Honesty From A Wolf Hunter About Wolves And Elk
Posted September 23, 2009 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places
In an article about the first wolf killed by a hunter in northern Montana, the hunter that killed the wolf, Dan Pettit, offers some surprisingly candid commentary on wolves and elk in the Northern Rockies.
One of the most common -- and most erroneous -- gripes from the anti-wolf community is that wolves have annihilated the elk population in the Northern Rockies.
When asked about wolves and elk, Pettit gave an honest answer:
"Do wolves affect elk? Absolutely. But in my opinion, the story of the wolves going into a basin and decimating the elk herd just isn't true."
Pettit is right, the "wolves have decimated all the elk" argument isn't true, and it's encouraging to hear a wolf hunter admit that.
What are the facts? According to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, which is certainly not a wolf-loving organization, the elk population in the Northern Rockies has skyrocketed in the last twenty-five years, notwithstanding the reintroduction of wolves in the mid-1990s. Wyoming's elk population has grown 35%, Idaho's has grown 5%, and Montana's a whopping 66%.
So, how have wolves affected elk? Simple: the presence of wolves on the landscape has made elk act more like . . . well, ummm . . . elk.
When wolves, a native predator to the Northern Rockies, were eradicated from this region in the 1930s, elk lost their primary predator and stopped behaving like wild elk. They became less cautious and overbrowsed streamside vegetation, which negatively affected beavers, songbirds, and coldwater fish species like trout.
The reintroduction of wolves has been an ecological boon to the Northern Rockies. So much so, in fact, that scientists hope to restore wolves to other ecosystems for purely ecological reasons -- chief among them the ecological devastation caused by overbrowsing elk. An article about the need to restore wolves to Olympic National Park in Washington noted:
Most famously, [two ecologists] showed that within three years after wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and elk populations fell, pockets of trees and shrubs began rebounding. Beavers returned, coyote numbers dropped and habitat flourished for fish and birds.
It was an "explosive" discovery, said David Graber, regional chief scientist for the National Park Service. "The whole ecosystem re-sorted itself after those wolf populations got large enough."
The elk population in the Northern Rockies is strong -- stronger than it was a quarter century ago -- but elk use the landscape differently with wolves present -- they use it in a more natural, ecologically friendly way.
And that means hunters have to hunt elk differently. They need to cover more ground and move around the landscape more. In essence, they need to hunt.
Pettit admitted that, too:
Wolves, he said, surely have changed the way deer and elk act in the wilds, and that's changing the ways hunters must hunt.
Sure, hunters need to hunt differently nowadays, but the elk are still here, they're here in great numbers, and hunters can still find them, as evidenced by Petit's recent trip into the backcountry:
"But in that same small basin, on the same morning we saw the eight wolves, we also saw seven cow elk. Right there in the same little drainage with the wolves.
The very next day, in fact, one of his hunting partners shot a five-point bull elk in the same area.
NRDC and other groups fought hard to stop the premature wolf hunts from proceeding, and it's difficult to read about Pettit or any other hunter killing a wolf.
But it's refreshing to see a wolf hunter finally talk straight about wolves in the heated debate over how they should be managed. I hope others take notice.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
John Robbins — Sep 23 2009 05:54 PM
Nice try, but using hunters to defend an anti-hunting viewpoint doesn't wash. How many studies of wolf predation on elk, moose, and deer--not to mention livestock--and how many accounts from residents of the Rocky Mountain states who have found elk carcasses left by wolves, would it take for you to believe that wolves do kill elk? Few if any hunters have ever used the word "annihilate." But there can be no question wolf predation takes at least a very serious toll on big game. Come on, be honest!
Terry Pitt — Sep 23 2009 06:05 PM
John; of course wolves hunt elk. No one has ever denied that. But they don't decimate the elk herds. That's the argument.
Steve Hunts — Sep 23 2009 06:26 PM
Spokespersons for Montana FWP have stated in the public record that they believe that wolves are having a very dramatic effect on elk populations now. This is a 180 degree turn around on what they have said in the past. You guys need to do your research better. Wolf populations are over twice the size of target populations agreed upon by both the scientific community and wolf protection groups. The fact is that the wolf people will never stand for any population control of wolf numbers, ever.
Matt Skoglund — Sep 24 2009 11:48 AM
John,
Terry said it perfectly. Of course, wolves kill elk and other animals, but they have not decimated the elk population in the Northern Rockies, as many in the anti-wolf community would have you believe. The gray wolf is a native predator in these parts, and its reintroduction has restored balance to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and the Northern Rockies.
