namely practicing good animal husbandry practices that reduce predator opportunities and losses. Indeed, the livestock industry has externalized this cost on to the public at large and grown so used to federal predator control that they now consider a predator free environment a “right”.
Keeping in mind that most predators routinely avoid preying on livestock even when there are numerous opportunities to do so, it behooves ranchers to implement practices that can and do reduce livestock losses to predators. However nearly all these practices require some additional time and effort by livestock operators—thus translates into additional costs for ranchers. It is well established that predators like wolves often get their first taste of domestic livestock by feeding on a carcass. Thus rapid and proper deposal of dead animals greatly reduces the likelihood of future predation losses. A study in Europe found that failure to remove carcasses increased the chances for future depredation by 55 times.
Another study of wolf predation on domestic sheep in the French Alps found that confining and/or simply gathering sheep at night in the presence of 5 livestock-guarding dogs prevented most kills (94% and 79%, respectively) that would have occurred in similar conditions but with free-ranging sheep.
These are only a few of the practices that greatly reduce predator opportunity and thus the presumed “need” for predator control. It’s clear that it’s possible to run livestock with fewer predator losses if proper animal husbandry practices are implemented.
However, since ranchers have convinced the public, including far too many environmental organizations, that they have a “right” to a predator free existence, the livestock industry has no incentive to change its ways. Instead livestock are routinely placed out in distance pastures with little or no oversight and supervision for months at a time, providing predators an easy meal. When ranchers treat their animals with such a caviler attitude who can blame a predator for being tempted by a beef or lamb dinner?
Payment for livestock losses as was done until recently by Defenders of Wildlife while it may mollify some rancher opposition, only legitimizes the idea that ranchers have a right to be compensated for losses that result from their own poor animal husbandry practices. This is not much different than the government practice of providing “disaster relief” to people who unwisely build homes in a flood plain of a river, then demand the government assist them after a flood destroys their home. Such “disasters” are easily avoided, just as most predator losses are avoidable if ranchers were forced to utilize proper animal husbandry practices.
However, animal husbandry is not the only way that livestock producers are to blame for many of their own problems. Ironically, predator control, as well as sport hunting as advocated by state wildlife agencies, often leads to greater livestock losses by disrupting predator social ecology of predators.
A study by Hayes and Harestad found evidence that packs experiencing control and/or hunting had higher mortality rates as a direct consequence of reductions, thus pack sizes are smaller, home ranges were less stable and occupied at variable times, and more young are produced in the population. Wolf populations dominated by younger animals with less stable territories are far more likely to attack domestic livestock.
Younger animals may breed earlier, and in exploited populations produce more young. Young growing pups consume more biomass (meat) than adults, creating a greater need to obtain food. Typically in exploited populations, pack size is smaller, with only the breeding adults to raise pups, putting greater pressure on adults to obtain easily available meat. Plus young pups reduce the mobility of the pack, limiting the area where adults can seek prey. Thus predator control and indiscriminate hunting puts increased pressure on the few adults to obtain meat, often by attacking livestock.
The effects of lethal control and/or hunting on pack stability can lead to social disruptions and loss of territory. A study, which pooled data on 148 breeding wolf packs, showed that the loss of adult breeders (from any causes including natural mortality) often leads to the dissolution of the pack and loss of pack territory, and/or limited breeding in the following season. For instance, in 47 of 123 cases (38.2%), groups dissolved and abandoned their territories after breeder loss. Of dissolved groups, territorial wolves became reestablished in 25 cases (53.2%), and in an additional 10 cases (21.3%) neighboring wolves’ usurped vacant territories.
Thus any increases in mortality caused by human hunting and/or lethal control may disrupt social interactions between packs, and lead to the loss of social/cultural knowledge including knowledge of prey habitat use, migration routes, and so forth that long time residency by family lineages may provide. Again this increases the chances that wolves will turn to livestock as a food source.
While almost no one would begrudge the occasional and surgical elimination of a chronic livestock killer, the indiscriminate killing of predators as part of a systematic predator control program and/or as a consequence of sport hunting, only exacerbates conflicts between livestock producers and predators.
Finally, there are the indirect effects upon wolf prey created by the mere presence of domestic livestock. There is no free lunch. When the bulk of forage in any given area is allotted to domestic livestock, there is less plant production to support elk, deer, and other wolf prey. On many public lands, the vast majority of all forage is consumed by domestic livestock, leaving far less of the forage pie for wild herbivores like elk, deer, and pronghorn. Even in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, which harbors the greatest concentration of wild ungulates (deer, elk, etc.) in the United States, the majority of all forage on public lands is allotted to domestic animals.
Many studies have demonstrated that wild animals tend to avoid domestic livestock. Thus when cattle and sheep are moved on to public rangelands, the wild ungulates move elsewhere. If, for instance, there were a wolf pack denned in that area, the wolves are left with little to eat in the immediate area of the den other than domestic livestock—again creating a conflict that would not occur in the absence of domestic livestock.
Ironically while hunters and state wildlife agencies lobby to kill more wolves, they totally ignore that fact that domestic livestock grazing in effect “gets” more elk and deer by displacing them from favorable terrain and/or eating forage that would otherwise support far larger ungulate populations than are ever killed by predators.
In the end, the best way to reduce human conflicts with predators as well as realize the ecological benefits associated with having top predators widely distributed across the landscape is to require better animal husbandry practices from livestock producers, and to eliminate the predator control and/or sport hunting that disrupts predator social ecology. It’s time that livestock producers are forced to internalize one of their real production costs which in turn would mean slightly higher costs for consumers who ultimately should bear any additional costs of producing livestock without placing the burden upon predators and/or a landscape denied the positive influences of large predators.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Wyoming is what is termed a " fence out" state. If you do not want a cow wandering onto your property , you have to put up a fence to keep that cow away. It 's never the cow's fault , or its owners fault, if cattle transgress. This has been taken to extreme. A friend of mine slammed his VW bug into a black Angus cow standing in the middle of the highway one night. He couldn't see a black cow on a black night till he was almost on top of it. His car was totaled, and even though that cow had broken out of its pasture and should not have been on the highway at all, he had to pay the rancher for the dead cow and could not in turn ask the rancher for anything in return . The wayward cow was protected by law. Livestock trump people.
So my suggestion s that we change one simple term in how we deal with livestock as property and their rights. Change Out to In. We need to go from the " fence out" philosophy to " fence in ". In other words, make the owner of the livestock responsible for them.
That seems obvious , but it's contrary to existing constitutional law.
By moving to a " Fence in" legal framework, ranchers would actually have to take fulltime responsibility for their valued animals and property. That would include livestock placed out on public graze. I'm pretty sure that asking ranchers to actually cowboy up and take charge of their herds at all times is total anathema to ranchers. Blasphemy , even. You want ME to be responsible for MY cows ? Do you mean if MY cows screw up and get lost or eaten , it is MY fault, too? The nerve....
But that is exactly what I am saying. Fence Out----> Fence In . Problem solved.
Yeah , right. Not while there is still at least one cattle baron alive...
Most western states have that fence them out law regarding livestock. And I have had a similar experience like your friend. Once driving at night in eastern Oregon, I came upon eight black cows in the middle of the highway. I miraculously threaded my car through all the animals without hitting one. The next day I was driving along the same highway and saw the cows still on the road. Nearby was a ranch house and a woman was tending a garden in front. I asked her if the cows were her animals. She replied yes. I then politely suggested that they be gathered up because they posed a hazard to drivers. She snapped back that her cows had a "right" to be on the road and I should mine my own business.
The way ranchers have framed the debate to convince the public that it is a rancher's "right" to have predator-free public land needs to be exposed further. Ranchers think it's a birthright to placing tasty cattle and sheep in the middle of public land, then investing little or nothing to monitor those animals. Then the ranchers are shocked when the occasional cow or sheep is picked off by a predator.
Yes, it costs money to have shepherds and dogs watch flocks and herds of animals. But that's the cost of doing business. And it's not a cost that the general public should have to incur. If ranchers can't take care of their herds on public land without killing predators, then they have no business using public resources.
-Jon Cheever
Worse theose "greedy welfare ranchers" have caused a real decline in elk and moose inside of Yellowstone because it cannot possibly be too many wolves. The grizzlies are evidently skinny due to the cattle grazing in the park, not due to a lack of meat.
Isn't it amazing that things are going to pot inside of the Yellowstone where enviros are having their perfect management?
Basically the ranchers pay taxes and the enviros reap tax dollars.
The FIRST great scam they pulled was convincing the public that we "need" their product, which of course, we don't.
Now the big question is what do you propose the ranchers do with the millions of acres they own in the west and pay taxes on if you want to end their ability to raise sheep and cattle? Who is going to pay all of thsoe NFS and FWS people to provide your trailheads, hiking trails, clean up trash etc? By the way how many bears do you suppose have become habituated to human food from undigested food in the human waste left along the trails???????
User fees by themselves do not nor have they ever paid the full cost of the service they provide. Something about being in your anti-enviro fishbowl keeps you from seeing that , maybe the curve of the glass or something. Or let me put it another way , MY taxes also pay your way when Todd Fross, Five Nine Outfitting of Lander Wyoming rides up into the Wind Rivers with his remuda of dude and hunting horses to eat from the public's smorgasbord, that fine meadow grass we so graciously fund through the Forest Service. It's me paying the BLM to grade the gravel road out to where you stalk Pronghorn FOR PROFIT.
When ranchers grazing stock on public land pay that whopping $ 1.35 per AUM for public grass and water, we the public are paying them the other $ 5-10 deficit actually costs the government to allow them that privilege. Virtually every grazing allotment that isn't an unfenced semi-arid parched desert plot loses money. The same s true for logging sales. Hunting camps, if the Forest Service were of a mind to actually regulate and do visits , would never offset their own frontloaded agency expense with the fees charged.
However many millions you think ranchers pay for their public graze, it is not enough. The enviros ( and everyone else) are helping pay the difference.
By the way , do you realize that it costs the USDA over $ 1000 per coyote taken by Wildlife Services? When it comes to wolves, that cost multiplies. Who do you think is paying for all that predator control that George describes ? Hint: not just the ranchers themselves, who by the way are the great Socialists of our time, getting so much government assistance for so little fee... Such a deal.
"User fees by themselves do not nor have they ever paid the full cost of the service they provide."
Exactly my point Dewey, so why do you insist that ranchers "user fees" cover all expenses for everyone to use the forests? You do realize the ranchers also pay taxes do you not? The only freeloaders as far as taxes are concerned are the environmental groups.
As for the predator control fees for wolves, I thought that was why certain folks wanted them flown and trucked into human inhabited country, they wanted to trade taxpayer dollars to get wolves to damage ranchers? Now maybe you guys thought there was a way to force the ranchers to pay all of the costs of the wolves for you, but the whole thing is so expensive that everyone is paying money we don't have and have to borrow from other countries to manage them.
You might want to get off your chair and drive up toward Meeteese & check out the wildlife grazing in privately owned pastures. You can also go toward, Greybull, Powell, South Fork, etc and see the same thing.
Can you explain to me how that is costing the taxpayers money? I think it is caring for wildlife at the rancher's own expense.
Don't you know that those private agriculture properties are assessed and taxed at a pittance compared to real property , commercial, and residential. ? An acre of pasture is assessed maybe $ 20 , and that same acre when it has a house built on it is assessed at $ 200,000. C'mon Todd...it isn't me who need his eyes opened and brain de-constipated. Not at all.
Ranchers simply need to pay more than they do for what they recieve in public dole when they move their stock onto the public's graze. QED.
just another " i don't really know what i am talking about but here is my opinion anyway" article.
if any of the folks hollering about grazing fees being to low had any experience it the agricultural field or were forced to raise livestock for a couple years then they would have a whole new tune to whistle. but as it stands now it is far easier to stand on the sidelines and make a bunch of noise about something they have no idea about, simply to hear themselves make noise.
You seem to be the only writer/reporter in the West that has the courage to write anything negative about the livestock industry.
If it weren't for you and Western Watershed Project, the average tax payer that subsidizes ranching wouldn't have a clue to what extent they're being ripped off. It will change...keep writing about it..
Removing the 1000 lb crap spewing machines from public lands will go a long way toward restoring our streams, riparian areas and grasslands, fish and wildlife.
I can tell you that there are a few ranchers that would actually support cutting off subsidies (course they don't admit it publicly) so that they efficient producers would survive and those that aren't have to do what every other failed business model does in this world....find a new way to make a living.
Time to reintroduce bison throughout the West...they are a native species, easier on the environment and their meat is healthier for the consumer.
So don't be casting aspersions and making presumptions about people you DO NOT PERSONALLY KNOW. You are really bad about that. Almost slanderous. The only defense against slander is truth , and you ain;t got any....
*
Again, Todd, NOBODY uses public land for free. We all pay for it. It is owned and paid for by the public in some way shape or form. You just can't get that or a thousand other things thru your thick cowboy hat, can you ? It is neither free land nor free use. Get real. Get educated.
Dewey, you are not referring to the book "Brand of a Legend" are you? It looks like you might be credited with copy, illustrative and photo work.
The truth hurts bub.
As consumers have come to expect cheap meat and the packing industry have locked in monopolies, profit margins for ranches have got thinner and thinner. When it takes acres to support one AUM, there is a lot of ground to cover in order to have a herd that can support a steady income. Each cow, lamb, or goat becomes more and more valuable, given that the markets have changed and ranching has become a business of pure volume. More ground to cover means you can't just ride out in the evening and round em up to take them back to the pens. Sometimes they have to be out on range, its a fact of food production. If you don't like it, vote with your dollars by supporting sustainably produced meats. It would be great to be able to raise less stock, work less land, and make ends meet. How many of you have ever got active on livestock marketing reform when it comes up every 5 years in the farm bill? Want to do something to help wolves? Start there.
I also take issue with the Georges claim that all ranchers do is kick back and watch the stock grow. Federal predator control? yeah, right. When it comes to defending a herd from predator, the responsibility comes to the rancher and I don't care what federal programs exist. I have never had help from the feds killing coyotes that were killing my animals, nor the stray dogs that folks feel fine about dumping in the country. Who is it that is most active in controlling noxious weeds? Who is it that ensures prairie grasses, adapted for thousands of years to be grazed, continue to be?
The same ranchers you all deride are the ones who are keeping millions of acres from sub development, fighting fossil fuel development, and for the most part, stewarding our wild lands for future generations. You all paint with a pretty broad brush here, and its damn offensive to those of us who bend over backwards to accommodate all kinds of wildlife, including predators, and do our best to reduce conflicts. I would challenge many of the commentators here to raise a couple animals, keep em alive through a winter, and then deal with waking one morning to your animals dead or fatally maimed, it might give you some perspective on why this can be such a touchy issue to some of us, especially those who work hard to prevent it.
Ultimately, this article and many of the comments demonstrate the profound disconnect most Americans have regarding where their food comes from and how it is raised. I would hope that all of you folks deriding ranchers are either buying your meat from a rancher directly or eating veggies, because you are actually the problem if you are not.
Support ranches that do the right thing (look around and get over yourselves, there are a lot of us). Dewey. I would be happy to pass those increased costs of production you suggest right on to you. If your willing to pay for them, then by all means lets change. You will pay for it in your taxes for the school lunch program, you'll pay for it at the grocery store. Oh, and of course, we would need to reform international trade to give preference for American produced meats, as you can bet your bottom dollar that Australia, China, and Brazil are not going to follow suite. Do that, and I'm game. If not, then you need to be working out some new solutions. And don't assume all ranchers and farmers are right wingers either, Dewy, just for future reference. You'd be surprised.
the struggle to make a living in the livestock game is and always has been a make or break game at best. and holding the pitchfork dude ranch up as a "see i been there and done it" hardly a recommendation for approval.
Until you have say 15,000 acres of your own and 14,000 of state lease, plus all the cows and calves you can manage, for 45 years of both good and bad economic times, then yes, i will say you have no experience in the livestock game. simply being in charge of the guide service is not ranching and to assert that such is slander is incorrect. Any young man that grew up in the area that had an interest in the outdoors was quite likely to be found running around on a ranch in wyoming, that hardly qualifys as ranching experience either.
Until it's your cows you are losing sleep over then you are looking from the outside in.
As for the "subsidy" -- that's a canard. If it weren't for the endless analysis mandated by, oh, gee, the threat of litigation from WWP et al ad nauseam, grazing administrative costs could be well-covered. The limit was put on by a Congress concerned that permittees would be absolutely slaughtered by the cost-transfer of subsidized analysis.
As for recreation, it's free to users, and the taxes paid are insignificant compared to the overall tax burden. There are zillions of Noo Yawkers who have never recreated on public lands and don't even know such lands exist....never mind they would not know what to do upon arrival.
I'd like to float the balloon that maybe the era of federal lands is approaching an end. There's a growing general sense outside the Left that perhaps federal institutions need to be adjusted, brought to core functions, and that may well include federal lands. Perhaps the future is that the lands will remain public (a good thing) but the administrative functions will be taken over by local or state governments where appropriate.
The idea of consent of the governed still applies, or should. Much of these lands were formally federalized in order to prevent capture by a small minority who wanted to extract the benefits for themselves. And if you think about it, the same deal, of a small minority trying to capture a select benefit at the expense of everyone else, still applies.
But when you look at Indian reservations, for example, the fact remains that the rezzes are run by Indians for their benefit, and by gosh, of late it sure seems to have balanced out better than the current regime on federal lands.
Just say no to beef. Don't eat it. If you want red meat eat bison instead, and support bison ranchers who really care about sustainable ranching and are able to co-exist with predators. Cattle are a non-native specie which have devasted public and private lands; especially raparian areas. Take a hike by any stream where there are cattle and check out the damage.
Skinner: the subsidy for public lands ranchers is not a canard. It's $1.35 a month per cow/calf that makes public land allotments so desirable for grazing private cows, versus about ten times that much in the "free market" conservatives have so much faith in. So what part of the free market exactly do you have a problem with? Why is it that Montana livestock producers are not able to compete with Iowa or Wisconsin producers without federally subsidized forage?
I would dearly love to have the same tax breaks and subsidy support in my business that cattlemen enjoy in theirs. We continue to prop up a questionable enterprise because of its heritage, not its productivity and contribution to Gross State Product, which is a pittance.
Cattle ranching is a failed economic model in Wyoming. My beloved Pitchfork Ranch got by on its oil wells and investments, not cows and quarter horses. It went broke twice. The last time, it broke apart. over family issues and spun of several of its smaller ranches. The last good money years for raising cattle at the Pitchfork were in the 1930's.
One other thing: I've worked on several ranches in my 60 years on Earth , all of it living in northwest Wyoming. Been working rancher issues as public policy for 30 years. Please quit libelling and slandering me with your presumptions otherwise, on this or any other topic. When you quit telling lies about me, I'll maybe quit telling the truth about you'all.
"Public land grazers (millionaires and billionaires with trophy ranches) in the Dubois area of Wyoming just to the east of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks refuse to delay "turning out" their herds on to graze on public lands until June."
(most of us are familiar with the ranching style of the "elite" ranches from that area. The owners that fly in to visit their retreat two weeks out of the year as a rule have very little to do with the operation of the ranch per say and the constitute perhaps less than 1% of the ranching in the state. the decision to keep their livestock in their privately owned property is usually left to the ranch manager who is usually someone familiar with the area.
remember not every ( almost none) ranch in the state is owned by "millionaires and billionaires" and most need the lower elevation privately owned ground for winter range and for raising feed. As is common practice today most calves are born in mid march and have had their legs under them for over a month before they are put out to pasture on government land. of coarse each year varies by weather conditions but the locals pretty well know when the bears head for the hills and when it is safe to put them out.
to just assume they are sticking their cow and calf pairs out regardless of whether their are bear in the area shows how little one understands ranching and ranchers.
The grizzly is not considered an endangered species but is classed as "Vulnerable" and only classed this way because of legal maneuvers by environmentalist wishing to expand their range. The grizzly bear is in some trouble, but currently in no immediate danger. The grizzly is a race of the brown bear, which is listed as a species of least concern.)
Wolves and livestock in the French Alps are not anything near the same as the wolves and livestock in the Rockies,just as the Alps,and the Rockies are two different mountain ranges,with two different ecosystems.
That study has absoluely no bearing on the wolf predation issues in the US.
To all the radical enviros...
Those of us who hunt pay far morw for wildlife,and land conservation than all of the enviro groups and their never ending stream of lawsuits does.
We pay through hunting licenses,tags,and permits,federal waterfowl,or duck stamps,and the extra 11% tax we pay on firearms and ammunition,all the groups started by hunters do more good than the enviro sue everyone groups too,groups founded by hunters like- Pheasants Forever,Ducks Unlimited,Safari Club International,Quail Unlimited,Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society,
Whitetails Unlimited,Mule Deer Founation,National Wild Turkey Federation,National Archery Association,Foundation For North American Wild Sheep,Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation,and many more.
The BLM lands have been used by ranchers for hundreds of years because that was the intent of the BLM lands,just because now,a few radical environmental groups say cattle damage the land,and ruin riparian habitat,which happened long before there any ranchers......What effect do you think a few million bison had on the riparian habitat?,or the spread of weeds?,or the condition of the grasses? Do you think the bison waited until June to eat the grasses?
Just more radical enviro,and save the wolves BS being pushed.
More anti-hunting BS.
Elk,and cattle do not graze at the same elevations,at the same times of the year. (unless pushed out by predation)
"zbiker---if the Wyoming cattleman had to make it on his own without state and federal government assistance and huge tax breaks , he could not."
( actually many do make it without assistance. But over all mike covered this very well in his post. The largest problem facing the american cattle rancher faces is cheap import beef (hence why ranchers receive subsidies they don't really want) and the fact they have little control over the market. folks are so used to buying dirt Canadian, Australian,etc beef to keep the trade imbalance alive. i have talked with other age producers and they are facing the same dilemma. even the honey producers in the state are being hurt by these government practices. the only crop that seem immune is Alfalfa seed and to some extent sugar beets. this is partly due to the fact that the produces here control the manufacturing plant as well as the crop. an advantage the american rancher does not have, if it were truly an open market no subsidies would be needed.
Woodmans rant in the above post is another example of how little is understood about ranching from the public at large. He imagines all cattle as being shot full of hormones and getting mad cow disease from the forage that is available growing on the hills in Wyoming and Montana. He somehow in his mind equates the feed pens in Iowa and Wisconsin to the open free range grazing that takes place from Texas to Canada.
I would ask everyone to re read mikes post above, draw from it as it pretty well lays out and dispels the myth that ranchers WANT government subsidies. and if given a fair shake at a level market playing field ranchers would do just fine thank you very much.
Every taxpayer in the country pays for federal land, thsoe of us who own property in an area with a lot of public land usually have to pay higher property tax to make up for the lack of taxes off of government land, they pay PILT, if and how much they think they can afford.
Since we all pay taxes to support government land please explain how come environmentalists have decided they are the only ones entitled to use the land and no one else should be allowed without their specific approval, and one who does is a "greedy welfare...."
BGH,and most other hormones are not used any more in cattle.
There is ZERO correlation between steroids and "Mad Cow" disease.
Alzhiemers has nothing to do with steroids either...most of the older people with the diseaes did not consume a lot of meat bought from the big cattle producing "factories",they grew up on grass,and grain fed beef.
The people at the "fast food stalls"who are as big as cows-are that way due to poor diet,and a lack of exercise.
Even more enviro-drivel.
Because only certain people with ranches to support the cattle during the winter are allowed to graze on public land, all ranchers are at least sufficiently well off to own thousands of acres-which in Wyoming, makes them at least millionaires. Even those who ranch fulltime (and there are few of those - over 70% have off-ranch income) receive extensive government benefits, even while bemoaning federal government overreach.
mtn hunter, zbiker and todd and all the other radical ranchers who want govt. subsidies to pursure their ludicrous ranching on arid public lands are a bunch of crying deniers.
We don't need you on those western upblic lans destroying them when soo much of the rest of this country is already dedicated to cattle.
Spare me the endless well hunters pay for conservation dribble when that's not even the topic.
Welfare rnaching, subsidized ranching etc. is finially on the outs.
Good riddance, and mtn hunter your thew radical you dumb bigot.
"BLM charges about one-quarter what the State of Wyoming chages for grazing "
(the grazing lease costs are based on how many animals can be fed on a specific plot of land.and is set by the the Lands and Investment
the Lands and Investment website:( http://slf-web.state.wy.us/ ) I think you will find that some areas are actually less than what the blm charges while others are more.
The misnomer that all ranchers are millionaires by the fact they have thousands of acres as holdings is misleading as well. MOST in the state are family owned affairs, no single person holds title to the whole works and as a percentage of the ranch holdings are usually mortgaged to the hilt. the family usually inherited the ranch and if they are lucky enough to have BLM or state land close by or as their neighbor then they will lease it. I am unsure what part of the state your in Kristen but i can assure you private lease ground in Campbell, Johnson, Sheridan or carbon county is not bringing the type of money you are claiming. never has , never will. in fact it is right on par with what the state charges for a school section. Kritstin, have you ever been a rancher ??
Gee I wonder how they fell about wilderness, roadless lands, timber harvest, politics etc.
it's soo hard to figure these folks out.
Ohh yeah they're just right wing bigoted nut balls with wayyyyyy tooo much free time on their hands.
The proof is in the pudding, you compalin about enviros lawsuits, yet you can't admit that govt. subsidized ranching is worng, immoral, criminal etc.
Admit it or continue to be the obcessive hypocritical fools.
The ranchers had to pay tax money to import the wolves from Canada the same as everyone else. No one is asking that you pay their expenses, just don't make them pay for your entertainment. You do realize that ranchers are American and are entitled to use land that is owned by ALL of us don't you? The difference between them and recreationalists is that they also pay above and beyond their taxes for the privilege.
Always find it interesting that the folks who constantly exhort "family values" and the right to life are many times the first ones to go out and "kill the varmint".....hypocrisy run amuck as it relates to us human animals and our holier than thou proclamations.
I will come out and say that in our modern 300 million plus human USA, having Ranches exist is a good thing versus them going away and Ranchettes and Western Suburbia popping up all over our wild ground. I believe that our tax structure should be made over so that Ranchers are given tax breaks to "keep their livestock" penned and watched over and incentives provided for keeping the West (and East) wild with our native fauna. Incentives to actually rewild our Ranches.........get the Cowboys and Ranch owners thinking profit in them "critters".
I do not want the Ranchers out...........I want a new way of thinking about their objectives of profit making and I want them to acquire a new way of thinking about watching over their piece of Wild America and fervently protecting and restocking thier Ranches with the full suite of wild creatures that existed in America cira 1500.
Right on George for all of your creative and insightful writings!!
I do agree wolves were retuning on their own, but that was not fast enough or dense enough for environmentalists. Nor did it give them the control over other folks lives they desired.
Take a look at what is left fo the wildlife in Yellowstone and tell us it is good. Now it appears even the griz are not able to compete well. All of this damage to make a relative handful of people feel important has cost the American taxpayer millions.
You may think you want to eat meat from penned up animals, but not everyone agrees with you.
Rick! Love that thought process, we'd save millions in predator control and at the same time encourage those that want to really continue to ranch "like daddy or granddaddy did" and, offer incentives, other than destroying anything that gets in the way of their lifestyle.
This article contains a lot of the information obtained on the amount of money they are raking in.
http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/summer-10/su10-range-green_scam.pdf
http://magazine.uchicago.edu/1002/features/marvel.shtml
I will post some photos of moose and cattle in the same meadows, both fat and the meadows still lush.
It's not from any environmental group or wildlife advocacy outfit. It is from the Cato Institute, a VERY right wing free market free enterprise smaller government think tank. It was written in 1995 to criticize Bruce Babbit's planned reforms of grazing, basically for not raising fees enough. But don't take my word for it:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-234.html
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3899062
here is another interesting article
http://www.cnrhome.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=74842#Clark53:97
"quote"
Results: Greater crude protein levels were recorded for bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, and elk sedge in grazed plots than ungrazed plots. In vitro dry matter digestibility increased in bluebunch wheatgrass but not in Idaho fescue or elk sedge in grazed plots relative to ungrazed plots. Standing biomass of elk sedge, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Idaho fescue were not affected by light, late-spring, livestock grazing. Bluebunch wheatgrass produced greater standing crop and more reproductive culms when growing in the openings than under the tree canopy. Conversely, suspected less intense solar radiation and competition from bunchgrasses under the tree canopy provided better growing conditions for elk sedge.
Implications: Sheep, not cattle, were used to measure the response of these forages to late spring grazing. The effects of late spring grazing by sheep may not be identical to those of cattle. The information presented here still provides valuable insight, however, into the quality response of certain plants to late spring grazing; similar effects would be expected for cattle. This study also reveals that the numbers of standing reproductive culms may be reduced in bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue under moderate levels of late spring grazing, thus, increasing their palatability to grazing herbivores including elk. Moderate grazing increased the crude protein content of Idaho fescue and the digestibility of bluebunch wheatgrass. The authors point out that livestock grazing, as a tool to improve the forage resource, may be applied at very low cost and should be flexible to adjust for annual weather variations. This prescriptive grazing tool could reduce the amount of winter dry feed costs incurred by livestock producers and increase the quality of forage for wintering elk.
put one of these fellas afoot out in the wild with nothing but a fully stocked backpack and he would not last a week. they live comfortable lives walking the ivy covered walls of Washington and in truth base their conclusions on hearsay or or field research papers that sometimes have an agenda behind them.
do a little research on their findings on global research, their initial papers were WAYYYYYY out there. They later " rethought the issue" and made some changes.
I am not saying that they have no good ideas, just keep in mind they in most cases they have never been up close and personal to their subject matter.
here is some of Karl hess jr's thoughts, just because someone says they are republican, does not mean they are not an enviro.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/closing-the-green-gap-of-market-liberalism/
another thing to keep in mind is, the cato institute produces these reports for a paycheck. If it were not for that Doug Bandow who is considered a "senior fellow" would never have been allowed to join the ranks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Bandow
makes for some interesting reading. right wing or not.
Public Lands Ranching:
Taxpayer Subsidized Habitat Destruction
by Mike Hudak, author of
Western Turf Wars: The Politics of Public Lands Ranching
In the eleven western states approximately 254 million acres of federal public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are grazed by domestic livestock—an area more than eighty-one times that of Connecticut. Grazing also occurs on many wildlife refuges, and units of the National Park Service, among them Grand Teton National Park (WY) and Great Basin National Park (NV). These federal lands encompass a wide diversity of ecosystem types including creosote bush deserts, blackbrush deserts, slickrock mesas, sagebrush flats, pinyon-juniper woodlands, chaparral, ponderosa pine forests, and alpine meadows above timberline. Unlike Midwest prairies, these are areas which, during the past 10,000 years or so, have not been subject to intense grazing pressure from large herds of large ungulates. Hence the grasses in these regions have not evolved mechanisms (such as asexual means of reproduction) to protect themselves from such grazing.
Consequently, livestock grazing in the arid West is a major cause of species endangerment. Among 1,207 plant and animal species listed as endangered, threatened or proposed for listing, 11% are impacted by mining, 12% by logging and 22% by livestock grazing (Wilcove et al. 1998). Here are a few example impacts drawn from the survey paper by Tom Fleischner (1994):
• In a sagebrush desert of Idaho, a grazed site had one-third of the plant species richness of an ungrazed site.
• In a riparian area of Oregon, plant species richness increased from seventeen to forty-five species nine years after removal of livestock.
• Among songbirds, raptors and small mammals there was a 350% increase in use and diversity after eight years rest from grazing in Rich County, Utah.
• In southeastern Oregon, abundance of the Yellow Warbler increased by eight times when grazing intensity was reduced by 75%.
Livestock, of course, typically impact wildlife through alteration of habitat. Although such alterations take different forms in different ecosystems, there are few as surprising as this one summarized in the above-mentioned article by Fleischner: In central Washington, grazing was responsible for changing the physical structure of ponderosa pine forest from an open, park-like overstory with dense grass cover to a community characterized by dense pine reproduction and lack of grasses. Similar forest conversions have been documented elsewhere in the West, and indicate that even if poor logging practices such as high-grading and clearcutting are eliminated from our forests, livestock grazing alone will lead to a decline in forest health and an increase in catastrophic fires.
Can Better Livestock Management Correct These Problems?
Some proponents of the livestock industry (e.g., Knize 1999) have claimed that environmental degradation resulted from long-abandoned grazing practices that have now been replaced by "ecologically sensitive" methods that actually benefit native plants and wildlife. (See Savory (1988) for details.) Sadly, despite anecdotal reports of great environmental improvement with these methods, they have not stood up well to scientific scrutiny.
For example, Pieper and Heitschmidt (1988: 135) confront the fundamental claims of Allan Savory by examining a major component of his grazing management system. His claims being “… that dramatic improvements in range condition would occur following proper implementation of a short-duration grazing system … and … that both rate of improvement and individual animal performance would be enhanced as stocking rate increased.” Since the time of Savory’s claims “… a considerable number of scientific studies have been completed that specifically address the effects of short-duration grazing on above-ground forage dynamics, hydrologic integrity, and livestock performance. … In general, these studies do not support the claims that prompted the research.”
Economic Benefits from Grazing Livestock on Federal Lands?
In the 11 western states, ranching on federal public lands provides less than 18,000 jobs (0.06% of total jobs) and 0.04% of the income (Power 1996: Table 8-2). Only about 22% of ranchers in these states even hold federal grazing permits (BLM and USDA 1994: 3-65). On a national basis, these ranchers represent only 2% of America’s 1.1 million cattle operators, producing only 3.8% of the nation’s beef cattle, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Rogers and LaFleur 1999).
Why Should Non-Westerners Care What Occurs on Western Public Lands?
Aside from the extensive damage caused by livestock to western ecosystems—loss of clean water, increased soil erosion, decline of forest health, loss of native plants and decreases in wildlife populations—our federal taxes subsidize the very presence of livestock on these lands. A recent investigation by reporters from the San Jose Mercury News revealed that the U.S. Forest Service and BLM together spent $94 million more on their grazing programs in 1998 than they collected in fees from ranchers (Rogers and LaFleur 1999).
Other investigators claim the subsidies are even greater. Regarding just the western lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Nelson (1996: 4) placed the annual cost of the grazing program at $200 million, although ranchers paid only $20 million through their grazing permits. He also reported that the annual value of the forage coming from these lands was approximately $65.3 million—a good deal for the ranchers, but an economic disaster for taxpayers, who are paying almost three times more than the product is worth.
Hess and Wald (1995), considering both direct and indirect governmental subsidies to the western livestock industry, estimate their cost at $500 million annually.
An End to Public Lands Ranching?
Many people believe that it is time to begin looking at legislative solutions that will phase out livestock grazing on federal public lands. The environmental impacts and taxpayer subsidies are simply not justified by the meager economic benefits, nor by the value to the nation of the beef coming from these lands.
Where to Learn More
In the past few years several survey articles have been written about the environmental impacts of livestock grazing on western ecosystems. These summaries are excellent resources for anyone wanting to better understand these issues, but who do not wish to read hundreds of research papers. Here are three of my favorites:
• A. Joy Belsky and Dana M. Blumenthal. 1997 (April). Effects of Livestock Grazing on Stand Dynamics and Soils in Upland Forests of the Interior West. Conservation Biology, 11(2): 315–27.
• A. J. Belsky, A. Matzke and S. Uselman. 1999 (first quarter). Survey of Livestock Influences on Stream and Riparian Ecosystems in the Western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 54(1): 419–31.
• Thomas L. Fleischner. 1994 (September). Ecological Costs of Livestock Grazing in Western North America. Conservation Biology, 8(3): 629–44.
Readers with access to the Internet can find a wealth of information about public lands ranching on the RangeBiome website. In addition to essays and archived news articles, the website provides links to dozens of livestock-related websites throughout the U.S.
References
Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 1994. Rangeland Reform ’94: Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Fleischner, Thomas L. 1994 (September). Ecological Costs of Livestock Grazing in Western North America. Conservation Biology, 8(3): 629–44.
Hess Jr., Karl and Johanna H. Wald. 1995 (2 October). Grazing Reform: Here’s the Answer. High Country News, 27(18).
Knize, Perri. 1999 (July). Winning the War for the West. The Atlantic Monthly, 284(1): 54–58, 60–62.
Nelson, Robert H. 1996. How to Reform Grazing Policy: Creating Forage Rights on Federal Rangelands. Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Pieper, R. D. and R. K. Heitschmidt. 1988 (March/April). Is Short-Duration Grazing the Answer? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 43(2): 133–37.
Power, Thomas Michael. 1996. Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies: The Search for a Value of Place. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Rogers, Paul and Jennifer LaFleur. 1999 (6 November). Cash Cows. San Jose Mercury News.
Savory, A. 1988. Holistic Resource Management. Washington: Island Press.
Wilcove, David S., David Rothstein, Jason Dubow, Ali Phillips, and Elizabeth Losos. 1998 (August). Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the United States. BioScience, 48(8): 607–15.
OPEN-RANGE CATTLE GRAZING
Fox Creek Farm is surrounded on three sides by Daybreak Ranch, a large cattle ranch, and by U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) public land. The grazing rights on the BLM land are leased to Daybreak Ranch.
The upper two miles of the Fox Creek property was unfenced prior to 2003. In eastern Oregon, we have an open-range law, which means that cattle ranchers (and BLM) do not normally provide fencing to protect adjacent private land. As a result, tresspass cattle often entered the Fox Creek riparian zone for water and forage. Despite good cooperation from the Daybreak Ranch manager to push the cattle out of the canyon when asked, the presence of cattle resulted in significantly deteriorated water quality and the destruction of riparian habitat. (BLM's own assessment of the Fox Creek watershed above our property is "FARD - Functioning at Risk, with a Downward Trend.")
This problem is not unique to Fox Creek. But we were able to patrol the property and call the ranch for help when we found cattle, so the damage to Fox Creek, though significant, was far less than in surrounding creeks, where erosion is severe.
Our goal is to be a good neighbor to all those who may wish to learn from, and/or utilize, Fox Creek resources and the lessons we are learning here. This includes naturalists, researchers, students, farmers, rancher, hikers, hunters, fishermen, other visitors, and the public at large. We want to join in collaborative arrangements with all interested parties to develop an environment that can sustain itself for future generations.
In general, we believe that even in this fragile, high-desert environment, controlled grazing can complement programs to restore and preserve land, with particular reference to reducing the danger of range fire and to controlling weeds. However, we did not know how to accomplish this without fencing.
We applied for and received grant money to provide fencing to protect the creek and to restore the riparian planting. We collaborated with the adjoinging Daybreak Ranch and BLM, plus other agencies to derive a fencing and restoration plan that meets everyone's needs. A description of the restoration project may be found here. If all goes well, the protection and enhancement of Fox Creek should be greatly improved. Progress photos may be found here.
Cattle grazing on public land is an issue that involves and affects many people. It is quite gratifying to see that answers exist to long-standing problems.
Here are some resources for additional background information on the issues of open-range grazing and grazing on public land:
The Oregon Cattlemen's Association policies on public lands.
The Public Policy Center of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
An article by the Christian Science Monitor: "Bidding wars escalate over ranch land."
An organization that is advocating legislation to pay grazing permittees/lessees $175 per animal unit month to voluntarily retire their permit or lease and end grazing on public land.
Fox Creek Farm
34811 Snake River Rd.
Huntington, OR 97907
541-893-3911
On the Web: FoxCreek.7GLT.org
Livestock have done more damage to the Earth than the chainsaw and bulldozer combined.
Not only
have livestock been around longer than developers, miners, and loggers, but they have grazed nearly
everywhere. On mostly arid public lands, hundreds of thousands of non-native livestock (including cattle,
sheep, goats and horses) trample vegetation, damage soil, spread invasive weeds, pollute water, steal
forage from native wildlife, and even contribute to global warming.
Livestock grazing in riparian (streamside) areas—especially in the arid American West—causes
immeasurable damage to riparian resources, including the loss of fish and wildlife habitat, soil erosion,
and diminished water quality and quantity.
Public lands livestock grazing occurs not only on the "tree-free" landscapes in the American West, but
also in many forested areas. In addition to the proliferation of roads, the scourge of logging and the
exclusion of fire, livestock grazing plays a major role in creating unhealthy forests.
Grazing Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species
Threatened and endangered plant and animal species inhabiting federal rangelands and imperiled by
livestock grazing: more than 175.1
Rank of livestock grazing as a cause of species endangerment in
…southern Arizona and western New Mexico No. 1
…southern Nevada and central Arizona No. 3
…California No. 4
…northern Arizona, southern Utah and southern Colorado No. 5 2
In the United States, grazing has contributed to the demise of 22 percent of federal threatened and
endangered species—nearly equal to logging (12 percent) and mining (11 percent) combined.3
Livestock grazing is especially harmful to plant species, affecting 33 percent of endangered plants.4
1 USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform ’94 Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDIBLM.
Washington, DC: 26. See also B. Czech, P. R. Krausman, P.K. Devers. 2000. Economic associations among
causes of species endangerment in the United States. BioSci. 50(7): 594 (table 1) (reporting that authors’ analysis of
several studies suggests that 182 species are endangered by livestock grazing) and USDA-NRCS. 1997. America’s
private land: a geography of hope. Program Aid 1548. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service: 154 (stating
that grazing is a contributing factor in the decline of 26 percent or 161 species on the federal threatened and
endangered list). While these statistics are remarkable by themselves, the reported number of threatened and
endangered species affected by grazing would be much higher if livestock production was considered on the whole
as opposed to mere grazing. American livestock production is a pervasive industry that requires millions of acres of
open range (public lands) and/or private pastures, feedlots, and related infrastructure and support facilities to feed,
water, graze, transport, shelter, butcher, and market livestock. The ecological footprint of this industry is huge. Entire
ecosystems and uncountable species are threatened because millions of acres of habitat are converted to monocultural
crops of corn, barley, and other livestock food; large-scale agriculture and feedlots deplete aquifers and spoil
water quality; rivers are damned and diverted (at public expense) to irrigate forage crops and support ranches in
desert environments.
2 Flather, C. H. and L. A. Joyce. 1994. Species endangerment patterns in the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-
241. USDA-Forest Service. Fort Collins, CO: 24 (table 9).
3 Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J Dubow, A Phillips, E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the
United States: assessing the relative importance of habitat destruction, alien species, pollution, overexploitation and
disease. BioScience 48(8): 610.
Sensitive Focal Species Harmed by Livestock Grazing5
• Greater sage-grouse
• Gunnison sage-grouse
• Pronghorn (especially Sonoran subspecies)
• Bighorn sheep (California subspecies and Rocky Mountain subspecies)
• Black-footed ferret
• Wolf
• Grizzly bear
• Yellow-billed cuckoo
• Prairie dog (black-tailed, Gunnison’s, Utah, white-tailed)
• Mexican spotted Owl
• Lesser prairie chicken
• Aplomado falcon
• Steelhead, salmon, bull trout
• Loach minnow
• Spikedace
• Chiricahua leopard frog
Livestock Competition
Mike you hit the nail on the head when you suggest that cheap grazing fees, predator control, etc. helps to maintain lower prices for beef for the consumer. That's the problem. Neither the rancher, and thus by extension, the people consuming meat are paying the real cost. Every pound of burger costs way more than the price on the package in the store. It costs us dead wolves, dewatered rivers, trampled streambanks, compacted soils, the spread of weeds, and so forth.
None of these costs are internalized, thus consumers are not paying the real cost of the product--just as people whose electricity comes from coal fired power plants are not paying the real cost of electricity which should include whatever it costs to reduce and eliminate air pollution, acid rain, and so forth.
hey, are you still the executive v.p. of general sales at warner brothers out their in burbank california ??