And NRDC is not against hunting, but we think these wolf hunts are premature and will set back the recovery already achieved. I hunt, and here are my thoughts on hunting and the wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mskoglund/a_hunters_take_on_montanas_and.html
Thanks for commenting.
Matt
Matt Skoglund — Sep 24 2009 11:49 AM
Steve,
Without question, the reintroduction of wolves has affected elk in the Northern Rockies. They’ve moved elk around the landscape more and made elk behave like wild elk should. As I explained above, the wolves’ effect on the ecosystems they inhabit has been extremely positive and elk in the Northern Rockies are doing just fine, as evidenced by the statistics recently released by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
The established recovery targets for wolves are way too low, as any conservation biologist will tell you. We want to see a lasting wolf recovery that ensures the long-term viability of the species. For that to happen, we need a larger wolf population (i.e., at least a couple of thousand wolves) with legitimate genetic exchange between the subpopulations of central Idaho, northwest Montana, and greater Yellowstone. And we need strong state management plans that make sure full biological recovery is here to stay. Once full recovery is achieved, we won’t oppose a sustainable wolf hunt.
Thanks for commenting.
Matt
Janet Stringer — Sep 24 2009 01:47 PM
John and Steve,
I'm curious. Which studies are you citing that support your position that elk are being decimated by wolves in the Northern Rockies. I would like to be able to read more about your position if you're so inclined to share your evidence. Please send a link to the studies you are referencing. Also, I'm not interested in reading anecdotal evidence or statements made by agency officials, just the scientific studies please.
Thank you!
Alica Schweitzer — Sep 24 2009 01:51 PM
No one is denying that wolves kill elk. they do so for food and not for "sport". I bet man kills many more elk than a pack of wolves do - and they eat on one elk for a lot longer period of time, not to mention other wildlife who feed of the carcasses.
Alica
John Robbins — Sep 24 2009 02:50 PM
Hi, Janet--You might start with these:
http://www.yellowstonepark.com/MoreToKnow/ShowNewsDetails.aspx?NEWSID=10
http://rliv.com/wolfWolf-Lolo.pdf
http://rliv.com/pic/USGS%20Wolf%20Kill%20Rate.pdf
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/severity/results.htm
http://www.lotwenterprise.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1579682
Janet Stringer — Sep 24 2009 04:05 PM
Thanks John for sending the links.
While the articles and USGS graphs are interesting, I don't see any compelling "scientific" evidence here that proves one way or the other that wolves are decimating elk. I'm intrigued as to why you added the last link which really doesn't have anything to do with the topic. The article mainly focuses on an elk reintroduction program in Canada with no conclusions drawn about wolf/elk interactions other than to state that one of the collared elk was killed by a wolf.
What I'm looking for is hard facts that relate to any scientific study that shows more than just "wolves kill elk". I know that! I'm looking for studies that indicate that overall elk numbers have decreased in the Northern Rockies as a result of wolf reintroduction. I'm trying really hard to understand the counter-argument that: 1) elk populations in the Northern Rocies are in trouble; and, 2) population declines can be directly linked to wolves (and only wolves).
I really appreciate your assistance in helping me understand and if you can point to any "other" evidence that answers the questions above, I would be grateful. Again, a nice peer reviewed scientific study would fit perfectly here.
I was also wondering if you knew what the current elk tally was for the Northern Rockies. I've read between 300,000 and 400,000. Do you know if that's true?
John — Sep 24 2009 05:41 PM
Janet-- Fair enough. Consider a study funded by the National Science Foudation that concluded, among other points, "Elk being hunted regularly by wolves are starving faster than those not hunted by wolves..."
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/greater-yellowstone-elk-wolf-study-shows-elk-having-fewer-calves-due-changes-nutrition-23130.html
Also, the USGS study showed an average wolf kills 3 elk a month. With 1550 wolves or so in the Rockies, let's say 500 are mature enough to bring down an elk. So 1500 elk a month killed by wolves. Does that threaten the entire Rocky Mt. elk population? Maybe not, but I think it's significant enough, along with overall recovery goals being exceeded by more than 500 percent, to justify a controlled, regulated hunting season. I don't speak for all hunters--but most of us are thrilled at the wolf comeback and do NOT want to see them wiped out, regardless of what shreiking anti-hunting groups would have you believe.
Montana and Idaho hunters will take no more than 20 percent of the wolves--and since wolves reproduce at about 20 percent a year, I really do not buy that a hunting season will exterminate them--nor would we want that! State-run seasons are a lot better than "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up!"