You mentioned sage chickens, I count for F&G;, and I have never seen a cow chase one, I do see where coyotes, foxes, badgers, hawks, eagles have all killed the birds. I have seen wild horses trample nests so I have to admit domestic horses might also if their is a nest in their pasture.
There were lots of flies, fleas, bedbugs, and other assorted creatures in those early days, how many have you allowed to recolonize in your home? Surely you do not hink that it is up to ranchers to do all of the saving do you? Tell us exactly what species you have provided with a home so we have an example to follow.
http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/defendersofwildlife.html
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=0269a868-802a-23ad-46c9-95deeefa13d6
"It appears Defenders of Wildlife’s purpose is political campaigning. From looking at the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund IRS Form 990’s and their publicly available information on their website, it is not clear that they spend any of the money they raise on behalf of wolves actually helping wolf populations."
While not blessed with the resources to be a Ranch owner(or to inherit such property).............in each of the three properties that I have owned over the last 25 years, have mimicked the natural habitat of the region(Eastern Woodland-NY/NJ) and (Chapparal-California). Native flora exclusively(Oak/Hickory Association in the East) and Oak/Toyon in the West).
As you know, this tends to encourage critters, insects, birds and reptiles of all types to take up residence. Fun to have a coyote family take up residence in my woodland garden in the Hudson Highlands as well as having Deer, foxes and all the small animals still found East of the Mississippi. A smaller property in California has seen coyotes, lizards and Owls..............I do what I can.............certainly not having the exterminator come in when some ants are found or putting out poison to kill the mice(and by extension the coyotes...............So quite frankly, I walk the walk quite nicely.............and should the $$ be earned down the road, will have that Farm in Vermont where Bear, Coyote, Fox, fisher and the like will have fee reign. Hope you are up to the task in the same fashion.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3899062
Okay, read that article ZB althought it was grainey at best, but this kind of jumped out at me:
Abstract
Nine transects, in areas with different histories of cattle grazing, were established along the Blitzen River in Oregon. Counts of birds and measurements of vegetation were made in the summers of 1981 and 1982. Increased frequency of grazing on an annual basis correlated significantly with decreases in bird abundance, shrub volume, and shrub heights. The longer the time since a transect was last grazed correlated significantly with increases in
bird abundance, shrub volume, and shrub heights. Bird abundance increased significantly with increased shrub volume and taller shrub heights. Bird species richness decreased with increased grazing. Bird counts were 5 to 7 times higher on an area ungrazed since 1940 than on 2 areas grazed annually until 1980, and 11 to 13 times higher than on a transect severely disturbed by extensive grazing and dredging activities. Disturbances from camper activities also appeared to reduce bird populations.
Hmmmm is right ZB............and thats just a tiny sample of wildlife (birds and shrubs) being effected by overgrazing on what's left of wildlife's real estate.
By the way I was disappointed to only see 2 bulls and 2 cow/calf pairs yesterday morning, I saw a total of 9 last week. I have seen 1 in the last 2 years in Yellowstone where there is perfect biologist/environmentalist management and no cattle grazing.
http://www.wunderground.com/wximage/viewsingleimage.html?mode=singleimage&handle=wymidwife&number=197&album_id=121&thumbstart=0&gallery;=#slideanchor
as we all know that any piece of ground can be trampled down to bare earth, but to assume simply because a piece of acreage is used for grazing or camping it immediate falls under the " overgrazed" or "overused" heading is a far leap from reality. somewhere in my records i have a nice piece written by both the blm and an environmental writer stating in 2008 that less than .02% of the federal holdings are or ever have been overgrazed. i will haft to post it tomorrow. In the mean time you might find this writing by Dr. Paterson, MSU Animal and Range Sciences professor very enlightening.
http://www.theprairiestar.com/articles/2010/05/08/ag_news/livestock/live21.txt
it shows just how devastated and overgrazed the land has become.
in fact i don't see how that poor starving moose will make the winter on that feed (note sever sarcasm)
Actually the grass is a bit short in the pic, if you get over above Sheridan on the slip it is a lot better
http://trib.com/lifestyles/recreation/article_d4102be7-4814-5a3d-bf04-a22104a6b4f0.html
Sheridan region
Antelope
Abundant herds with high numbers of animals make the hunting outlook very good here. In these hunt areas, hunters may buy a second any-antelope license and up to four doe/fawn licenses. But be aware that most antelope hunting is on private land, so make arrangements for a place to hunt before buying licenses.
Hunters willing to wait until after the season's first weekend may find it easier to get on private lands. While hunters can find antelope on public lands scattered throughout northeast Wyoming, they'll also find other hunters.
Mule deer
The mule deer herds look good, with good growth from a wet spring, but hunting should be average. If you have access to private land consider buying reduced price doe/fawn deer licenses since several thousand are available. There will likely be nice trophy bucks on private land, but hunting public land could be tough.
Elk
Hunters who drew a limited quota any-elk license for a hunt area in the Big Horn Mountains, the Rochelle Hills or the Fortification Creek could bring home trophies. For those who did not draw a license, there are still some leftover antlerless elk licenses available for Hunt Areas 36 and 37, though success tends to be lower.
Moose
Hunters with moose licenses for Hunt Areas 1 and 34 should have a 90 percent success rate and a chance for a nice, mature bull.
-- Warren Mischke, Sheridan regional information and education specialist
Casper region
Antelope
Extended licenses because of increased antelope populations will raise hunter numbers. But, with antelope and water sources well distributed and coming off a wet spring, success rates should be good.
Elk
Elk numbers still exceed population objectives and hunters will see more licenses and extended season dates. Hunters in Areas 7 and 19 should expect to see good bull numbers and quality.
Mule deer
Between chronic wasting disease in the Laramie Range, habitat destruction and heavy snow in April and May which reduced birth rates, many mule deer herds around Casper are struggling.
West of Casper in the Southern Big Horns and Rattlesnake mountains, herds seem to be doing better and hunters can expect to see some nice deer and good quality bucks.
Hunters in the Bates Hole/Muddy Mountain area can expect fewer bucks and shorter season dates.
-- Justin Binfet, Casper Regional wildlife biologist
Cody region
Antelope
Pronghorn hunting will be good with more licenses in Carter Mountain. There are doe/fawn licenses available in the southern Big Horn Basin to address private land damage.
Mule deer
Mild fall weather and fewer winter deaths means a few more older bucks will be available to hunters near the North and South Forks of the Shoshone River. Antlerless deer hunting opportunities will be good.
Opportunities to harvest mature buck deer in Areas 105 and 106 will be good in both the later portion of the general season and the November limited-quota season.
Numbers of older age class bucks in Area 109 are higher and due to agricultural damage, licenses for antlerless deer have been expanded in Area 121.
On the west slope of the Bighorn Mountains, private land doe/fawn license holders are encouraged to contact the local Game and Fish warden for information on where to hunt to help reduce crop damage.
Elk
The elk population on the west slope of the Big Horn Mountains is healthy and growing and both bull and cow hunting should be good.
The South Big Horn and Gooseberry elk herds are doing well with additional cow/calf licenses in all hunt areas. Access is these hunt areas can be difficult but the Upper Nowood and Deep Creek areas are available and may offer good hunting.
Elk near Cody is truly a mixed bag. In Areas 50, 51, 52 and 53, the opportunity to harvest bulls is less than in past years. Elk areas currently doing well include Areas 54, 56, 58, 59, 61, 65 and 66.
In Areas 50, 51, 52, 53, 55 and 121, seasons have been designed to either maintain or reduce the harvest of antlerless elk.
Bighorn sheep
Bighorn sheep hunting in the Absaroka Mountains will be excellent in 2010. There are good overall numbers of sheep in all areas, normal lamb production and survival, good ram/ewe ratios and improved body conditions.
Mountain goats
Mountain goats in Area 1 are doing well and hunter success is generally 90 to 100 percent. Game and Fish officials encourage hunters to kill male mountain goats since mountain goat populations are generally not very productive and experience relatively high natural mortality.
Moose
Moose numbers in the Absaroka Mountains have declined in the recent past due to the loss of cover and forage as a result of the 1988 wildfires, and predation. Still, in Areas 9 and 11, hunters will have average to high success on mature bulls.
-- Dennie Hammer, Cody information and education specialist
Green River Regional Office
Elk
Elk are doing exceptionally well in all of the herd units in southwest Wyoming and elk hunting will be fantastic.
Antelope
Hunters will have a good time with the western end of the Sublette Herd and the Carter Lease and Uinta herds. For those with permits, the south end of the Sublette herd will also be good.
People who draw tags for the Bitter Creek herd, south of Wamsutter, will see a lot of older age class large bucks, but the hunting could be tough.
Mule deer
The south end of the Wyoming Range mule deer herd will be good, along with the Baggs section. Mule deer are still growing a bit and there are some monster bucks.
-- Mark Zornes, Green River regional wildlife management coordinator
Laramie region
Antelope
Habitat has improved recently, and more land equals more food. The good spring doesn't replace 10 years of drought, but herds are better and have a higher reproductive rate.
Elk
These are the good old days for elk. Expect to have a good time.
Mule deer
The weather will play a big part in mule deer hunting this year. Be careful of dead trees falling in pine beetle kill areas. Bring a chain saw with you if you're driving down two-track roads.
The Laramie Mountains will have quality bucks.
-- Terry Creekmore, Laramie region wildlife management coordinator
Lander region
Antelope
Both the Beaver Rim and Red Desert herds should have a number of good trophy bucks and other herds in the Lander area are doing well.
Mule deer
The deer situation mimics the antelope. It should be a good fawn year and hunting for good sized bucks should be decent.
Elk
Wyomingites would be hard pressed to find a better time over the past 100 years to have elk conditions like this. It's really spectacular compared to historic numbers. The Wind Rivers south of the Absarokas contain the largest number of elk, but the Green Mountain and Ferris Mountain herds are doing fantastic and bull-to-cow ratios are excellent.
Bighorn sheep
Areas 9 and 10 contain the Whiskey Mountain herd and one of the largest wintering populations in North America. Ram quality is good, so hunting should be wonderful, but license numbers are still low.
Moose
Unfortunately, both the Dubois and Lander areas are below population objectives and hunting licenses were reduced to the lowest possible number without closing the season.
-- Tom Ryder, Lander regional wildlife management coordinator
Jackson region
Antelope
The northern subunit of the Sublette Antelope Herd in the Jackson area will have good hunter success. The Hoback area has seen an increase in antelope during the past three to four years. However, the majority of the hunting opportunities are on private lands in the Boundurant area.
Mule deer
A few more days of antlered-only deer hunting will be offered throughout the Wyoming Range deer herd and there should be some exceptional bucks.
Population of the Targhee deer herd is limited by winter range and habitat loss from agricultural and residential developments. For the 2010 season, any-deer hunting on a general license will be offered in September and antlered-only hunting through Oct. 10.
Elk
Because of several years of sustained population growth, liberal seasons are planned for the Fall Creek elk herd.
In Area 90, liberal seasons into November and increased limited quota cow or calf tags are again being proposed to address increasing elk numbers in the Upper Greys River.
The Jackson Herd should be reduced by 600 animals and resident and migratory elk from Yellowstone National Park, the Teton Wilderness and the Gros Ventre drainage are at or below objective.
Conservative hunting seasons are proposed for Areas 70, 71, 79 and 81-83. On the other hand, hunters in Areas 75, 77, 78 and 80 will have liberal seasons.
Moose
Conservative hunting seasons continue for the Targhee moose herd. Antlerless tags were eliminated in the Jackson herd.
Opportunity to harvest a trophy class Shiras moose in the Sublette herd has increased in Areas 10 and 21. In Areas 10, 20, 21 and 23 average antler spread continues to approach 40 inches.
Bighorn sheep
The 2010 hunting season will likely see an improvement in the number of 5- and 6-year-old rams approaching three quarter curl size in the Jackson herd. In 2010, an increase of four licenses is proposed.
There will be sheep hunting opportunities for the Targhee herd as well as the Darby Mountain herd.
Pinedale region
Antelope
Population estimates for the northern subunit of the Sublette herd are at the desired population objective and hunting success should be similar to last year.
Mule and white-tailed deer
The Sublette herd has remained below objective despite improved growing conditions in 2008 and 2009. Drought caused the winter range shrub productivity and vigor to be poor.
The Wyoming Range mule deer herd should maintain buck harvest similar to the past five years.
The segment of the deer herd that spends the summer in the Wyoming Range, Greys River and Salt Range has experienced high overwinter survival which should result in some exceptional mule deer bucks in the northern hunt areas. A few more days of antlered-only deer hunting will be offered in Areas 134 and 135. These southern areas of the herd unit will offer 14 days of antlered-deer hunting.
An any-whitetailed deer season will be offered for the ninth year and numbers in the New Fork River and Green River corridors have been increasing.
Elk
Three of the four elk herds are within 10 percent of population objectives causing liberal seasons to be in place.
Liberal seasons are again planned for the Piney elk herd. Hunt Areas 92 and 94 will open Oct. 1 for general license antlerless elk hunting and extend to Nov. 15, while type 6 licenses will be extended to Nov. 30.
The fifth and final year of brucellosis testing and removal in the Pinedale herd was completed in February. Hunting seasons will again be designed to increase antlerless harvest. The 2010 seasons will allow elk hunting for general license holders for both Hunt Areas 97 and 98.
The 2010 hunting season in the Hoback herd will offer general license elk hunting for the entire season in both Hunt Area 86 and 87 including the first 15 days in November in Area 86 and Area 87 south of Hwy 189/191.
For the Upper Green River Herd, 2010 hunting seasons will remain similar to 2009 except for Hunt Area 96 where unused limited quota license types 1,4 and 6 will be valid for the entire area from Nov. 1 to 30.
Moose
The Sublette herd remains below postseason objectives and this season will target maintaining quality bull ratios and increasing overall moose numbers.
-- Mark Gocke, Jackson and Pinedale regional public information specialist
If you want to see mismanagement and devastation go to Yellowstone. I retired close to the park because of the wildlife there, now it has been virtually destroyed, it isn't just the 19,000 elk that are barely 6000 in the northern herd, the Norris/Firehole herd that does not migrate and has historically stayed steady in the 550-650 range had 108 left by 2008, with calf retention of 0-4% . The park has been devastated and not a cow in sight....just starving predators. Enviros can take full credit. I am thankful to be so close to the Big Horns where there is still lots of wildlife and dinner on the hoof.
Oh ZB! Got a dirt driveway?
Yep, and thats why i can say with authority that a two track has very little overall effect on large tracts of acreage. in fact it provides benefits for many small animals ( or maybe you have not noticed the small animals that hang around the two tracks) where as meandering Willy nilly all over repeatedly will more acreage in a shorter period of time than any other man caused event. one must study the terrain and avoid putting a two track where drainage will be a problem but in the long run having access to your lease acreage to assess water and feed conditions is far better than the alternative. I think trout unlimited said it best in their website.
"All roads and trails increase sedimentation, but poorly maintained roads do so at a vastly accelerated rate. Keeping up with basic road maintenance is crucial to both maintaining public access to public lands and waters and to minimizing the negative affects of roads on aquatic resources."
Todd
Unfortunitly the wolves have arrived in the bighorns, and as predicted the landed right in the middle of the finest elk area in the state, Area 35 and 36
http://westinstenv.org/news/2009/07/06/wolves-in-wyoming/
the good thing is they are not being watched nearly as close as the wolves in the gya, so if they don,t make it through the winter no one is likely to miss them.
Honnold stated last week he wants a study done to see if 450 wolves is adquate, totally disregarding the fact there are 5-10 tiems that many wolves. That in fact may the basis for the next lawsuit if Wyoming and the feds reach an agreement in my opinion. I can think of no other reason for him to come up with that number when there are thousands counted.
are u 2 squawking @ eachother? because no 1 else is LISTENING to your endless dribble.
You two need 2 get a life...SERIOUSLY ENOUGH!
It's like he the facts and info. do not register in his reality.
It does'nt matter what facts and reality are to him he know best an better than every1 in WY and MT.
What an arrogant $#% and zbiker your just a ranching bigot without a clue.
The drop in the number of elk from 19,000 to 6000 and the Norris/Firehole herd from 600 to 108 are official counts, not mine. I call those numbers a drop, I guess you can call them whatever you want.
Your a TROLL TODD STOP ENDLESSLY POSTING HERE NO ! WANTS TO HEAR IT!!!!!!
So when the folks who say the herds are decimated, they are speaking(not intentionally but still erroneously and naievely)they are referring to a false population size that was caused by human obliteration of predators. As leopold said quite eloquently...."Only the mountain knows the true folly of wolf eradication.....the biological desert that results and the large but finite number of species(both plant and animal) that results from the trigger itch of man in his haste to knock out predators".
The only creature driving other creatures to extermination is us....the 6000 GYS elk are a much healthier number for the entire system to accomodate....and if that means that wolf numbers will adjust downward to stay within carrying capacity of the land...so be it.
To those who want predators gone, I say start practicing the "family values" that you so proudly pontificate about....the Creator did not give us the right to destroy his creation....insects, reptiles, birds and mammals of all types have a purpose....let us mature as a species with that special responsibility of stewardship that we have been asked to employ over Creation.
2 wolves were confirmed inside of Yellowstone just prior to the introduction, one was killed just outside the boundary when mistaken for a coyote, the other was photographed on a kill inside of the park. The judge decided to allow the plant to go forward since the wolves had already been caught.
The biggest problem with the wolf introduction was that no attempt was made to try to restore the historical numbers of wolves, as I posted before the records indicate a total of 56 adults and 80 pups. They were paid a bounty so if numbers are skewed at all, it would be to the high side.
The Washburn expedition kept detailed records of the flora and fauna, lots of lions, no wolves. Mr. Everts who became lost for 31 days and nearly starved later wrote in his memoir of that experience that he heard wolves howling on the last night before he was rescued.
I have an 1898 book about 3 generals that took a trip to the Park, one of their goals was to kill wolves, they never saw one! One of them killed what he hoped was a wolf, but it was a wolverine.
I simply do not understand why there was no attempt to replicate the wolf population in the park with introduced wolves that are thought to be larger than the native Irremotus that had been here. Was it the intention to have to wolves leave the park to find food and force ranchers out of business and out of their homes? I cannot understand scientists doing such a thing.
I am glad to provide the names of the books that have this info if you would like.
The total number of wolves is in Alston Chase's book: Playing God in Yellowstone. The elk history is in Wildlife in Transition by DeSpain, Houston, Meagher, and Schullery.
So ZB - tell me, what about all those poorly maintained allotments that are out there on public lands (seen my share) or, is that something that few will notice unless they actually care about wildlife and wilderness areas?
In fairness, european infiltration into our Continent(1500) and introdxuction of horses to the tribes changed the whole dynamic of wildlife balance....1800 records and beyond do not provide the baseline of what predator suite existed in the northern rockies@rior to spanish, french and english involvement.
Come on Todd, where there were buffalo, there were buffalo eating wolves
By your accounting, pronghorns should have been wiped out by the pleistocene american cheetah.....,and the dire wolf, short faced bear and american lion should have decimated the hoofed prey of 12,000 years ago....Man has always been the "straw that stirred the drink"(in combination with climate change and disease) that has knocked out animal populations.
We are the ones that need to show restraint and reevaluate expectations of how many trophy prey are harvestable in conjunction with the requirements of other creatures basic need to eat,
Teh fact is we live in the 21st century and can never go back, somehow I doubt you live the kind of life that folks lived in the 16th century, I know I do not, nor do I wish to. I don't wish to force others to live that life either to make me feel important.
I do not understand people that have decided this land is just for their entertainment. I was told by a guy on a blog that we do not need air service here because he doesn't want to hear planes when he is hear, he can hear them at home. I reminded him that we are real people and we need to go places we have health emergencies, deaths in our families, etc and we have to drive long distances to get to plane service at best. This is our home.
We also want our ranchers producing beef, I fail to see a benefit to the environment if it has to be hauled great distances to get here. We are real humans living and dying jsut like where you live we are not characters in a play for you to move around at will.
Remember the grazing has been going on for over a hundred years, how could that be if the land is destroyed every year?
Greater Yellowstone Bison Distribution
and Abundance in the Early Historical Period
Paul Schullery
P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190 (307-344-2220, )
Lee Whittlesey
P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190 (307-344-2261, )
Abstract
Bison management in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks, as well as on other public and private lands in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), has long been controversial. Both professional management and popular advocacy relating to bison are routinely based on presumptions about the historical distribution of the species in the region that have not yet been fully evaluated by ecological historians. In an exhaustive review of published and unpublished first-hand accounts of the GYE prior to the creation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872, we compiled all observations, accounts, and references to bison, including tracks, hide, meat, and other parts and evidence. Based on this substantial body of information, we describe the presence of bison in the first decades of Euro-American contact with Greater Yellowstone. We also provide and analyze anecdotal evidence of the decline of bison numbers and the contraction of bison distribution in the period before the famous industrial slaughter of the mid-1870s. Bison were spectacularly abundant in lower river valleys and prairie habitats, and were all but exterminated from those areas by the close of the study period. Contrary to still-popular belief, bison and other large herbivores were not “driven into higher country” by settlement, but inhabited those higher regions as environmental conditions permitted prior to the arrival of Euro-Americans. Key historiographical issues relating to this body of evidence and its use include: conflicting and incomplete previous interpretations of American Indian influences on bison population and distribution; the formidable weight of western and regional folklore regarding bison presence/absence; and previous misunderstandings of the meaning or relevance of early historical accounts to modern management dialogues. We discuss other avenues of investigation and evidence
Distribution of bison in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Prehistoric bison distribution in the GYE can perhaps best be summarized simply by saying that bison appear to have been living everywhere in Greater Yellowstone where habitats were suitable. The notion that bison are not native to the area now known as Yellowstone National Park, though still apparently a popular opinion, has no basis in historical record.
It is worth pointing out that we are not dependent solely upon the historical record for our knowledge of bison distribution in the park area. Archeological work, most of it within the past 20 years, has identified bison remains at park sites near Gardiner, Montana; in the Hellroaring drainage; near Tower Junction; in Lamar Valley; and on the Yellowstone Lake shore. These finds indicate bison presence in the park area for 8,000 years (Johnson 1997). Likewise, a recent survey of Greater Yellowstone archeological research has identified bison remains in 29 archeological and three paleontological sites (Cannon 2001).
Abundance of bison in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
The historical record of Greater Yellowstone provides some vivid and fascinating evidence relating to the abundance of bison. In the first few decades of the nineteenth century, various writers reported vast herds of bison on the prairies along the edges of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, including the Yellowstone, Wind, and Snake River drainages. Smaller numbers of animals were reported here and there throughout the ecosystem, most often in the internal valleys.
In almost no case prior to 1880, however, does the written historical record provide the means of calculating any herd size for any locale. Nor does such a spotty and intermittent set of records allow us to assume that a sighting of a certain herd in a certain valley or meadow in a certain year meant that bison occupied that site similarly year after year.
This is a central point, and of special importance in the case of animals with complicated migratory habits. We can only make so much of this evidence because it consisted almost entirely of brief verbal snapshots of a certain day and condition. Virtually all early journalists in the Rocky Mountains were transient. Most traveled through the region in the warmer months of the year. Some of their accounts specifically remarked on the mobility of the bison herds, and the amazing swiftness with which a horizon-crowding herd of bison could apparently vanish. Such behavior on the part of enormous herds of grazers may seem intuitively sensible to us today, but it complicated life for early travelers even if they did understand it. Not all early travelers found bison in the same places, and some could not find them at all when they most desperately needed them for food.
However, the absence of bison from entire large drainages was apparently not always just a matter of the bison being somewhere else on the day a party came through. Sometimes the animals may have been either driven off or eliminated from a given range by native people. On July 14, 1806, some miles west of present Bozeman, Montana, Sacagawea told William Clark that bison had recently been abundant in the upper Gallatin Valley, but that Shoshone Indians had wiped them out (Thwaites 1905, 260–261).
According to this account, because of the superior military might of their neighbors, the Shoshones were unwilling to venture east into other bison ranges, and had hunted the local animals in the upper Gallatin Valley to extinction. As Clark’s party moved across the Gallatin Valley and east into the Yellowstone drainage, he repeatedly said that they followed an “old buffalow road” (Thwaites 1905, 261). Proceeding eastward, on across the north side of Greater Yellowstone, they saw more bison after reaching the Yellowstone River, encountering them in large numbers from the site of present Big Timber, Montana, on downstream (Thwaites 1905, 266–269). In this instance, Greater Yellowstone provided potential evidence of ways in which native humans’ political distribution on the landscape had the kinds of pronounced effects on western wildlife distribution and abundance hypothesized by Martin and Szuter (1999), who suggested that wildlife flourished in the “war zones” of less densely populated land contested by warring tribes, and were reduced in number in “game sinks” where large numbers of native humans were in regular residence.
Perhaps the largest herds that actually occupied what we now think of as Greater Yellowstone were in the south. In June 1833, trapper Warren Ferris was camped on the Green River not far from present Daniel, Wyoming. This one extended quotation from several such descriptions will help capture the mood of what Greater Yellowstone has lost:
Proceedings 137
Schullery and Whittlesey
Few persons, even in these romantic regions, have ever witnessed so interesting a scene as was presented to our view from an eminence or high mound, on which we were fortunately situated, overlooking the plains to a great distance. Immense herds of bison were seen in every direction galloping over the prairie, like vast squadrons of cavalry performing their accustomed evolutions. Platoons in one part filing off, and in another returning to the main bodies; scattering bands moving in various courses, enveloped in clouds of dust, now lost, and now reappearing to view, in their rapid movements; detachments passing and repassing, from one point to another, at full speed; and now and then a solitary patriarch of the mountain herds, halting for a moment behind the dashing cohorts, to ascertain, if possible, the cause and extent of the danger and alarm; but soon again with instinctive impulse, hurrying to join his less fearless files; and all rushing on, till form and numbers disappear in the dust and distance, and nothing remains visible of the long black lines but dark clouds slowly sweeping over the distant plains. . . . (Ferris 1940, 168).
We also can rely on Ferris for a similar if more succinct account of abundant bison along the western edge of Greater Yellowstone. When his party reached Pierre’s Hole, the large plains west of the Teton Range, in August 1832, Ferris wrote, “The plains were covered with buffalo, in all directions, far as we could discern them” (Ferris 1940, 128). It is these western herds that we must consider next.
Decline of bison in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Our study of the decline of bison in Greater Yellowstone in the several decades before 1880 confirms recent portrayals of similar declines throughout the West. Though traditional accounts of the extermination of bison have tended to emphasize the great commercial slaughters of the 1870s and early 1880s, more recent scholarship has shown that the process was much more drawn out than that (Flores 1991; Benedict 1999; Isenberg 2000; Krech 2000). It certainly was in Greater Yellowstone.
The arrival of horses in the late 1700s, the arrival of whites with firearms soon after, and the arrival of increasing trade incentives through the early 1800s conspired to create a growing white and Indian hunting industry (Janetski 1987; Hoxie 1989; Fowler 1996). It was this complex set of changing conditions that led humans to make serious inroads on bison numbers in Greater Yellowstone at least three decades before Yellowstone National Park was created in 1872.
The most striking example is from the west side of the ecosystem, where bison had been abundant (though how abundant is still a matter of disagreement) at the time of the first white arrivals around 1800. By about 1840, increasingly effective human hunters, both white and Indian, had essentially eliminated bison from the Snake River Plain (Haines 1964; Daubenmire 1985; Janetski 1987; Van Vuren 1987; Urness 1989; Whittlesey 1994; Shaw 1995). Climatic factors, especially the severe winter of 1836, may have further reduced herds (Lupo 1996).
It was in good part because of this loss of bison on the west side of Greater Yellowstone that use of a network of Indian trails across northern Yellowstone, now collectively known as the Bannock Indian Trail, greatly increased (Haines 1964; Janetski 2002). By the early 1840s, mounted Indians began making annual pilgrimages across the Gallatin and Absaroka ranges to better hunting grounds to the east and north of the present park.
It seems most likely to us that as bison were eliminated from the Snake River Plain, hunters would necessarily have sought out whatever bison were available in the interior of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, starting along the western edge of Greater Yellowstone and working east. Thus, bison in Jackson Hole and other smaller habitats, such as the Firehole–Madison area or Hayden and Pelican valleys, would also have been hunted, presumably with similar effects as on the Snake River Plain. And thus, any bison lingering along the route of the Bannock Indian Trail in Gardner’s Hole, the Mammoth–Gardner Basin, Blacktail Plateau, Pleasant Valley, or Lamar Valley, would have been subjected to heavier hunting pressure as well.
It is extremely important to recognize probable effects that industrial-scale bison hunting on the outer fringes of Greater Yellowstone had on interior populations. The increased mobility and improved technology of native hunters between 1800 and 1880 meant, among other things, that the first whites to make any attempt to estimate bison population size in the present park area were too late to get a clear picture of what the population must have been like before Euro-American influences reached the region. No one attempted to provide an actual count of bison in Yellowstone National Park until about 1880, after three or four decades of increased Indian hunting pressure were concluded by several years of industrial-scale commercial hide-hunting by whites.
Conclusion
Though the written historical record does establish the widespread distribution of bison throughout the GYE, that record was made too late to provide us with a full portrait of the relationships between native people and bison before those relationships were influenced by Euro-Americans. That written record was also made too late to portray anything necessarily resembling a so-called “pristine” state of ecological affairs in regional bison populations.
What the historical record does tell us is that bison were here, they were all over the place, they were abundant, and, if we may add a new and sadder meaning to Warren Ferris’s words, “nothing remains visible of the long black lines but dark clouds slowly sweeping over the distant plains.”
References
Benedict, J. B. 1999. Effects of changing climate on game-animal and human use of the Colorado high country (U.S.A.) since 1,000 B.C. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 31(1):1–15.
Cannon, K. P. 2001. What the past can provide: contribution of prehistoric bison studies to modern management. Great Plains Research 11(1):145–174.
Daubenmire, R. 1985. The western limits of the range of the American bison. Ecology 66(2):622–624.
Ferris, W. A. 1940. Life in the Rocky Mountains 1830–1835. Salt Lake City: Rocky Mountain Bookshop.
Flores, D. 1991. Bison ecology and bison diplomacy: the southern plains from 1800 to 1850. Journal of American History 78(2):465–485.
Fowler, L. 1996. The Great Plains from the arrival of the horse to 1885. Pages 1–55 in B. G. Trigger and W. E. Washburn, eds., The Cambridge history of the native peoples of North America, vol. 1, North America, part 2. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Franke, M. A. 2005. To save the wild bison: life on the edge in Yellowstone. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Haines, A. L. 1964. The Bannock Indian Trail. Yellowstone National Park: The Yellowstone Library and Museum Association.
Hoxie, F. 1989. The Crow. New York: Chelsea House Publishers.
Isenberg, A. 2000. The destruction of the bison. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Janetski, J. 1987. The Indians of Yellowstone Park. Salt Lake City: Bonneville Books, University of Utah Press.
Johnson, A. 1997. How long have bison been in the park? The Buffalo Chip, January–February–March, 5.
Krech, S., III. 2000. The ecological Indian. New York:
W. W. Norton & Company.
Lewis, M., and W. Clark. 1905. In R. G. Thwaites, ed., Original journals of the Lewis and Clark expedition. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company.
Lupo, K. 1996. The historical occurrence and demise of bison in northeastern Utah. Utah Historical Quarterly 64(2):168–180.
Martin, P. S., and C. R. Szuter. 1999. War zones and game sinks in Lewis and Clark’s West. Conservation Biology 13(1):36–45.
Schullery, P., and L. H. Whittlesey. 1992. The documentary record of wolves and related wildlife species in the Yellowstone National Park area prior to 1882. Pages 1.3–1.173 in John D. Varley and Wayne G. Brewster, eds., Wolves for Yellowstone? A report to the United States Congress, volume 4, research and analysis. Yellowstone National Park, Wyo.: National Park Service.
______. 1995. A summary of the documentary record of wolves and other wildlife species in the Yellowstone National Park area prior to 1882. Pages 63–76 in L. N. Carbyn, S. H. Fritts, and D. R. Seip, eds. Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, occasional publication No. 35.
______. 1999a. Early wildlife history of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: an interim research report presented to National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, committee on “Ungulate Management in Yellowstone National Park” (July). Copies available from the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., or from the Yellowstone Research Library or Yellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyo.
______. 1999b. Greater Yellowstone carnivores: a history of changing attitudes. Pages 10–49 in T. P. Clark, P. C. Griffin, S. Minta, and P. Kareiva, eds., Carnivores in ecosystems: the Yellowstone experience. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Shaw, J. H. 1995. How many bison originally populated western rangelands? Rangelands 17(5):148–150.
Greater Yellowstone Bison Distribution and Abundance in the Early Historical Period
140 Greater Yellowstone Public Lands Thwaites, R. G., ed. 1905. Original journals of the Lewis and Clark expedition, volume 5. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company.
Urness, P. J. 1989. Why did bison fail west of the Rockies? Utah Science 50(3):175–179.
Van Vuren, D. 1987. Bison west of the Rocky Mountains: an alternative explanation. Northwest Science 61(2):62–69.
Whittlesey, L. H. 1994. A pre-1905 history of large mammals in Pierre’s Hole, Idaho; Jackson Hole, Wyoming; and the Bechler region of southwestern Yellowstone. In-house draft report, August 2, 1994. Yellowstone National
Mr Todd, the previous post contains information you seek
It mutated into a new creature right before your eyes...a comment forum beginning with welfare ranching somehow ends up as a diatribe about wolves and elk and pre-railroad Bison numbers.
Thanks for all the great info, Rick ! ( I didn't know there was another 1830's fur trapper who was literate besides Osborne Russell, whom I've always used as my eyes and ears on the West before the Robber Barons and Stockgrowers usurped it.)
Now let's give Todd a pop quiz and see if he learned anything. Or more importantly , UNlearned anything...
http://www.sittingbull.edu/community/bison/Breed.pdf
The tame buffs that were from herds in Montana and Texas and were evidently plains buffalo. I can find nothing to indicate that there were ever any of those in the park prior to the introduction, at least not documented.
The Washburn Expedition saw buffalo tracks around Yellowstone Lake, but did not see any of the animals, which makes sense because apparently mountain buffalo were shyer than the big herds of plains buffalo.
In 1894 a man by the name of Ed Howell was caught poaching the buffalo in Pelican Valley within a day's march (by snow shoe) from the Lake Hotel in mid March. While there was nothing they could do to him except for ban him from the park, it was the catalyst for the Lacey Act. Burgess, the scout who caught him found 6 heads prepared and ready to go and then he traced Howell down and found him in the process of skinning 5 more. Only 11 heads and robes were found, but he admitted to being in the park since September, so authorities at the time felt he had taken many more and indeed may have taken a load out on his last trip to Cooke City, where he resupplied and hauled a toboggan loaded with 180# into the valley himself.
Howell did have the heads in the trees to prevent wolves from getting to them, which wolves would make sense with that much meat around.
One caveat when talking about wolves in the early days is the fact that coyotes were also called wolves or prairie wolves.
One thing I think needs to be considered when talking about a buffalo population historically in Yellowstone is there is not record of plains buffalo being seen and since the animals were being hunted it seems like they would have found a refuge in the park and would have been seen by the early visitors. There would have been no need for a Howell to go into the deep snow of Pelican Valley if there were buffalo in the lower areas.
"So ZB - tell me, what about all those poorly maintained allotments that are out there on public lands (seen my share) or, is that something that few will notice unless they actually care about wildlife and wilderness areas?"
well, lets take a look first nancy at what you deem as "poorly maintained" what you view as poorly maintained might not be what the rest of the world sees as such.
When you start jumping up and down raising cane about the roads and trails being a bad thing stop to consider how many miles of roads and trails exist in the majority of areas that come no where near water in wyoming alone, not counting montana or idaho.
United States Forest Service
The United States Forest Service (USFS), within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, administers approximately 8.8 million acres of land in Wyoming which represents 25% of the total public lands in the state. It is the largest single provider of trail opportunities in Wyoming. The 1998 Wyoming State Trails Inventory identified over 6,100 miles of designated trails on national forests within Wyoming, which represents 73.5% of all inventoried trails in the state. Additionally, there are thousands of miles of non-designated trails and primitive roads available for recreation on USFS lands in Wyoming. National Forests are managed for multiple uses and provide timber, minerals, range, recreation, water, fish and wildlife.
National Park Service
The National Park Service (NPS), within the U.S. Department of Interior, administers approximately 2.3 million acres of land in Wyoming that contain 261 miles of designated trails. These trails represent 19.2% of the trail opportunities in Wyoming and are significant for their historic, geologic and interpretive values.
Wyoming Game & Fish Department
The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGF) manages approximately 35,000 acres of land. The purpose of these lands is to provide fish and wildlife habitat. In some cases, these lands also provide access to other public lands. There are few designated trails on WGF lands, but a variety of paths and roads used as trails exist.
Wyoming Division of State Parks & Historic Sites
The Wyoming Division of State Parks and Historic Sites (SPHS), within the Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources, manages 46,455 acres of land in Wyoming. The majority of this land is managed as reservoir parks leased from the Bureau of Reclamation. The park system has about 35 miles of designated non-motorized trails. Additionally, about 60 miles of park roadways are open to ORV use.
The Wyoming State Trails Program (STP), a program within SPHS, serves as the lead in the state to coordinate the planning, development and implementation of a statewide trail system among federal, state and local agencies and the private sector.
We once when i was a kid had an enviro group researching the area just south and west of fort McKinney (1876-1894) just west of buffalo, they were aghast at an area of clear creek that showed where their had been a crossing into the game reserve area. clear creek has a nice rock base and a gentle sloping bank and although their were what appeared to be ruts and livestock tracks in the bank no cattle could be found on the reserve. They were sure someone was sneaking cows in at night to graze and then removing them at daybreak.
It was not long before they came on our place as we were the neighboring place next to the game reserve that they got the obvious pointed out to them.
The cow tracks were from the elk of the 7 diamond 7 ranch crossing the creek into the timber to escape the flies.
the ruts in the mud were the remnants of the wagons used during the forts military forays across the creek when doing artillery practice.
the crossing was a naturally occurring swell in the landscape and thus had provided a wide spot in the creek for wildlife to cross for thousands of years, it had actually developed a unique mini ecosystem for foxtail grass that supported some of the most weird looking grasshoppers (neon green with a red racing stripe) to be seen in Johnson county.
my grandfather commented after watching them stand around and kick rocks for an hour discussing what they should do now commented that " looks like those environmentalists could use a ranch job for a while"
what one person considers "poorly maintained" may not be at all.
She also mentions that their family has been using that same land for over a hundred years. This is the same land that shows the grass still to the moose's knees in the link I included, and as I keep pointing out there is over 100 years of grazing on it.
Nancy, if you are willing to learn the truth, not jsut what enviros want you to know read thsi article.
http://www.redding.com/news/2007/dec/31/flitner-ranching-still-has-place-public-lands/
On Western public land this commercial exploitation is the product of a well-organized, powerful, private ranching business allied with an entrenched government bureaucracy. Through the years, the public lands grazing industry has been quietly receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, corrupting our political system, defiling the social fabric of the rural West, and, perhaps worst of all, devastating the Western environment -- all to produce a tiny fraction of US meat.
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/
Where do you think the deer, elk, and moose eat in the winter? How much food do you donate to them?
Then the question is where do you plan to get your food if you want ranchers and farmers to turn their land back to wildlife?
Please define "the rest of the world" ZB?
And Todd you said :" Nancy, if you are willing to learn the truth, not jsut what enviros want you to know read thsi article"
Read the article Todd, and I think I might of said in a previous post, I've lived in cattle country for close to two decades, over the years I've met some ranchers who are trying hard, to relate to past abuses (because they were honestly not aware of what their cattle were doing to wilderness areas)
Sadly though, a majority of ranchers still think public lands are a cheap extension of their private land and could give a crap because the tab has been and is still being picked up by taxpayers and wildlife.
Read this again and again and again, til it sinks in:
However, since ranchers have convinced the public, including far too many environmental organizations, that they have a “right” to a predator free existence, the livestock industry has no incentive to change its ways. Instead livestock are routinely placed out in distance pastures with little or no oversight and supervision for months at a time, providing predators an easy meal. When ranchers treat their animals with such a caviler attitude who can blame a predator for being tempted by a beef or lamb dinner?
Which incidentally, is something else, taxpayers are laying out millions of dollars to address.
It takes land for animals to range, they do not eat at the table off of one plate like you do.. Some of the animls have been killed in pastures close to houses, that should not happen to any family no matter how much you hate ranchers.
Where do you intend to get your food if you rid the country of food producers?
I don't hate ranchers Todd, sorry you got that impression.
BUT..............
**When ranchers treat their animals with such a caviler attitude who can blame a predator for being tempted by a beef or lamb dinner?
Believe it or not, our country needs food grown here, not imported on ships from foreign countries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvUEuBjDMgc
Right here locally in Park County Wyoming, my own county attorneys are using local taxpayer money to pursue a totally frivolous ( soon to be moot) lawsuit against wolves before Judge Johnson, as if Park County Wyoming brings anything new to the courtroom table ( It does not). But they are diverting county attorneys , money , and resources away from prosecuting drunks , meth users , child abuse cases, real criminals by tilting at the wolves' windmill.
If the GAGs that you ar gagging on are really getting significant sums from winning cases and various federal grants, I guess it's becasue they are smarter than you and your silly SaveWesternWidlife.org and that ilk....
The video seems flaky to me. Quite flaky ...worse than Scott Rockwell's poorly done digital chicanery. For one thing, it does not identify who's behind it, so I discount it 100 percent right there. It's a fluff piece.
Here is a list of the non profits in Sheridan County. That brings me to another point, I think the tax burden on everyone could be eased if we eliminate non profits altogether.
Please define "the rest of the world" ZB?
the state of wyoming,federal forest service,blm,Wyoming Game & Fish Department,The National Park Service,The Wyoming State Trails Program, local area ranchers and sportsman etc.
todd;-
here is an article from the new york times that lays out the abuse to the legal system you are referring too.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/11/19/19greenwire-lawsuit-abuse-charge-by-western-lawmakers-enra-54944.html
THE ENVIRONS OF YELLOWSTONE SAW SIGNIFICANT WOLF AND COUGAR BOUNTY TAKES IN THE FIRST THREE DECASDES OF THE 20TH CENTURY. IF THEY EXISTED AS LATE AS THE 1930'S THEY WERE THERE IN NUMBERS WHEN THEIR PREY BASE WAS MORE SUBSTANTIAL IN THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES BEFORE INDIANS ON HORSEBACK AND WHITE MARKET HUNTERS DECIMATED THEIR NUMBERS:
AN ANALYSIS OF THE NUMBER OF MOUNTAIN LIONS (PUMA CONCOLOR) AND WOLVES (CANIS LUPUS) KILLED UNDER THE BOUNTY SYSTEM IN MONTANA, 1884 - 1962.
Mountain lions were listed on the first state-wide Montana bounty law passed in 1884. The estimated number of lion hides presented for payment varied from 177 in 1908 to 0 in 1932 (Figure AII.1). Despite demand and an increasing bounty payment, lion hides became scarce in the late 1920’s and ceased being presented for payment in 1930. Written bounty records after 1932 have been lost so that comparable data are unavailable. Conflicting reports exist. Nowak (1976) indicated 191 mountain lions were taken between 1930 and 1950 under federal animal damage control. Montana Fish and Game Commission (unpublished files) suggest fewer than 5 annually were taken statewide under the bounty system until 1950. The number taken then increased through the 1950s to 167 in the 1961-1962 biennium (Riley 1992).
Bounty prices increased from $8.00 ($269 in 1995 dollars) per lion and $1.00 ($34 in 1995 dollars) per wolf in 1884 to $25.00 ($270 in 1995 dollars) for either species in 1930. Wolf pup prices increased from 50 cents in 1884 ($17 in 1995 dollars) to $5.00 ($54 in 1995 dollars) in 1930.
Records taken from original bounty record books permit enumeration of bounty take by counties as they existed in 1900 (Table AII.1 and 2). Park County, in southwest Montana adjacent to Yellowstone National Park was in the top 5 counties for density of lion and wolf take (number 5).135 136
Figure AII.2. Number of mountain lion and wolf hides presented for bounty payment in Montana, 1884 - 1931.
Table AII.1. The total wolf and mountain lion bounty payments by Montana counties, 1900 - 1931. 1930 County Name
Adult Wolf
Wolf Pup
Total Wolf
Mountain Lion
Beaverhead
597
116
713
28
Big_horn
203
446
649
0
Blaine
80
125
205
1
Broadwater
77
6
83
6
Carbon
279
105
384
2
Carter
5
21
26
0
Cascade
694
558
1252
31
Chouteau
1111
2503
3614
35
Custer
2448
3082
5530
4
Daniels
1
0
1
0
Dawson
1083
1167
2250
8
Deerlodge
53
8
61
0
Fallon
51
118
169
0
Fergus
1043
1553
2596
35
Flathead
492
16
508
791
Gallatin
106
147
253
18
Garfield
3
25
28
0
Glacier
12
0
12
1
Golden Valley
3
0
3
0
Granite
31
2
33
20
Hill
76
55
131
0
Jefferson
71
2
73
9
Judith Basin
5
4
9
0
Lake
0
0
0
3
Lewis and Clark
250
119
369
33
Liberty
9
13
22
0
Lincoln
738
14
752
105
Mccone
4
17
21
0
Madison
122
18
140
14
Meagher
612
243
855
29
Mineral
0
3
3
8
Missoula
20
8
28
148
Musselshell
157
246
403
0
Park
405
58
463
67
Petroleum
0
0
0
0
Phillips
61
66
127
0
Obviously not BS, I mean if I had $50 thousand in inventory (and thats probably a very modest amount when it comes to livestock on some of the ranches out here) I certainly wouldn't be leaving it to chance as in predators or even rustling (which I understand is a growing problem that no one wants to talk about) easier to blame predators when the cows don't all come home in the fall. Or how about the accidents and illness that go un-noticed, because they are "miles" from home? A major reason predators end up getting their first taste of beef.
And ZB - "the state of wyoming,federal forest service,blm,Wyoming Game & Fish Department,The National Park Service,The Wyoming State Trails Program, local area ranchers and sportsman etc."
are not exactly who I'd call the rest of the world, most of that list has a vested interest in promoting livestock grazing on public lands - wildlife be damned.
Just becasue you do not understand grazing and how it works and disapprove as a result, does not mean that should give you the right to insist on something to kill livestock, and destroy a family's income.
I do not understand anyone enjoying the cruelty of wolf attacks.
wolves OUTSIDE the recovery area:
Fergus.............1,043
Judith Basin.......5
Dawson............1,083
Custer..............2,448
Chouteau..........1,111
Dawson............1,083
Fallon...............51
Custer...............2,448
Garfield..............3
Golden Valley......3
Hill....................76
Judith Basin........5
Liberty...............9
Maccone............4
Meagher ............612
Musselshell.........157
Petrolieum..........0
Phillips...............61
18 counties total.............10,202 wolves
wolves inside recovery area and neighboring counties killed 1900-1931
Glacier...............12
Granite...............31
Jefferson............71
lake...................0
Lewis and Clark....250
Lincoln...............738
Madison..............122
Mineral...............0
Missoula..............20
Park...................405
Beaverhead.........597
Bighorn...............203
Broadwater..........77
Carbon................279
Deer Lodge..........53
Flathead..............492
Gallatin................106
17 counties total............3,456 wolves
10,202 wolves killed outside recommended recovery area vs 3,456 wolves killed around recommended recovery area in a 31 year timespan. thats 3 times as many, and that is not even counting the pups. kinda throws a kink in the argument that we need wolves in the GYA becouse it is a core area
We still have not got you to tell us what your definition of "poorly maintained" is.
There are wolves in northern new england and their presence is welcome, but i'm betting you've never been there or even east of the Mississippi so I guess you would'nt know.
so up on this blog come two sound revelations.............one by archaeolgists portraying the Grreater Yellowstone as having been excellent bison(as well as Elk, Moose, Mule Deer, Pronghorn, Wolf Griz, Cougar) habitat going back pre European contact...................
2nd being modern day 1880-1930 wolf and cougar recorded bounties in a Montana ecosystem greatly altered and degraded over a 500 year period by both Indian hunters on non native horses and commercial white hunters and bounty getters.....................
And then you have the gumption to say becasue wolf and cougar bounties outside the "core" Yellowstone region were significanctly higher, therefore screw putting the wolves back on the ground in Yellowstone.................
Zbiker, 500 years of "rip and raze" human degradation of wildlife and becasue in the most recent recorded documentation, not as many wolves were killed in Yellowstone and therefore do not put them back there..................Where should we put them?...Downtown Denver? For my money, they should be up and down and across the entire USA wherever enough open space allows...............that means the Adirondacks, Green and White Mountains in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York and Pennsylvania...............It means down the Appalachian Spine through the Smoky Mountains and onto Northern Georgia.............It means (with Buffalo restoration) across the Great Plains and Texas..................It means into California and up into Oregon and Washington State...................as well as Yellowstone to Yukon.........................and Arizona, New Mexico, Utah
Please stop being so narrow in your interpretations and comments..............the world did not begin in 1880 or 1930 or whenever you came onto the Planet........
The land is healthier with the widest variety of plants and animals occupying it. Over 50% of our medicines and foodstuffs come from wild plants and animals and we have barely touched the tip of the iceberg as it relates to understanding lifes processes and possibilities. If we do not have the broadest suite of living creatures on the ground, selfishly, you and I are not giving ourselves and our grandchildren the raw material to continue to make life great and rewarding.
I am all for the Ranchers continuing to make a living and enjoying the lifestyle that they have known for 150 years. I am asking for a little openmindedness and FAMILY VALUE orientation applied to our fellow creatures.....a modification of some of our habits..............this might require tax law changes to help Ranchers make those changes........They wildlife out there is not the devil.....They are worth saving and increasing their numbers......It is not about being a tree hugger or valuing wolves over people.............We are the people that we are because our ancestors over millenia grew up alongside the wildlife on the planet.................historically animals were revered and admired for their beauty, strength and ability to surive in a dangerous world...............it is just over the past several thousand years that our monotheism beliefs have had man interpret the bible in a way that justifies eliminating animals that do not suit us. It seems that the intent of the scriptures was to make us the caretakers of all life on earth, not be its destroyers............the story of Noah my dear Z -biker.................worth your rereading.
Todd you respond awfully quick to all my comments, do you honestly ever go outside?
I share your longings but ask that you take into account that the way our system works, the Government is never going to spend the billions needed to buy out all of that land and restore it to conditions circa 1500..........The Real Estate guys will swoop down and sell off ranchettes and we will have Western Suburbs in the Rockies(look at Denver exurbs now).................I think that enlisting the support of our Rancher friends(even if Zbiker and Todd and others do not want to give an inch during this debate) is the way to go.............I want their kids and grandkids to have a love for the land and all of its inhabitants just like many of us do now. Since we are animals, nature and wilderness should not be abstracts and places that we go to see...................Nature and wilderness should be all around us. After all, native peoples did not see the woods, plains and Mountains as wilderness...........it was there home................and even they sometimes degraded their immediate environment and disappeared into the annals of history(Mound builders, Inca, etc).
We Americans in large part dervie our identity from Wild America...............Our work ethic, love of freedom, our tendency to name our cars, sports teams and such with the names of the very creatures(timberwolf, panther, bobcat, jaguar, wolverines, bears, etc)that many of us want destroyed or done away with................a paradox of the human brain,,,,,,,,,,,,to love and admire something while simultaneously looking to eliminate.............Let us all continue to collaborate and keep America wild and free................any other way spells an America that will be a very different place than what brought folks here 400 years ago..........................Go wolves, Go Cougars, Go Griz, Go Wolverine.................Go Humans..............we should all persist and thrive.
Actually I work outdoors a lot, but as I near 75 I do come in and rest more often and I do love to check and see how much male bovine feces you guys have been spreading across the net.
There is no sacrifice too much for an enviro as long as they are forcing someone else to make it.
The funny thing is they not only have no idea what the country was like in the 16th century, they could not survive even in the 19th without taking necessities away from other people.
I think of the folks who walked across the country in the 19th century and wonder how their descendants can be the way they are.
zbiker....................geez, first you and Todd challenge me to produce statistics revealing that gray wolves existed in the Greater Yellowstone System...
( i think you misinterpreted my post rick,Historically, the wolf populations originally native to Yellowstone were classed under the subspecies C. l. irremotus or C. l. nubilus which is a smaller subspecies of the grey wolf from canada. through some juggling of the books the grey wolf was chosen to be reintroduced because it was thought to have an advantage for survival due both size and aggressiveness. this has been proven to be fatefully true.
I am sorry you took offence to my noticing how few wolves were
naturally habitating the area, the point i was making was that although the gya is a great area for ungulates, the wolves were not saturating the area as they do now. this fact should be considered when ranching/wolf/federal land discussion of the area is undertaken.
As far as the rip and raze of the past is concerned, unlike many i realize that living in the 21st century makes it impossible to restore the face of the nation to it's earliest native american population condition, and as much as many throw that idea around as an ideal situation being a realist i know it cannot be. the face of the nation has advanced much in 500 years and we cannot go back.
You ask "Where should we put them?...Downtown Denver? ". while the idea has some merit it strikes at the very point i am addressing, A wolf would be no more welcome in down town denver that it would be in the Adirondacks or Green and White Mountains in Maine. Although i must admit it would be fun to turn loose 1700 wolves loose in Burbank, i suspect the fallout would be devastating
Perhaps you have read about the states that are now passing legislation to stop wolf introduction in their area,Arkansas still has a bounty for wolves, as does Colorado (despite the fact that the gray wolf is also listed as an endangered species under state law). Nebraska has a law authorizing the use of explosive traps and poison gas for wolf control. Several states, such as Oklahoma, categorize the wolf as a predator, making it ineligible for protection. South Dakota recently repealed a prohibition on the hunting of wolves.
Where should we put the wolves ??, well since they are still considered a NON ESSENTIAL experimental species, how about we put them back where we found them ??, at least till we can figure out how to keep their population in check
considering the states economic woes of 2010.
There will always be challenges in giving up something for getting something. Would we have been a better Nation if we had not taken land for our National Parks? I do not think so.............and yes, some people came up short in that process. Instead of hiding from those challenges, let us admit that the "good of the many" outweighs the good of the few, or the one". Wolves and Cougars back across the USA for me with financial incentives for those who have to modify behavior and business practice.
http://savetheplanetprotest.com/
zbiker..................the so-called sub species of wolves and cougar and for that matter, a good many other species has been in flux on an on-going basis
( actually The professionally sanctioned taxonomy of mammals is published by the American Society of Mammalogists and follows taxonomy in Mammal Species of the World used by the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History. The gray wolf taxonomy currently recognized by the American Society of Mammalogists continues to be based on Mech (1974), which identified 32
taxonomic subspecies of gray wolf worldwide, including 24 subspecies in North America. The current taxonomy identifies C. l. irremotus as the wolf subspecies that historically occupied the Northern Rocky Mountain area. even the delphi 15 agreed that genetically they are different in almost all aspects of pack behavior and hunting technique than their Canadian cousins.
Damn little room for flux in the world of science on this issue and simply having the same food source does not change that.)
" Why so resistant to the fact that wolves and all of the hoofed animals have been doing a very sophisticated and interlocked tango down thru the millenia?"
( Because the grey canadian wolf dances to a different tune, they have developed a size advantage and fierceness as well as a reproductive capacity that better suites them to their prey base in their homelands of Canada.)
" .also recognize that the Willows and stream beds are healthier with the Elk not able to idle and eat to their hearts content(Biologist John Laundre's "fear" revelation"
( That sort of sentiment flys in the face of the latest finding from UCLA showing that the browsing of willows not only keeps the willows healthier and developing new shoots for their static life cycle on the water banks but shows that forcing elk and moose to be kept constantly on the run is detrimental to their reproductive cycle accounting for the much lower calf count as well as denying them a much needed food source, especially in the spring of the year since willows are one of the earliest plants to recover from winter.)
"also realize that Lymes disease is out of control in the East because even the 40-50 pound Eastern Coyote(with 25% wolf genes) is still not the deer and moose eater that the 70-100 pound red wolf is"
(Actually, introducing the canadian grey wolf into the east to control deer populations will do little to control lime disease,A 2006 study by Penn State's Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics indicated that reducing the deer population in areas may lead to higher tick densities, resulting in more tick-borne infections in rodents leading to a high prevalence of tick-borne encephalitis and creating a tick hot-spot. ticks do not live by deer alone, they feed on any warm blooded mammal that moves and i am relatively sure that the wolf counts as one of those. True deer are the primary carriers of ticks in this day and age, but once deer numbers are reduced the next highly mobile species that takes over will be the next carrier of choice. every dumb country boy in the country knows that.)
" let us admit that the "good of the many" outweighs the good of the few, or the one"
This is what i am trying to get you to do rick. In the rush to change our western landscape into a 16th century utopia by introducing the Canadian grey wolf into the mix your not considering the ramifications to all those people that need and use products produced on those same lands. not just cattle for beef but all the other aspects of everyday life that are taken for granted by folks like yourself that come into contact with everyday items that are produced here. from the energy to run the computer you are typing on to the home and workplace you frequent everyday as well as the food you eat, much of it produced here. many have no knowledge or even care how or where it came to them, and fewer yet can see that it's source being eliminated will effect them personally in the end.
1974 is a long ways a way from now in terms of the disagreements among Biologists as to what constitutes a species and subspecies.............I notice that you were silent on the cougar classification which has recently been absolutely decided that Fconcolor is the same all over the Americas.........Over the past 5 years, Biologists(not laymen like you and me) have been debating the Gray Wolf classification. It was wonce thought that C.lupus ranged over the entire Continent............then abridged to C.rufus as a distinct subspecies in the Southeast..........now being debated that C.rufus and C.lycaon(Eastern Wolf in Ontario and the Great Lakes) are all one and the same...............
What you neatly avoid is the fact that Millions of Buffalo ranged over the Rockies and Plains and yes, East Coast for Millenia.............they did not have a "no-predator allowed to eat me" tag on their back...........Wolves were on their tail always and the eye witness accounts from Lewis and Clark through Osborne Russell out West attest to this as well. In the East, first hand accounts of "two wolves" shows up in the literature constantly.........one that preyed on Moose and Buffalo and one that ate deer.
It is presumtuous of you to feel that no one outside of Montana and environs understands the food chain. Like hunters, Ranchers and Farmers are no longer the Profession most of us make a living at. However, it would be like saying that no one outside of NY really understands a Broadway Play............or that no one is really sophisticated who has not lived in the Big City..........It amazes me that you feel the ego to talk down to 99% of the USA.
The folks in the East(not easily, but little by little) are again learning to live alongside the Black Bear and Eastern Coyote.................You in the Rockies will have to learn to live with Wolf as gracefully as our Midwestern friends in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin are doing. Interesting, that while hunting Groups and some farmers might want the Great Lakes Wolves delisted, the larger population of the Upper Midwest is finding it within their scope to allow for the Wolf in their midst.
In the Rockies where generally(there are exceptions, i am aware)rainfall does not approach the 40-50+ inches of precipitation accrued yearly East of the Mississippi, one wonders why cattle ranching ever was seen as a long term and sustainable biz. That stated, most feel Ranching should continue..............the alternative is suburbia in the West which would suck as much as it does in the East.
In my world of business, if one does not collaborate to reach shared results for all stakeholders, one goes out of business. I believe that needs of the many is misinterpreted by you...You are not the many and the timeline evolution on this and most open space/biological diversity issues(with stops and starts) seems to continue to swing toward accomodation of all species...........not just Ranchers................and not just wildlife.............Have a good Labor Day Holiday.
A happy Labor Day to all that have participated in this dialogue.
“The wolf is a monstrosity of nature…possessing the cruelty of Satan himself.”
—The Dillon Montana Examiner, 1921
Perhaps no other large predator is more deeply embedded in our psy-che than the wolf. Vilified through-out history in both legend and lit-erature, humans had effectively eradicated wolves from Europe by 1850. In the United States, the gov-ernment declared a war of extermi-nation against gray wolves (Canis lupus) beginning in the early 1800s. Hunters, ranchers, and farmers ea-gerly enlisted, using lethal traps and meat laced with strychnine and ground glass as weapons. But it was government bounties that spelled the end of Canis lupus. Be-tween 1883 and 1914 bounty hunt-ers killed 81,000 wolves in Mon-tana alone. By the 1930s, only a few hundred of the original popula-tion of 2-3 million wolves re-mained in the United States.
Over the next few decades, a growing number of studies repeat-edly showed that wolves were not responsible for the decimation of game species, and in fact kept populations of deer, elk, and moose at healthy levels. Nor did wolves cause any significant damage to livestock as had been universally assumed.
Despite intensive research, bi-ologists were also unable to docu-ment a single instance of wolves causing the death of a human being anywhere in the world. Still the slaughter went on. Not until the Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973 did the killing of wolves become a crime punishable by a $50,000 fine and up to a year in jail. But by then wolf popula-tions, which had once inhabited an area stretching from Alaska to Mexico, were largely extinct in the lower United States save for small populations in Minnesota and Michigan.
The Endangered Species Act not only offered protection to species threatened with extinction, it also provided for their reintroduction into former habitats. In 1987 the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan recommended that the gray wolf by reintroduced into Yellow Stone National Park.
Created in 1872 by an act of Congress, Yellowstone was the Nation’s first national park. In to-tal, 8893 square kilometers were set aside to preserve “natural curiosi-ties and wonders”, and all “wanton destruction” within the park was prohibited. Unfortunately this re-striction did not apply to Yellow-stone’s wolf population. In 1914 Congress appropriated funds for “destroying wolves, prairie dogs, and other animals injurious to agri-culture and animal husbandry.” By 1926 the last two wolves remaining in Yellowstone were killed after they were lured to a bison carcass.
In 1995, following eight years of litigation in federal courts, the De-fenders of Wildlife and the US Fish and Wildlife Service finally won a legal mandate to begin the Yellow-stone wolf restoration program. On March 21 fourteen wolves captured in Alberta, Canada, were released into the park. A year later, eleven more wolves were air lifted from British Columbia and set free in the northern range of Yellowstone. By 2003 the Yellowstone wolf popula-tion had grown to 16 packs and 174 individuals.
The successful reintroduction of gray wolves into Yellowstone is one of the most important wildlife conservation projects ever under-taken. The Yellowstone ecosystem now contains all of its original large predators: wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, grizzly bears, and black bears. Major prey include seven species of native ungulates: elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, moose, bison, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn antelope.
For the past ten years biologists from around the world have been studying the impact of wolf preda-tion on the Yellowstone ecosystem. The effects have been profound, rippling through the food web in a cascade of changes. At the center of this web lies the predator-prey relationship between wolves and elk.
The Wolves of Yellowstone 1 of 3 Lister/McDaniel, Ecology 7: Predation
4.17.2006
Copyright © Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc.
Thomson Learning is a trademark used herein under license.
Elk are the preferred prey of Yellowstone wolves, comprising about 92% of all kills. Between 1995 and 2004, Yellowstone wolves killed 1-2 elk per month per pack. From 1981 to 1995, the northern Yellowstone elk herd av-eraged 15,000-16,000 individuals. After the in introduction of wolves, numbers dropped to the 11,000-14,000 range, reaching a low of 8,000 in 2005. As the elk popula-tion declined, profound changes began to occur in the ecosystem’s vegetation. In particular, willow, aspen, and cottonwood trees began to thrive.
Photographs taken in the early 1900s show that young aspen and willows were abundant. But during the 1930s these species stopped regenerating. By the 1990s only very old trees grew in Yellowstone and there was concern that both willows and aspen would die out. Cores taken from 98 aging aspen trees showed that they had essen-tially ceased to grow during the 1920s, at about the same time that the last wolf packs had been elimi-nated. But after the reintroduction of wolves, the dwindling aspen, willows, and cottonwoods began to increase in size and more young trees started to appear, particularly along river beds and other exposed areas.
The wolf-effect theory states that these changes in Yellowstone plant community are the direct re-sult of increased predation on elks. After wolves were extirpated from the Yellowstone, elk populations soared and parts of the ecosystem, such as the Lamar Valley, were virtually denuded of vegetation. Many species, such as songbirds and beavers, disappeared as a re-sult. The reintroduction of wolves reduced the elk population in the northern Yellowstone two-fold and caused a dramatic drop in the con-sumption of vegetation. The resur-gence of trees has been most pro-nounced in areas where browsing elks are more exposed to wolf pre-dation. Elks now avoid feeding in open, low lying areas, especially along small streams such as the Soda Butte creek (see photos on left), and forage preferentially on higher ground where they can bet-ter detect and escape from wolves.
The resurgence of tree growth in the Yellowstone ecosystem has allowed beavers to reinvade their former habitats. The re-growth of willows has provided a long absent source of food, and beaver dams are starting to appear throughout the park. These dams in turn have had a profound effect on species diversity. The pools of water be-hind the dams further encourage the growth of trees, shrubs, and succulent vegetation which pro-vided food and shelter for dozens of other species such as insects, rodents, warblers and other song birds. Beaver ponds also create new habitat for otters, muskrats, moose, and numerous fish species.
Besides elk, another species dramatically affected by wolves has been the coyote. Before the reintro-duction program began, coyotes were abundant with an average density of .5 individuals per km2. Within two years of the release of wolves into the park, wolf attacks had caused a 90% decline in coyote abundance within wolf pack territo-ries.
Once again the reduction in numbers of one species within the Yellowstone food web caused a radiating wave of effects on other species. The main prey of coyotes – voles, mice, and other rodents, have undergone a population explosion. This has had a positive impact on the competitors of the coyote such as foxes and birds of prey. The survival of pronghorn fawns, a fa-vorite food of coyotes, has also increased and pronghorn numbers are starting to grow.
When wolves kill a large prey species, they typically consume only about half of their victim. The remains are eaten by a variety of scavengers. Soon after the return of wolves to Yellowstone, park biolo-gists noted an increase in many of these species including magpies, ravens, eagles, and grizzly bears. Wolf kills are an especially impor-tant source of food for ravens, and they have benefited the most from
Pictures from 1991 (top) and 2002 (bottom) along Soda Butte Creek in Yellowstone National Park. In 1991, before wolf introductions, growth of cottonwoods (low shrubby vegetation in foreground) was suppressed due to high levels of elk herbivory. In 2002, six years after wolves were introduced, the cottonwoods had grown into meter tall bushes.
The Wolves of Yellowstone 2 of 3 Lister/McDaniel, Ecology 7: Predation
4.17.2006
Copyright © Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc.
Thomson Learning is a trademark used herein under license.
the presence of wolves. The num-ber of ravens attracted to a wolf kills illustrates the beneficial inter-action with wolves: the average is 30 individuals, with 135 being the largest number recorded to date.
The Yellowstone wolves have greatly enhanced our understanding of ecosystem functioning and the central role of top predators in maintaining ecosystem integrity. Like any complex system, how-ever, Yellowstone has many com-ponents that interact in myriad ways. In many cases the interac-tions are nonlinear, meaning that small changes can have big effects. Observed changes in the system can also result from multiple fac-tors such as weather, disease, and random fluctuations in births and deaths, about which we have little or no information. Much remains to be discovered about the ecology of the Yellowstone and many more years of study are needed. Perhaps the most important message from the wolves of Yellowstone to date is that in nature everything is con-nected to everything else.
References
Robbins, J. 2004. Lessons from the wolf. Scientific American. June 2004: 76-81.
Smith, D., R. Peterson, and D. Houston. 2003. Yellowstone after Wolves. BioScience 53: 330-340
The reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone has had far reaching effects, impacting the structure and diversity of the entire ecosystem. Besides being a conservation success story, the program has become a case study in the ecological importance of top predators. Some of the species in the Yellowstone food web affected by wolves: (clockwise from top): elk, cottonwoods, beaver, muskrat, moose, raven, magpie, grizzly, vole, coyote, yellow warbler, and aspen.
The Wolves of Yellowstone 3 of 3 Lister/McDaniel, Ecology 7: Predation
4.17.2006
ungulates in the northern Yellowstone ecosystem
William J. Ripple *, Robert L. Beschta
College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, United States
Received 14 November 2005; received in revised form 14 April 2006; accepted 17 April 2006
Abstract
After an absence of approximately 70 years, gray wolves (Canis lupus) were re-introduced into Yellowstone National Park in the mid-1990s.
We studied the potential influence of wolf/ungulate interactions upon willow (Salix spp.) growth in the valleys of the Gallatin and Lamar Rivers, as
well as Slough and Soda Butte Creeks, in the northern Yellowstone ecosystem. When we compared willow heights from photographs taken prior to
1998 (willows <2 m tall) with those taken in 2004, we found an increase in willow height for 22 of 42 sites within the study area. Based on
comparisons of the chronosequence photos, since wolf introduction none of the 16 upland riparian sites showed an increase in willow height, while
22 of 26 of the valley-bottom riparian sites had willow height increases. In 2004, willow height exhibited a strong inverse relationship with the
percentage of browsed stems (r = 0.81, p < 0.01, n = 42). Results of regressions for valley-bottom sites indicated that view distance, impediment
distance, and the number of bison (Bison bison) flops were inversely related to willow height ( p 0.02). Increased willow heights were not
significantly ( p = 0.18) related to patterns of moisture availability. Willow height increases documented in this study appear to have been at least
partially due to behaviorally mediated trophic cascades involving wolves and ungulates, via a mechanism of predation risk. While willow release
(i.e., increased height growth) within the study area is in a very early stage, results suggest potentially important indirect effects of a top carnivore in
a terrestrial food chain that may aid in the restoration of riparian species and the preservation of biodiversity.
# 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
TOP DOWN EFFECTS OF WOLVES COMBINED WITH WARMING TEMPS IMPACT ON STREAM WILLOW RESTORATION.............ALSO COYOTE POPULATION CUT IN HALF.............MORE FOOD ON THE GROUND FOR GRIZ WHICH IS A GOOD THING AS WARMING TEMPS KILL OFF THE PINE CONE SEEDS THEY FATTEN UP ON IN THE FALL..............TROPHIC CASCADE IMPACT OF THE WOLF
Joel Sartore/National Geographic
A portrait of the Yellowstone gray wolf.
Nearly absent for decades, willows have roared back to life in Yellowstone, and the reason, Mr. Smith believes, is that 10 years after wolves were introduced to Yellowstone, the park is full of them, dispersed across 13 packs.
He says the wolves have changed the park's ecology in many ways; for one, they have scared the elk to high ground and away from browsing on every willow shoot by rivers and streams.
"Wolves have caused a trophic cascade," he said.
"Wolves are at the top of it all here. They change the conditions for everyone else, including willows."
The last 10 years in Yellowstone have re-written the book on wolf biology. Wildlife biologists and ecologists are stunned by the changes they have seen.
It is a rare chance to understand in detail how the effects of an "apex predator" ripple through an ecosystem. Much of what has taken place is recounted in the recently released book "Decade of the Wolf: Returning the Wild to Yellowstone," by Mr. Smith and Gary Ferguson. (Mr. Smith will discuss the effects at 7 tonight in the Linder Theater at the American Museum of Natural History. Admission is $15.)
In 1995, 14 wolves from Canada were brought into the park by truck and sleigh in the dead of winter, held in a cage for 10 weeks and released. Seventeen were added in 1996. Now, about 130 wolves in 13 packs roam the park.
Yellowstone, says Mr. Smith, is full.
Over the next 10 years, elk numbers dropped considerably. One of the world's largest elk herds, which feeds on rich grasses on the northern range of the park, dropped from 19,000 in 1994 to about 11,000. Wolf reintroduction has been cited as the culprit by hunters, but Mr. Smith says the cause is more complex.
Data recently released after three years of study by the Park Service, the United States Geological Survey and the University of Minnesota found that 53 percent of elk deaths were caused by grizzly bears that eat calves. Just 13 percent were linked to wolves and 11 percent to coyotes. Drought also playing a role. The study is continuing.
Scientists do say that wolf predation has been significant enough to redistribute the elk. That has in turn affected vegetation and a variety of wildlife.
The elk had not seen wolves since the 1920's when they disappeared from the park. Over the last 10 years, as they have been hunted by wolf packs, they have grown more vigilant.
They move more than they used to, and spend most of their time in places that afford a 360-degree view, said Mr. Smith. They do not spend time in places where they do not feel secure - near a rise or a bluff, places that could conceal wolves.
In those places willow thickets, and cottonwoods have bounced back. Aspen stands are also being rejuvenated. Until recently the only cottonwood trees in the park were 70 to 100 years old. Now large numbers of saplings are sprouting.
William Ripple, a professor of botany at Oregon State University, calls the process the "ecology of fear," which has allowed the vegetation to thrive as a result of behavioral changes in the newly skittish and peripatetic elk.
Though the changes now are on a fairly small scale, the effects of the wolves will spread, and in 30 years, according to Mr. Smith, Yellowstone will look very different.
Not everyone is convinced. "Wolves have a role to play," said Robert Crabtree, a canid biologist who has researched wolves and coyotes in the park since the late 1980's. "But the research has ignored climate change and flooding, which have also had an effect on vegetation. Their work isn't wrong, but it's incomplete."
Where willows and cottonwoods have returned, they stabilize the banks of streams and provide shade, which lowers the water temperature and makes the habitat better for trout, resulting in more and bigger fish. Songbirds like the yellow warbler and Lincoln sparrow have increased where new vegetation stands are thriving.
Willow and aspen, food for beaver, have brought them back to the streams and rivers on the northern range. In 1996, there was one beaver dam on the northern range; now there are 10.
The number of wolves has also greatly increased the amount of meat on the ground to the benefit of other species.
Grizzlies and coyotes rarely kill adult elk, but each pack of wolves kills an elk every two or three days. After they eat their fill, other carnivores take over the carcass. Opportunistic scavengers like magpies and ravens make a living on the carcasses.
The number of coyotes, on the other hand, has fallen by half. Numbers of their prey - voles, mice and other rodents - have grown. And that, in turn bolsters the populations of red foxes and the raptors.
The wolves in Yellowstone are not hunted, but they do face hazards. They kill one another in violent encounters between different packs. Fourteen wolves have been killed by cars in the last 10 years, eight of them at Mile Marker 30, on U.S. 191 on the west side of the park.
But the most worrisome threat is posed by the dogs that people bring to the park. The dogs can carry parvovirus, which is the leading cause of death in the wolves over the last year, and it has been killing 60 to 70 percent of the pups.
The wolf population decreased to 130 from 170 in the last year from all causes. Biologists plan to count wolves again this winter and do more testing, and they expect to learn more about the effects of the virus. "I'm a little concerned," Mr. Smith said.
Much is yet to be discovered in the natural laboratory of Yellowstone. "Ten years is not that long a time to measure the effects of wolves," Mr. Smith said. "Their effects are so far reaching and changing that it takes a long time for them to emerg
Certainly I would expect every member of any environmental groups to step right up to do their part in restoring America to the early days.
for an unbiased presentation go to a more neutral corner.
Behavioral Education for Human, Animal,
Vegetation & Ecosystem Management
Stories of Applied Animal Behavior
Created by members of a graduate Foraging Ecology Class
at the University of Idaho and Washington State University
under the direction of Drs. Karen Launchbaugh and Lisa Shipley
Research conducted in Yellowstone (YNP) and Rocky Mountain National Parks (RMNP) has documented the decline of willow communities on elk winter ranges. Both parks have documented a decline in height, density, and crown volumes of willow communities since the 1930s. Although moose have resided in YNP since its inception, they have just recently colonized RMNP. Moose concentrate their foraging efforts on willow communities in all seasons of the year. Moose may affect willow decline more dramatically in RMNP because most effective predators have been removed while YNP supports predators such as wolves and grizzly bears. However, elk and moose employ very different social and foraging strategies regardless of predation pressure. Therefore, they occur at different densities and utilize willow most heavily at different times of the year.
Problems that arise from the differing responses of willow to browsing
Willow communities respond differently to harvest by elk and moose according to the season in which they are browsed. Given the variation in seasonal response of willow to herbivory, areas containing multiple herbivores, which use willow communities differently in time and space, may contain willow communities of highly contrasting structure and composition. The variable nature of willow communities can be problematic for land managers assessing the health and long-term viability of willow stands because a single standard can not be applied to all willow communities. The manager must clearly understand the limitations placed on willow communities by wildlife. Therefore, designing riparian area management plans in our national parks requires intricate knowledge of the foraging behavior of wildlife utilizing willow stands as well as the seasonal response of willows to herbivory.
For over-utilized willow stands, wildlife exclosure research provides managers with a standard to measure the success of willow restoration projects as well a projection of recovery time required. Wildlife exclosures are fenced areas that protect vegetation from herbivores such as moose, elk, and deer. Researches use exclosures to determine the effects that wildlife have on vegetation. Wildlife managers need to understand how the herds they manage affect willow communities because willows are an important source of forage along western streams.
The value of willow to wildlife and cattle
Throughout the western United States, willows dominate stream-side vegetation communities. Vegetation surrounding streams occupies a transitional zone between aquatic and upland areas known as the riparian zone. Riparian zones maintain critical ecosystem functions by mediating the cycling of nutrients and sediments, increasing the retention of water in vegetation, and providing habitat for wildlife. Willows are an important food source for wildlife and livestock in riparian areas. Unlike most species, especially grasses, willow provide a stable protein source throughout the summer months. The protein content of upland grasses decreases from 15-17% in early summer to less than 5% in late summer. In contrast, willows may only experience a 7% decrease in protein content during the course of the summer. When protein levels of most rangeland plants begin to decrease in mid-summer, deer, elk, and livestock may shift their foraging efforts towards willow communities in order to meet nutritional requirements.
The seasonal pattern in which animals feed on willow depends on their foraging strategy and the availability of other forage types. For example, grazing animals such as cattle and deer may only eat willow in late summer or winter whereas moose and other browsers eat willow year-round. Willows react to a loss of stems and leaves in vastly different ways depending on the season and level of utilization. Willows rely on their stems and leaves for energy production and transport. When a willow’s ability to produce and transport food is reduced by wildlife and livestock, it must respond by reducing energy requirements or reproducing the lost structures. In general, willows browsed during the summer (growing season), especially late summer when little time remains for regrowth, respond the following summer with decreased stem and leaf production; whereas willows browsed during the winter (dormant season) respond the following summer with increased stem and leaf production but decreased seed production. Of course the magnitude of the response depends on the density of foraging animals utilizing the willow community.
Genetics: the key to willow resilience
The variation in willow response to animal harvest reflects their many adaptations to the riparian environment. Willows flourish in the riparian zone where water levels pulse seasonally. Many of the adaptations that allow willows to survive in the riparian zone also enable regrowth to occur after animals remove stems and leaves. Regrowth, or compensatory growth, counteracts the effects of animal foraging by replacing stems and leaves. Some adaptations of willows providing a high potential for compensatory growth include deciduous leaves, rhizomatous growth, and rapid photosynthetic rates. Because willows do not have to spend energy to maintain leaves during winter months, they save energy for growth the following summer. Wildlife such as elk and moose eat willow stems during winter months. Stems are more difficult to digest than leaves and thus are not consumed as quickly. Deciduous leaves reduce a plant’s maintenance cost and the amount of energy lost to wildlife during the winter. If willows are browsed during the winter, they have more energy reserves available for growth the following summer than they would have had if leaves were present. Willows also conserve energy in underground structures called rhizomes. Rhizomes are modified roots that are capable of sprouting and reproducing an entire plant, a response known as rhizomatous growth. By storing energy inaccessible to livestock, elk, deer, or moose, rhizomes ensure a willow’s ability to rebound from the effects of foraging animals. In addition, willows are capable of photosynthesizing energy quickly. Because of their high photosynthetic rates, willows quickly replace lost leaves. With so many adaptations that counteract the effects of wildlife and livestock browsing, how can willow be declining in our national parks?
Once again, please read my postings that consitantly depict the authors of the trophic cascade explanation of how wolves impact their surroundings including coyote reduction, willow recruitment, etc and you will see the expert authors again and again stating that wolves are one part of natures design for providing for all the "colors of the rainbow" to come forth in terms of natures bounty, not just the "black and white" of what some want on the planet..............
When you are so quick to deal in absolutes and not open your mind to the expert input of others, makes for a shallow living experience.............Yes, it puts your mind at ease and allows you to proceed ahead even though your prescpription is not optimum all all-inclusive, and yes, it will not weigh heavy with those who make our decisions on land policy over the long haul. Good luck to you Z.B.
The Landscape of Fear: Ecological Implications of Being Afraid
John W. Laundré*,1, Lucina Hernández1 and William J. Ripple2
1Department of Biological Sciences, SUNY Oswego, Oswego, NY 13126, USA
2Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA
Abstract: “Predation risk” and “fear” are concepts well established in animal behavior literature. We expand these
concepts to develop the model of the “landscape of fear”. The landscape of fear represents relative levels of predation risk
as peaks and valleys that reflect the level of fear of predation a prey experiences in different parts of its area of use. We
provide observations in support of this model regarding changes in predation risk with respect to habitat types, and terrain
characteristics. We postulate that animals have the ability to learn and can respond to differing levels of predation risk.
We propose that the landscape of fear can be quantified with the use of well documented existing methods such as givingup
densities, vigilance observations, and foraging surveys of plants. We conclude that the landscape of fear is a useful
visual model and has the potential to become a unifying ecological concept.
This special issue attempts to investigate how the fear a
prey has of being killed by its predator may affect the basic
predator-prey interactions as we understand them and how
the resulting interplay in this two player game can cascade to
other ecological effects. The incorporation of fear into
ecology is a relatively new concept and is just now being
explored more fully. Because fear in ecology or the ecology
of fear (Brown et al. 1999) is new, it is appropriate that the
first article in this special issue begins with an overview of
fear and why we can apply it to animals in an ecological
setting. We investigate one of the major implications of fear
prey have of their predators: how they use the landscape in
which they live. We propose that the spatial and temporal
use of the landscape is fear driven: a landscape of fear
(Laundré et al. 2001). We introduce the basic assumptions of
the landscape of fear and analyze its utility as an ecological
concept. We investigate its possible advantages over how we
have viewed landscape use in the past and why it would be
advantageous to physically measure the landscape of fear for
a species. We then propose that the landscape of fear is a
useful, concise visual model that relates to how prey and
their predators move about the landscape in a real life game
of cat and mouse. We conclude that the landscape of fear has
the potential to become a unifying concept in animal
ecology.
What follows are articles on various aspects of the
ecology of fear by some of the leading researchers in this
area. The breadth of the articles indicates how rapidly the
concept of fear in ecology has grown since its introduction
(Brown et al. 1999, Laundré et al. 2001). Because of the
efforts of these and a growing number of other innovative
*Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Biological
Sciences, SUNY Oswego, Oswego, NY 13126, USA; Tel: 315-216-6879;
Fax: 315-216-6880; E-mail:
1. INTRODUCING THE CONCEPT
“Fear” is defined by Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriamwebster.
com, accessed 11/29/09) as “an unpleasant often
strong emotion caused by anticipation or awareness of
danger”. For emerging primitive humans, fear of known
dangers from mega predators drove them to seek refuge in
caves and trees (Hart and Sussman 2005). As human
populations grew, fear of another predator, other humans,
developed. From Alexander the Great, the Caesars, Attila the
Hun, the Aztecs, to common thieves, the list of human predators
is endless. In response to the actual danger or
anticipated risk of danger from human predation, fear has
and continues to be a major individual and social,
psychological and emotional force in human history. We
lock our house doors, our car doors, our luggage, and our
bicycles, even when the danger of “predation” is not
immediate, “just in case”. Thus fear not only drives our
reactions to the danger of eminent predation but, as defined,
the anticipation or risk of predation. The multi-million dollar
security industry is driven by our fear from this risk of
predation.
Fear, however, is not an emotion limited to the human
species. When cockroaches scurry away from the sudden
light or elk (Cervus elaphus) flee from approaching wolves
(Canis lupus), the underlying emotion driving these
responses to eminent danger can only be expressed as fear of
being killed by a predator. However, like humans, prey
should not only express fear from the imminent attacks of
their predators but also from the anticipation or risk of
possible attacks. As a prey individual rarely operates with
2 The Open Ecology Journal, 2010, Volume 3 Laundré et al.
perfect information on the whereabouts of predators, it
hardly ever knows if or when a predator is near (Brown et al.
1999). In this case, the evolutionary stable strategy is to
maintain a certain level of background fear of predation
(Brown et al. 1999). If an animal does not have this
underlying fear of the risk of predation, it puts itself and its
genes in mortal danger (Boissy 1995). Aldo Leopold (1966)
eloquently identified fear as an element of the predator-prey
relationship: “… as a deer herd lives in mortal fear (our
emphasis) of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal
fear of its deer.” Fear then, should be an important
behavioral element in the predator-prey relationship.
However, how do we measure it?
Internally, fear can be measured via changes in corticosteroid
levels stimulated by nervous impulses (Boissy 1995,
Korte 2001, Creel et al. 2002, Faure et al. 2003, Bonier et al.
2004), which increase with risk levels (Harlow et al. 1992,
Boonstra 1998, Roy and Woolf 2001, Millspaugh et al.
2001, Cockrem and Silverin 2002, Creel et al. 2002).
Outwardly, fear can be measured by levels of vigilance
(Welp et al. 2004). Studies have demonstrated that the more
fearful an animal is the more vigilant it should be (Quenette
1990, Hunter and Skinner 1998, Rushen 2000, Laundré et al.
2001, Childress and Lung 2003, Treves et al. 2003, Wolff
and Van Horn 2003, Halofsky and Ripple 2008, just to list a
few). Brown (1988) proposed that fear could be measured as
a foraging cost where the benefits of foraging in a food patch
(H) is the sum of the metabolic (C), predation (P), and
missed opportunity (MOC) costs (H = C + P + MOC).
Brown (1988) further demonstrated that P within a given
area could be titrated by measuring the giving up densities
(GUDs) or amount of food left behind in depletable food
sources. Others have shown that these changes in time
allocation are a common response to predation risk (Brown
et al. 1994, Altendorf et al. 2001, Brown and Kotler 2004).
Fear in animals is real, measurable and, most importantly,
drives the actions of prey in response to predation risk
from their predators, which, in turn, generally drives the
actions of the predator in a two-player game of stealth and
fear (Brown et al. 1999, Holmes and Laundré 2006).
Recently, Brown et al. (1999) proposed the concept of the
“ecology of fear” and applied it to traditional ecological
predator-prey models. They demonstrated that incorporating
fear helped avoid the logistical conflicts (“Catch-22”)
inherent in these models (Rosenzweig and MacArthur 1963).
About the same time, the concept of fear was also proposed
by Laundré et al. (2001) and Altendorf et al. (2001) as being
useful in explaining foraging patterns of animals. They
introduced the term “landscape of fear” as a visual model to
help explain how fear could alter an animal’s use of an area
as it tries to reduce its vulnerability to predation. More
recently, Ripple and Beschta (2006) proposed a “terrain fear
factor” which was used to explain variability in ungulate
browsing levels and corresponding heights of preferred
woody browse plant species. Here, we expand on the
concept of the landscape of fear, provide evidence for its
validity as an ecological/ behavioral model, and explore its
potential as a unifying concept in animal ecology.
The ideas behind the landscape of fear are not new. Many
researchers have laid the ground work with studies of
predation risk, prey refugia, predator efficiency and related
phenomenon (Edwards 1983, Stephens and Peterson 1984,
Lima and Dill 1990, Chapman et al. 1996, Novotny et al.
1999, Norrdahl and Korpimäki et al. 2000, Lewis and Eby
2002, Gude 2006, Creel and Christianson 2008, Halofsky
and Ripple 2008). These studies demonstrated that predation
risk can be variable, as implied by the presences of refugia,
areas of low predation risk. Meanwhile, others, as noted
earlier, have sufficiently demonstrated that prey respond to
these changes in predation risk by altering their behavior
(changes in vigilance and/or foraging) or time allocation
patterns (avoiding high risk areas). The landscape of fear
combines these variations in predation risk and the
behavioral responses, incorporating the element of fear to
explain the resulting spatial use patterns of individuals over
the physical landscape. Under this model, predation risk
varies in an identifiable manner over time and space.
Animals then respond to this predation risk by altering their
behavior/time allocation patterns based on the level of fear
they have of being killed in the different areas of their home
range.
A 16 year study of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and
pumas (Puma concolor) demonstrated that habitat structure
is important in defining these levels of predation risk
(Laundré and Hernández 2003). Pumas were more successful
in killing deer along forest edges (73% of kill sites) than in
open areas (6%). This difference is because pumas are
stalking hunters that need cover to approach their prey
(Hornocker 1970). Other studies have also demonstrated
habitat-mediated differences in predator success, or lethality,
primarily because of limits on the hunting capabilities of the
predator (Van Orsdol 1984, Lewis and Eby 2002, see Brown
and Kotler 2004 for a review). Further, studies of prey
responses to these differences in predation risk per habitat
demonstrate that prey, from insects to elk, realize these risks
and adjust their behavior accordingly, even at the loss of
feeding opportunities (Sih 1980, Edwards 1983, Stephens
and Peterson 1984, Sweitzer 1996, Gilliam and Fraser 1987,
Altendorf et al. 2001, Hernández and Laundré 2005, Fortin
et al. 2004, 2005, Ripple and Beschta 2004a, Bergman et al.
2006).
Given that habitat and terrain heterogeneity is common
over the landscape (Longland and Price 1991) and that a
particular predator is not adapted to be skillful in all
landscape types, it is easy to conceive of a system where
predator lethality and thus predation risk, varies with spatial
changes in habitat type or structure. This, then, is the
landscape of fear, a three dimensional landscape whose
peaks and valleys are defined by the level of predation risk
related to changes in habitat as they affect the lethality of the
predator (Fig. 1). The scale of the vertical z axis is variable
and can be expressed in any measure of fear, e.g. percent
vigilance, GUDs, or foraging levels on plants. The landscape
of fear on the horizontal x-y axis can also be on a variety of
spatial macrohabitat and microhabitat scales. For example,
when the wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone
National Park, the scale was the entire Park (kilometers),
with the peaks being the areas where the wolves originally
established and the valleys being the “wolf-free” zones
(Laundré et al. 2001) and at a finer scales, in buffer zones
between wolf pack territories (Ripple et al. 2001), habitat
types (Hernández and Laundré 2005, Creel and Winnie
2005), terrain characteristics (Table 1, Ripple and Beschta
The Landscape of Fear The Open Ecology Journal, 2010, Volume 3 3
2004b), and escape impediments (Ripple and Beschta 2006,
2007).
Fig. (1). Visual depiction of the landscape of fear where the x and y
axis represent the physical coordinates of an area and can be in
meters or kilometers, depending on the scale. The z axis is the level
of predation risk as measured by indices of fear, e.g. vigilance,
giving up densities (GUDs), etc.
2. BASIC ASSUMPTION OF THE CONCEPT
Implicit in the concept of the landscape of fear is that
animals already have the ability or can learn to differentiate
the dangerous versus safe habitats before they are killed! Do
they have the ability to learn? Animals such as elk and
moose (Alces alces) responding to newly introduced wolves
(Laundré et al. 2001, Berger et al. 2001, Hernández and
Laundré 2005) indicate an ability to learn. Do they have a
chance to learn safe and risky areas before they are killed?
Studies have demonstrated that predator efficiency (%
success per kill attempts) for a variety of predators is
commonly around 8-26 % (Nellis and Keith 1968, Mech
1966, Temple 1987, Longland and Price 1991, Mech et al.
2001). This means that generally around 80 % or more of the
time, the prey escapes! We argue that escaping near death is
an effective learning tool for prey, especially if their narrow
escapes are even narrower in certain areas. If we add the
advantages of social learning about predation risk (Kavaliers
and Choleris 2001), prey not only have the ability but ample
opportunity to learn the peaks and valleys of their landscape
of fear and adjust their behavior accordingly.
3. UTILITY AND ADVANTAGES OF THE CONCEPT
Besides providing a visual picture of how fear should
change over the landscape, of what value is the landscape of
fear model? We propose that this model can help explain
many of the ecological concepts concerning animals and
their use of their landscape. The first example is the home
range, originally defined by Burt (1943) as the area an
animal uses in its pursuit of food, mates, and a place to rear
young. Why would an animal confine its activity to a single
area? The answer normally given is it provides familiarity,
an animal knows (= learns) where to find food and shelter.
Combine these two needs, specifically shelter from
predation, and they define the landscape of fear and the value
Table 1. General Types of Factors that Individually or in
Combination may Contribute to Changes in
Predation Risk for Ungulates Under the Risk of
Predation by Wolves (Ripple and Beschta 2004b)
Terrain Factors
Point bars
Wide channels
Multiple channels
Tributary junctions
Islands
Gravelly/rocky surfaces
Gullies
High, steep channel banks
High terraces, steep terrace sideslopes
Undulating terrain
Narrowing valley
Cliffs, steep slopes
Canyons
Rushing water (noise)
Biotic Factors
Vegetation thickets
Woody debris
Jack-strawed trees
Beaver dams, ponds, and channels
Cultural Factors
Roads/traffic
Fences
Snowpack Factors
Aerial cover and drifts
Depth and density
Ice lenses and crusts
Frozen ground/ice
of a home range. Each day prey need to forage and survive
not only within their home ranges but that of their predators,
which is an area where the predators know the best places to
hunt or where they are most lethal (Holmes and Laundré
2006). It is important to note that the flipside of the
landscape of fear is the landscape of opportunity for the
predator! Knowing safe and dangerous areas has survival
advantages to prey (Clarke et al. 1993), and a home range
provides that advantage. An animal then integrates this
information with knowledge of the food resources available.
4 The Open Ecology Journal, 2010, Volume 3 Laundré et al.
daily foraging decisions (Brown et al. 1994, Brown and
Kotler 2004).
Having defined the landscape of fear, we need to ask
what are the advantages of this model over what has existed
in the past? First, while past research has previously
identified predation risk and responses of prey to this risk,
these two concepts were not joined in a clear, concise
physical concept. As mentioned, the landscape of fear
coalesces earlier works into a concise visual model and
suggests that the different levels of predation risk can be
quantified. If the levels of predation risk vary physically over
space and time, we should be able to actually measure that
risk relative to the specific prey and predator system we are
considering. If we can measure levels of risk, we can then
quantify total amounts of safe versus risky habitat, and map
the size and juxtaposition of safe and risky patches. This
then takes predation risk and behavioral responses and puts
them on a quantifiable spatial scale.
How do we measure or map the landscape of fear? We
argue that as the prey’s perception of predation risk will be
the most sensitive, this should be the best measure of that
risk relative to habitat and terrain types (Table 1). This has
the added advantage of integrating the total risk in a multiple
predator system. Earlier work has shown that the use of giving
up densities (GUDs), levels of vigilance, and frequency
of trapping as three possible techniques (Hernández and
Laundré et al. 2001, Laundré et al. 2002). We could then
represent the different levels of GUDs, vigilance, trapping
Fig. (2). August 2006 photographs of (A) recent aspen recruitment (aspen 3-4m tall) in a riparian area along Lamar River and (B) a lack of
recent aspen recruitment (aspen <1m tall) in an adjacent upland. These differences shown in aspen heights were likely due to differences in
perceived predation risk due to differences in escape terrain. (Ripple and Beschta 2007).
The Landscape of Fear The Open Ecology Journal, 2010, Volume 3 5
success as contour lines, producing a topographic map-like
depiction of the landscape of fear (Shrader 2008, Van der
Merwe and Brown 2008). Another method is to let the plants
tell the story (Schmitz et al. 2004). Ripple and Beschta
(2003, 2004a, 2004b) documented vegetation changes in
Yellowstone National Park after wolf reintroductions and
indicated that these changes resulted from browsing changes
by elk due to their fear of wolves in risky terrain (Figs. 2 and
3, Ripple and Beschta 2006, 2007). White et al. (2003) also
noted that distribution patterns of aspen (Populus
tremuloides) could be explained by predation-driven
foraging patterns of elk. The amount of browsing on
preferred plants of a prey then, could also be a method of
mapping the landscape of fear. These and likely other
ingenious methods can give us estimates of the level of risk
perceived by the prey, help us map the landscape of fear, and
evaluate the overall risk level of an area.
4. WHY QUANTIFY THE LANDSCAPE OF FEAR: A
CASE STUDY
Relative to community and ecosystem structure, Ripple
and Beschta (2004a) poised the question, “Wolves and the
ecology of fear: can predation risk structure ecosystems?”
Based on the findings they presented, their answer was
“yes”. We concur with their assessment but add that this
restructuring is accomplished and actually was predicted via
the landscape of fear model. In an early study of elk
vigilance, Laundré et al. (2001) found female elk had
increased their level of vigilance from 20% to 47% in
response to the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone
National Park. In that article, based on the landscape of fear
model, they made three predictions. The first was that we
should see a shift in habitat use by elk in response to the
predation risk from wolves. They should abandon the newly
established high risk open areas, the peaks of the landscape
of fear, and seek the safer forest edges (the “valleys”). The
second prediction was that this shift should result in a poorer
quality diet because any shift, by default, would be to lower
quality habitat or it soon would be because of increased use
(Brown and Kotler 2004). Lastly, they predicted that the
shift in use should result in changes in vegetation as plants
were released from grazing pressure in high risk areas
(Laundré et al. 2001, p. 1409).
A concurrent study of habitat use by elk during the 1998-
2000 time period by Hernández and Laundré (2005)
supported the first and second predictions. Within the first
five years of the reintroduction of wolves into the Lamar
Valley of Yellowstone, they found elk made a significant
shift toward the forest edges. In a later study within the Park
region, Creel and Winnie (2005) also documented higher use
of edge areas by elk in response to predation by wolves. As
predicted, this shift in habitat use was at the expense of
foraging opportunities because Hernández and Laundré
(2005) also found a significant decline in the diet quality of
elk. The work of Ripple and Beschta (2003, 2004a, 2004b,
2006, 2007), demonstrated spatially patchy changes in
vegetation in Yellowstone Park, thus supporting the third
prediction.
In addition to the original three predictions, Laundré
(2001) also suggested that the new landscape of fear that had
been established should result in even further changes in
community and ecosystem structure. In support of this idea,
Ripple and Beschta (2004a) not only reported increases in
willows (Salix sp.) and aspen in Yellowstone National Park
but a resurgence of beavers (Castor canadensis) because of
the return of their woody food supply. In addition, Frank
Fig. (3). Percentage of aspen leaders browsed (A), and mean aspen heights in Yellowstone’s northern range (B). The percentage of aspen
leaders browsed decreased the most and aspen grew tallest at high predation risk sites in riparian areas with downed logs affecting escape
terrain. (Ripple and Beschta 2007).
6 The Open Ecology Journal, 2010, Volume 3 Laundré et al.
(2008) identified behavioral responses of elk to wolf predation
likely altered net nitrogen mineralization in grasslands.
Furthermore, Halofsky et al. (2008) found that the combined
effects of fire disturbance, changes in elk density and predation
risk, and decreased herbivory following wolf reintroduction
likely facilitated the growth of young aspen. Additionally,
the presence of the wolves in Yellowstone Park has
also reduced the coyote population, which could favor other
mesopredators (Smith et al. 2003) and alter the whole
predator community. Thus, as a general conceptual model,
the landscape of fear has had relatively good predictive
power in this well documented example.
Changes in the landscape of fear can thus alter the predator-
prey relationship and produces a cascading effect on a
variety of ecological levels. If we quantify the landscape of
fear for a particular predator-prey system, we propose that
we can make more precise predictions as to outcomes of the
predator-prey relationship. Additionally, we could also predict
the impact of this relationship on competitive interactions,
plant successional changes, and many other aspects of
ecosystem structure.
Lastly, on a more practical level, quantifying the landscape
of fear can be useful in the management and conservation
of wildlife populations. If, as we predict, the impact
of predators is mediated by the amount and configuration of
risky habitat, quantifying and possibly changing the landscape
of fear could benefit a desired species or help in assessing
the adequacy of an area before reintroducing species,
e.g. bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) (Laundré et al. 2002).
Obviously, further research needs to be conducted on this
issue. If such research supports our predictions, the landscape
of fear model could become a valuable management
and conservation tool.
5. CONCLUSION
In summary, we propose the landscape of fear is a useful,
concise, visual model with measurable physical characteristics
that relate the landscape to the interactions of the
prey and predator found there. We have demonstrated that it
has utility in describing ecological phenomena (e.g. home
range, trophic cascades). This concept can be quantified to
improve existing ecological models and has practical applications
for animal conservation and management. We
propose, then, that the concept of the landscape of fear is
valid and has the potential to become a unifying concept in
animal ecology.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The ideas expressed here have been developed by the
authors over many years of research on predator-prey
systems. For Laundré and Hernández, much of that work
was done while employed by their former institutions. For
the support they provided, we want to thank Idaho State
University (Laundré) and the Instituto de Ecologia, A.C.
(Hernández and Laundré). We thank the many people who
have helped us in these various research projects. We
especially thank Dr. Joel Brown of the University of Illinois
at Chicago and Dr. Robert Beschta of Oregon State
University for their many hours of discussion on optimal
foraging, predation, predation risk, and the ecology of fear.
We thank Dr. Susan Clark of Yale University and Diana
Raper of Oregon State University for helpful comments on
the manuscript. Lastly, we also thank the many other
researchers who have devoted their careers to studying
predation risk and whose results have provided simulation
and support for our ideas.
REFERENCES
Altendorf, KB, Laundré, JW, López González, CA & Brown JS (2001)
Assessing effects of predation risk on the foraging behavior of
mule deer. Journal of Mammalogy, 82, 430-439.
Berger, J, Swenson, JE & Persson IL (2001) Recolonizing carnivores and
naïve prey, conservation lessons from Pleistocene extinctions.
Science, 291, 1036-1039.
Bergman, EJ, Garrott, RA, Creel, S, Borkowski, JJ, Jaffe, R & Watson FGR
(2006) Assessment of prey vulnerability through analysis of wolf
movements and kill sites. Ecological Applications, 16, 273-284.
Boissy, A (1995) Fear and fearfulness in animals. Quarterly Review of
Biology, 70, 165-191.
Bonier, F, Quigley, H & Austad, SN (2004) A technique for non-invasively
detecting stress response in cougars. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32,
711-717.
Boonstra, R, Hik, D, Singleton, GR & Tinnikov, A (1998). The impact of
predator-induced stress on the snowshoe hare cycle. Ecological
Monographs, 79, 371-394.
Brown, JS (1988) Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation
risk, and competition. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 22,
37-47.
Brown, JS & Kotler, BP (2004). Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost
of predation. Ecology Letters, 7, 999-1014.
Brown, JS, Kotler, BP & Valone, TJ (1994) Foraging under predation: a
comparison of energetic and predation costs in rodent communities
in the Negev and Sonoran Deserts. Australian Journal of Zoology,
42, 435-438.
Brown, JS, Laundré, JW & Gurung, M (1999) The ecology of fear: optimal
foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. Journal of
Mammalogy, 80, 385-399.
Burt, WH (1943) Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to
mammals. Journal of Mammalogy, 24, 346-352.
Chapman, LJ, Chapman, CA & Chandler, M (1996) Wetland ecotones as
refugia for endangered fishes. Biological Conservation, 78, 263-
270.
Childress, MJ & Lung MA (2003) Predation risk, gender and the group size
effect: does elk vigilance depend upon the behaviour of
conspecifics? Animal Behaviour, 66, 389-398.
Clarke, MF, Burke da Silva, K, Lair, H, Pocklington, R, Kramer, DL &
McLaughlin, RL (1993) Site familiarity affects escape behaviour of
the eastern chipmunk, Tamias striatus. Oikos, 66, 533-537.
Cockrem, JF & Silverin, B (2002) Sight of a predator can stimulate a
corticosterone response in the great tit (Parus major). General and
Comparative Endocinology, 125, 248-255.
Creel, S, & Winnie Jr., JA (2005) Responses of elk herd size to fine-scale
spatial and temporal variation in the risk of predation by wolves.
Animal Behaviour, 69, 1181-1189.
Creel, S, Fox, JE, Hardy, A, Sands, J, Garrott, B & Peterson, RO (2002)
Snowmobile activity and glucocorticoid stress responses in wolves
and elk. Conservation Biology, 16, 809-814.
Creel, S & Christianson D (2008) Relationships between direct predation
and risk effects. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23, 194-201.
Edwards, J (1983) Diet shifts in moose due to predator avoidance.
Oecologia, 60, 185-189.
Faure, JM, Val-Laillet, D, Guy, G, Bernadet, MD & Guémené, D (2003)
Fear and stress reactions in two species of duck and their hybrid.
Hormones and Behavior, 43, 568-572.
Fortin, D, Beyer, HL, Boyce, MS, Smith, DW, Duchesne, T & Mao, JS
(2005) Wolves influence elk movements: Behavior shapes a trophic
cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology, 86, 1320-1330.
Fortin, D., Boyce, MS, Merrill, EH & Fryxell, JM (2004) Foraging costs of
vigilance in large mammalian herbivores. Oikos, 107, 172-180.
Frank, DA (2008) Evidence for top predator control of a grazing ecosystem.
Oikos, 117, 1718-1724.
The Landscape of Fear The Open Ecology Journal, 2010, Volume 3 7
Gilliam, JF & Fraser, DF (1987) Habitat selection under predation hazard:
test of a model with foraging minnows. Ecology, 68, 1856-1862.
Gude, JA, Garrott, RA, Borkowski, JJ, & King, F (2006) Prey risk
allocation in a grazing ecosystem. Ecological Applications, 16,
285-298.
Halofsky, JS & Ripple, WJ (2008) Fine-scale predation risk on elk after
wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park, USA.
Oecologia, 155, 869-877.
Halofsky, JS, Ripple, WJ & Beschta, RL (2008) Recoupling fire and aspen
recruitment after wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park,
USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 256, 1004-1008.
Harlow, HJ, Lindzey, FG, Van Sickle, WD & Gern WA (1992) Stress
response of cougars to nonlethal pursuit by hunters. Canadian
Journal of Zoology, 70, 136-139.
Hart, D & Sussman, RW (2005) Man the Hunted, Primates, Predators, and
Human Evolution. Westview press: New York, p 312.
Hernández, L & Laundré, JW (2001) Mapping the landscape of fear and its
implications to conservation efforts. Abstract, 8th International
Theriological Congress, Sun City: South Africa, p. 71.
Hernández L & Laundré JW (2005) Foraging in the ‘landscape of fear’ and
its implications for habitat use and diet quality of elk Cervus
elaphus and bison Bison bison. Wildlife Biology, 11, 215-220.
Holmes, BR & Laundré, JW. (2006) Use of open, edge and forest by pumas
Puma concolor in winter: are pumas foraging optimally? Wildlife
Biology, 12, 201-209.
Hornocker, MG (1970) An analysis of mountain lion predation upon mule
deer and elk in the Idaho Primitive Area. Wildlife Monograph, 21,
3-39.
Hunter, LTB & Skinner JD (1998) Vigilance behaviour in African
ungulates: the role of predation pressure. Behaviour, 135, 195-211.
Kavaliers, M, & Choleris, E (2001) Antipredator responses and defensive
behavior: ecological and ethological approaches for the
neurosciences. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 25, 577-
586.
Korte, SM (2001) Corticosteroids in relation to fear, anxiety and
psychopathology. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 25,
117-142.
Laundré, JW, Hernández, L, & Altendorf, KB (2001) Wolves, elk, and
bison: reestablishing the “landscape of fear” in Yellowstone
National Park, USA. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 79, 1401-1409.
Laundré, JW, Hernández, L, Arias de Razo, I & Fowles, G (2002) The
landscape of fear and its implications to sheep reintroductions.
Biennial Symposium Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Conference,
13. Rapid City, S. Dakota, USA, pp. 103-108.
Laundré, JW & Hernández, L (2003) Winter hunting habitat of pumas Puma
concolor in northwestern Utah and southern Idaho, USA. Wildlife
Biology, 9, 123-129.
Leopold, A (1966) A Sand County Almanac and Essays on Conservation
from Round River. Oxford University Press: New York.
Lewis, DB & Eby, LA (2002) Spatially heterogeneous refugia and predation
risk in intertidal salt marshes. Oikos, 96, 119-129.
Lima, SL & Dill, LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of
predation - a review and prospectus. Canadian Journal of Zoology,
68, 619-640.
Longland, WS & Price, MV (1991) Direct observations of owls and
heteromyid rodents, can predation risk explain microhabitat use?
Ecology, 72, 2261-2273.
Mech, LD (1966). The wolves of Isle Royale. Fauna of the National Parks
of the United States Fauna series 7.
Mech, LD, Smith, DW, Murphy, KM & MacNulty, DR (2001) Winter
severity and wolf predation on a formerly wolf-free elk herd.
Journal of Wildlife Management, 65, 998-1003.
Millspaugh, JJ, Woods, RJ, Hunt, KE, Raedeke, KJ, Brundige, GC,
Washburn, BE & Wasser, SK (2001). Fecal glucocorticoid assays
and the physiological stress response in elk. Wildlife Society
Bulletin, 29, 899-907.
Nellis, CH & Keith, LB (1968) Hunting activities and success of lynxes in
Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management, 32, 718-722.
Norrdahl, K & Korpimäki, E (2000) The impact of predation risk from small
mustelids on prey populations. Mammal Review, 30, 147-156.
Novotny, V, Basset, Y, Auga, J., Boen, W, Dal, C, Drozd ,P, Kasbal, M,
Isua, B, Kutil R, Manumbor, M & Molem, K (1999) Predation risk
for herbivorous insects on tropical vegetation, A search for enemyfree
space and time. Australian Journal of Ecology, 24, 477-483.
Quenette, PY (1990) Functions of vigilance behaviour in mammals: a
review. Acta Oecologia, 11, 801-818.
Ripple, WJ & Beschta, RL (2003) Wolf reintroduction, predation risk, and
cottonwood recovery in Yellowstone National Park. Forest
Ecology and Management, 184, 299-313.
Ripple, WJ & Beschta, RL (2004a) Wolves and the ecology of fear: can
predation risk structure ecosystems? BioScience, 54, 755-766.
Ripple, WJ & Beschta, RL (2004b) Wolves, elk, willows, and trophic
cascades in the upper Gallatin Range of southwestern Montana,
USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 200, 161-168.
Ripple, WJ & Beschta, RL (2006) Linking wolves to willows via risksensitive
foraging by ungulates in the northern Yellowstone
ecosystem. Forest Ecology and Managment. 230, 96-106.
Ripple, WJ & Beschta, RL (2007) Restoring Yellowstone’s aspen with
wolves. Biological Conservation, 138, 514-519.
Ripple, WJ, Laren, EJ, Renkin, RA & Smith, DW (2001) Trophic Cascades
among wolves, elk and aspen on Yellowstone National Park's
northern range. Biological Conservation, 102, 227-234.
Rosenzweig, ML & MacArthur, RH (1963) Graphical representation and
stability of predator-prey interactions. The American Naturalist, 97,
209-223.
Roy, C & Woolf A (2001) Effects of hunting and hunting-hour extension on
mourning dove foraging and physiology. Journal of Wildlife
Management, 65, 808-815.
Rushen, J (2000) Some issues in the interpretation of behavioural responses
to stress. In: Moberg GP, Mench JA, Eds. The Biology of Animal
Stress Basic Principals and Implications for Animal Welfare. Oxon,
UK, CABI Publishing. pp. 23-42.
Schmitz, OJ, Krivan, V & Ovadia, O (2004). Trophic cascades: the primacy
of trait-mediated indirect interactions. Ecology Letters, 7, 153-163.
Shrader, AM, Brown, JS, Kerley, GIH & Kotler, BP (2008) Do free-ranging
domestic goats show ‘landscapes of fear’? Patch use in response to
habitat features and predator cues. Journal of Arid Envirnoments,
72, 1811-1819.
Sih, A (1980) Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting
demands? Science, 210, 1041-1043.
Smith, DW, Peterson, RO & Houston DB (2003) Yellowstone after wolves.
Bioscience, 53, 330-340.
Stephens, PW & Peterson, RO (1984) Wolf-avoidance strategies of moose.
Holarctic Ecology, 7, 239-244.
Sweitzer, RA (1996) Predation or starvation: consequences of foraging
decisions by porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum). Journal of
Mammalogy, 77, 1068-1077.
Temple, SA (1987) Do predators always capture substandard individuals
disproportionately from prey populations? Ecology, 68, 669-674.
Treves, A, Drescher, A & Snowdon, CT (2003) Maternal watchfulness in
black howler monkeys (Alouatta pigra). Ethology, 109, 135-147.
Van der Merwe, M & Brown, JS (2008) Mapping the landscape of fear of
the cape ground squirrel (Xerus inauris). Journal of Mammalogy,
89, 1162-1169.
Van Orsdol, KG (1984) Foraging behaviour and hunting success of lions in
Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda. African Journal of
Ecology, 22, 79-99.
Welp, T, Rushen, J, Kramer, DL, Festa-Bianchet, M & de Passillé, AMB
(2004) Vigilance as a measure of fear in dairy cattle. Applied
Animal Behaviour Science, 87, 1-13.
White, CA, Feller, MC & Bayley, S (2003) Predation risk and the functional
response of elk-aspen herbivory. Forest Ecology and Management,
181, 77-97.
Wolff, JO & Van Horn, T (2003) Vigilance and foraging patterns of
American elk during the rut in habitats with and without predators.
Canadian Journal of Zoology, 81, 266-271.
Received: September 09, 2009 Revised: November 07, 2009 Accepted: November 16, 2009
© Laundré et al.; Licensee Bentham Open.
This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync/
3.0/), which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution & reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited
considering the states economic woes of 2010.
NOT trying to nit pic here ZB but I've yet to attend a "Selling The Ranch, Due To Wolf Depredation" sale in my neck of the woods (Montana) 15 years and I've only heard wolves twice howling, in an area that is a so called "hotspot" of activity.
And yes Todd, I've lived in Montana for quite awhile.
The Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are all great sidelines for kids (and some adults) but the reality is the unchecked human species is chunking up, dividing and developing whats left of wilderness areas (only have to google ranches for sale in the west, to relate to that fact)
That to me, is what really needs to be addressed if you want to save lifestyles and wildlife.................
for that matter why are you trying to insert the cougar into the conversation when he is not an endangered species that is IS an essential native species ?? he is not relevant to our conversation here other than to note he is a part of the keystone predator mix and is now considered a soon to be threatened species due to the keystone predator saturation problem in the gya.
rather than copying entire articles and their authors from the cougar news and other sources try just posting a link to the sight, it makes for a much more concise post, just try to keep it relevant to what we are discussing at the moment rather than ideological fluff and theory articles from folks trying to write something to get a paycheck. try to concentrate on non biased research as i do.
essentially reciting authors concerning black howler monkeys is stretching it a bit far don't you think ??
AAhhhh nancy, good to see you have returned :), have you an answer to our query yet ??
Nancy, Todd and Z Biker...............wishing you all a fun Labor Day Weekend................
you too rick, if the weather holds it should be a good one :)
The "welfare rancher" nomenclature is just Goebbels propaganda. Demonize the one you want to exterminate is right there with all the genocidal talk we get from academia over the ages. That comes from the assumed purity of thought that those who have credentials proving they are the smart set, and has over time been more dangerous than a trainload of Ebola. That is what has killed the most people in the last two centuries. Pontificating writers poisoning the public well of thought for the good of a few at the expense of even fewer. Beat up those least able to defend themselves from the tyranny of a righteous majority. That is the sociopath thing to do. And, it has traction among the clean hands set, the pressed blue jeans crowd. Gotta have that straight as a string crease right down the topside of the pant leg. Long Lee, the dude ranch bull cook, takes care of that. Welfare ranchers wear their pants until they stand by themselves, and then some. Don't have time to engage in the more polite pursuits of the non egalitarian set who donate their money to get rid of welfare ranchers and others with hard hands, weather creased faces, and soiled clothing. You know, or as they will tell you, authors and architects, lawyers and those with family money have better ways to use land than "use" it. You only "use" those who can do something for you. And evidently livestock operators running animals on public land, the money from which goes to government and 25% to local governments and schools, should go away and we should tax any income over $100,000 at 85% and level the playing field in this country. Tax the holy hell out of the rich so public lands all can be burned in the "fire is natural and good" or "fire for resource benefit" or "wildland fire use", or whatever you want to call it conflagration. It all looks like the kid who is envious of other's construction and kicks it all to ground, or burns it, because he neither has the brains, desire, or work ethic to make it himself. If you can't have it, destroy it. That is public land management today. And that is what George wants for livestock operators. He doesn't want to share. He wants to call them names. And it all is about vague and temporal sensibilities that will wax in times of plenty, and wane when shit goes south. I am of the mind that things are going south, and farther and faster than we ever anticipated. "Welfare ranchers" "externalizing their predator control costs" is a bogus argument of the kind that have been embraced by urban arm chair experts, and are little broken cogs in the machine of our economy that is now so helplessly broken and missing so many cogs, and the sabots being tossed into the remaining gears are not making economic sense to the unwashed, hard handed, common sense majority who might upset the food cart on your street in November. Enough is enough. It is time to take care of business, and it is business that pays the taxes that pay way for the blabbering and blubbering class, who don't seem to be able to produce a product, or a foodstuff, to fuel the business that pays the wages, makes the money, all of which is taxed to provide for their refuge from the wordaday world. Noses are falling daily to spite a face, feet are being shot at a record pace, and the whole of it needs to stop and November is as good a time to stop it as any. Replace the "welfare Congress", like my Senator Wyden who has not had a private sector job in forty years, but is now a multi millionaire, with a wife living and working in NYC, while he carpetbags it to Oregon on the red eye, leaving his family behind in NYC, 3300 miles away and several hundred from where he supposedly works in Washington DC. Gotta recycle those wives, and a Senator needs to have a younger, more nubile spouse for his or her dotage. A new model. I think that is what the plastic surgery and dyed hair is about. The painted on eyebrows and tinted contacts are another story in the Vanity Handbook. Our Narcissist Senate. Hairplugs and combovers and a hot blonde on the arm. Doing good for us. If we pay them enough.
That is it, George!!! All you need to do is pay enough Senators enough money, and they will GLADLY make ranchers internalize their predator control costs. Without the predation losses, grazing should cost more, because you are buying feed that you will actually get to sell on the hoof, and not have to watch walk off as a gut full of your cow's guts. You buy the grass and hope to sell it as cow on the hoof. The cow, and the feed to that point in time the bear or wolf or cougar or coyote consumes your cow is a loss of income, and a reduction in tax burden. You are on to something, George. Internalize predator control by handing it over to the lease holder. Good idea!!!
Here is a perfect opportunity for you guys to return to the 16th, 17th, 18, 19th century which you year for so much that you are willing to cause untold expense for ranch families to live that way. Get your own wildlfie to live that early life.
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100263016>1=31036
With all the facts now out there when it comes to welfare ranching and the years of destruction to public lands not to mention the loss of wildlife on those public lands (here in the west) propping up an industy that contributes, roughly 3%, to the overall market when it comes to beef. A growing number now don't even consider a part of their diet, given the red flags tossed around (google the FDA website) and no oversight, when it comes to the final product, which too often are dragged, kicking and screaming into those famous, few "stockyards" before bits and pieces of them end up on dinner tables)
how can you even equate the two Todd?
SOMETHING JUST PUBLISHED THAT HAS US IN AGREEMENT........:)
Your esteemed Montana State Scientists have published an impact study on how Wolves have so far impacted Elk destruction of Willow and Aspen in Yellowstone.................they do feel that at this point, Wolves have not had a large impact on browsing...........they also applaud Wolves being back on the ground and feel that an even further Elk reduction is necessary to get Willow and Aspen regeneration(and its subsequent positive ripple effects thru the environment)happening faster and over wide areas of the System...................As famous NY Yankee baseball announcer Mel Allen used to say: "HOW BOUT THAT"
ECOLOGY JOURNAL ARTICLE
Study shows wolves by themselves aren’t helping aspen as much as thought and that....................
"The elk population in the area is still too large to allow a significant aspen rebound".
"A landscape-level aspen recovery is likely only to occur if wolves, in combination with other predators and climate factors, further reduce the elk population," Kauffman said".
ALL OF US WHO USE % UPS AND DOWNS REGARDING POPULATION FIGURES(TO ARGUE PRO OR CON REGARDING WHAT WAS VERSUS WHAT IS IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF ANIMALS) FORGET THAT THE 15,000 ELK PRESENT IN THE PARK PRIOR TO WOLF RESTORATION IN 1995 WAS AN "IRRUPTED" POPULATION--MEANING AS WOLVES WERE EXTIRPATED FROM YELLOWSTONE BY THE EARLY 1930'S, ELK RELIEVED OF A KEYSTONE PREDATOR(THE STRAW THAT STIRRED THE DRINK ALONGSIDE COUGARS, GRIZ AND COYOTES), WERE ABLE TO MULTIPLY EXPONENTIALLY--WITH NEGATIVE ALTERATIONS ON PLANT LIFE AS IT RELATES TO WILLOW AND ASPEN GENERATION...............TRICKLING DOWN NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES THAT INCLUDED DEGRADED WATERCOURSES AND EXTIRPATION OF BEAVER(NO TREES TO BUILD DAMS) AND BIRDS(NO STREAMSIDE NESTING AVAILABLE)-blogger Rick weighing in.
Wolves have not helped the aspen trees in and around Yellowstone National Park as much as previously thought, a study to be published in the journal Ecology suggests.
The finding challenges the assertion that aspens in Yellowstone had rebounded thanks to wolves, a claim that has become symbolic of the far-reaching affects wolves have on their environment and, for some, a beneficial payoff of the controversial reintroduction.
Researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey, the University of Montana and Humboldt State University have found that elk continue to put pressure on aspen groves, regardless of whether wolves are near.
And, while the Northern Yellowstone elk herd is 60 percent smaller than it was before wolf reintroduction in 1995, "none of the aspen groves studied after wolf restoration appear to be regenerating," said Matt Kauffman, a USGS scientist and lead author of the study.
"Elk forage pretty heavily on aspen and it's really still unknown whether aspen are going to be able to recover," he said.
But while the findings refute what's become a common narrative in the wolf debate - that by eating elk, the predator has allowed aspens and other elk food to rebound from over-browsing -- Kauffman said it shouldn't affect the conversation about the overall worth of wolves.
"I don't think our study has any real bearing on the merits of wolf introduction," he said. "The reintroduction was an incredible wildlife-management success."
Instead, Kauffman said the results clarify the complex relationship between elk, wolves and aspen.
A theory amongst scientists - fleshed out in a widely circulated study published in 2007 in the journal Biological Conservation -- has been that aspen in Yellowstone were regenerating in areas of the park where wolves were common. Elk avoided those areas, the theory went, giving the young aspen a chance to grow to maturity. In other words, wolves acted as unwitting guard dogs for baby trees.
As Science Daily put it at the time, the 2007 results were "especially encouraging for the health of America's first national park, but may also have implications for other areas of the West and other important predators."
But Kauffman and other researchers have since mapped places in the northern elk herd's range where wolves posed a serious risk to elk, as determined by elk kills, and where they didn't. The researchers found aspen trees were browsed in both areas.
And, they found that the elk population in the area is still too large to allow a significant aspen rebound.
"A landscape-level aspen recovery is likely only to occur if wolves, in combination with other predators and climate factors, further reduce the elk population," Kauffman said.
That aspen study is a precurser to some pretty devastatingly low elk numbers, that they are going to spin as good for Yellwostone. There is no way that a 70% drop in elk numbers have had no effect on aspen if elk ever had any appreciable effect at all. I have been photographing elk for years in Arizona, in Rocky Mountain NP, and in Yellowstone and the Tetons. I have never seen an elk eating aspen with the exception of bulls eating aspen bark off of burned trees after the 88 fires.
Go to the Tetons and you will see the aspens doing very well everyone goes there for fall colors, yet they have thousands of elk winter down there, the aspens in RMNP are wonderful, same in northern Arizona.
There is no way to stop the elk slaughter by the wolves until the elk are gone so they are trying to spin it as good. Last years count is a record low since they began counting, and the previous was in 1969, something over 4000 in just Yellowstone itself. Since we know there were 2235 counted in the Gardiner area, that means less than 4000 left inside of the park
Every species except buffalo eat more browse and forbs than elk, does anyone think we have to eliminate the moose, the big horns or the antelope? Actually the wolves have done a pretty good job of eliminating the moose.
We do not want our moose in the Big Horns eliminated in the name of political correctness. I counted 13 in one herd this morning early, and yes I have photos.
THE EMBEDDED VIDEO ABOVE DEPICTING HOW CATTLE RANCHERS IN FLORIDA ARE ACTIVELY PROTECTING PREDATORS ON THIER RANCHES AND STILL MAKING A GOOD LIVING IN THE PROCESS..............ARE NOT MONTANA RANCHERS AS QUALIFIED AND PROFESSIONAL? SEEMS LIKE IF THEY WANT TO DO GOOD IN THIS AREA THEY CAN.
a strategy I have found successful is to target just one individual, and then bore in. Todd would be a good example.I have noticed it does not take much to get him to cut and run. Ignore anyone else and just engage that one individual. every point made can be easily defeated by the truth, backed by evidence. Then tackle the next.
Unfortunately they will just go to another thread, website or media outlet and start all over again where they won't be challenged by facts.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/82934288@N00/
The same way we all(i hope you agree) are disgusted with our partisan Republican and Democratic Senate and Congress not being able to collaborate enough to find common ground and do good by our great USA, i would ask you to join me in being disgusted that all we can do is draw lines in the sand on this issue of how to Ranch, Farm and Industrialize in such a way that our water and air gets cleaner.............our soils get rejuvenated and that our fellow creatures and ourselves can multiply responsibly and sustainably. It should not be "my way or the highway"...............With respect to many of us, no one is a "rookie" in terms of time on the planet in this discussion............this is not one college kid debating another theoretically.................to suggest that any of us on either side of this discussion are stupid is wrong. But i have found over a long career in negotiating terms that it cannot be all one way or all the other way. That is why our Mideast dilemma has been at a stalemate since 1948..................Emotional intelligence is the hardest intelligence to teach another person. Historically, humans are so quick to say: "It's us versus them"..............and those "thems" just do not get it. Without sounding to idealistic, the only time that we make progress on any of the great issues facing our Nation(Race Relations, Clean Air, Clean Water, etc) was when the "Us and the "Thems"(democrats and Republicans) locked arms and pounded out a bipartisan agreement. President Nixon signed the Wilderness Act, Clean Water, Clean Air Acts, not liberal Dems......................99 Senators voted yes for Wilderness...................a huge majority for Endangered Species Act..................Have we not forgotten how to do good?
It proves nothing, and cannot be applied as a blanket over the entirety of the northern Rockies wolf recovery zone.
We all know that Tongue River moose population is the exception , not the rule, in Moosedom. I personally have only seen 'large' numbers of moose in the wild once, in 1997 , in Crandall northwest of Cody , at midnight, migrating easterly . Somewhere north of 20 moose. I have no idea why they were bunched up and moving like that in the middle of the night . It wasn't wolves pushing them.
I regularly see several moose at once in those Tongue River high willows when driving across the Big Horns. I also see w-a-a-a-y too manyc attle in the riparian areas up there...the Welles Ranch from Wolf, Wyoming comes to mind. The Big Horns are mightily grazed, even overgrazed, especially by sheep. But having said that , the headwaters of the Tongue is the ONLY place in northern Wyoming that I am aware of where Moose exist in those kinds of consistent numbers.
My cousin managed a ranch over near Cora in the Upper Green River back during the 1970's and 80's. Moose were really thick there , then but not now. ( I vaguely recall that G & F issued something like 250 moose licenses for that upper Green valley , but that is a dim memory and maybe off by an order of magnitude). There were so many Moose my cousin had to chase them away from wintering cattle on snowmobile. No more. They began dying away or moving away ----long before the wolves were brought back. The sharp drop in moose populations in northern and western Wyoming began before wolves returned, and continues .
When you show us pix of moose alongside cattle in the Tongue River, the reader needs to know this is exceptional, and not typical nor even representative of either moose or lack of predation.
I have to ask you , Todd. Are you aware that the Big Horns have wolves, regularly ? Are you conveniently ignoring that for the purposes at hand? Wildlife Services spent the entirety of the summer of 2009 trying to wrangle some naughty wolves ( > 4) in the Big Horns, all the way from down by Kaycee to the Montana line.
Which is why I am asking about the date those moose-cattle pix were taken. And reminding you that they prove nothing along the lines of the topic of this article by Wuerthner.
And where were the sheepherders , owners, and/or guard dogs when those 24 sheep became smorgasbord?
( quote) Another study of wolf predation on domestic sheep in the French Alps found that confining and/or simply gathering sheep at night in the presence of 5 livestock-guarding dogs prevented most kills (94% and 79%, respectively) that would have occurred in similar conditions but with free-ranging sheep...
... It’s clear that it’s possible to run livestock with fewer predator losses if proper animal husbandry practices are implemented. "
- George Wuerthner , from above
Fortunately FWS was able to find the wolves and take care of them.
In the begging when you were arguing with dewey i have to say i agree with you. I love wolves as a creature they are smart and beautiful but if they came after my horses or my dog you dang right I shoot them. But I would go to jail. but you see when people like us care about our animals its very heart breaking to stand there and watch a wolf tear the shreds out of your dog and we can't even touch them.
Ranchers are sooo not socialists! and maybe its time for enviros to pay taxes. Don't expect people like us (ranchers) to come to the rescue when enviros have no food on the table. We'll thrive when their microwaves break.
another delusional, bigoted comment from the wolf haters/ranchers.
oh yeah if I support wolves then I only know how to cook with a microwave.
oh i am sooo depednent on ranchers for my food, what will i do when they are gone??
Get a life you prejducied fool we dont need you wellfare ranchers or your crappy beef period.