Thanks for your point of view.
Matt Skoglund — Sep 24 2009 05:56 PM
John and Janet,
Thank you for your comments, and thank you for your civil discourse -- the wolf debate needs more of that.
Matt
Janet Stringer — Sep 24 2009 07:10 PM
John...I thank you for your viewpoint as well. And I agree with Matt that this issue needs more civility, so thanks for your patience.
I took a look at the article link and find the questions raised very interesting. It makes me wonder...could it be possible that reintroducing wolves in Yellowstone was tantemount to hitting a reset button? This is an elk herd that has lived for several decades without the threat of wolf predation. (BTW, it's also a herd that co-evolved with wolves, but that's another topic.) Could the information presented here indicate a learning process for new survival skills? (You know that with all learning processes, there are setbacks.) The article references a study that shows elk are foraging in high forest areas, away from predators, where the availability of food is scarce. That makes total sense! But the conclusions here are really just conjecture. I would be interested to know if this study has been peer reviewed with a summary of findings.
Living in Montana, I know that elk in the Northern herd are expanding their range into lower lands outside of the Park--much to the shagrin of area ranchers who find them depredating on their haystacks.
Again, is this outmigration into low range valleys an example of elk learning new behaviors in a new world? Could it be that elk are relearning where to find good, nutritious food during long, hard winters away from danger? I think that it's irresponsible to jump to a single conclusion when considering such a complicated and delicate subject, which is why I ask these questions.
Regardless, I will do more digging on the facts you've presented by way of this article. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this in a rational way.
Steve Hunts — Sep 25 2009 01:23 PM
I think it's pretty silly to ignore anecdotal evidence that comes directly from Montana FWP field personnel. That there is a lack of peer reviewed studies available on the elk/wolf relationship showing elk population losses from wolves is due to how recent this phenomenon is. So when you say you will accept only peer reviewed science, you can proudly state that that there is no "evidence" to support the claims that the elk population is being decimated. Sort of a self fulfilling prophecy wouldn't you say?
I know MFW & P personnel and meet with them and many will still only discuss this privately because it is such a hot button issue. Recent fly overs with small planes in the Madison range recently counted only 150 elk. This included areas like the Taylor's Fork which has historically had much higher numbers. Of course, if you refuse to consider such "anecdotal" sources then you can continue down this road for the next 10 years or so(maybe more) for scientific data that will, no doubt, back up the MT FWP personnel who are in the field, tracking, collaring, and counting elk in SW Montana.
Also, while Montana elk population may in fact be static, population losses are being offset by an increase of elk in areas of Eastern Montana where there are no wolves(yet). Of course, I have no peer reviewed scientific papers to back this up and only, once again, the words of MT FWP to go by.
Janet, I think it is a very convenient stance for you to take on this issue.
Steve Hunts — Sep 25 2009 01:43 PM
I would also like to add that perhaps we should apply Janet's standard to other issues regarding our environment. How many peer reviewed studies are there that have considered the drilling issue along the Rocky Mountain front?
As a life long conservationist I can appreciate the value of hard science. I do not think that many in the conservation community would like to see this standard applied universally across the board on environmental issues. Limited funding and the length of time needed for these studies to be completed would preclude action on many issues that are in desperate need of our attention. Too say we need more peer reviewed studies before we can act reminds me of the Bush Administrations attitude towards global warming, the Clean Air Act, and many other issues that have been not been addressed. A pretty shameful tactic to do nothing and accept the status quo.
Janet Barwick — Sep 25 2009 04:18 PM
Steve, you and I must be talking to different MTFWP employees! No one here is arguing that wolves are not having an impact on elk. We know that they are. Wolves move elk around the landscape, elk are splintering off into smaller herds and are seeking shelter in high mountain environments. But to make the claim that elk are being severly impacted by wolves based on "anecdotal" evidence--or just plain biased scientific theories is irresponsible. I have anecdotal evidence that smoking is not dangerous to your health having many family members who smoked all their lives (into old age) without getting cancer.
AND, BTW...The Bush administration IGNORED peer reviewed science and based their policy decisions on politics and NOT science. I don't see how you can make the connection between asking for hard scientific facts to an administration that did nothing but ignore hard scientific facts--including climate change.
As for elk in the Madison Range. You should go and talk to the Madison Valley Ranchland Group about what they think of elk! They've asked for hunting season to be extended there and are screaming about the several thousand head of elk depredating on their haystacks! 150 elk? That's not what I hear. Last time I talked to a rancher over there, they estimated 7,000--but see--that's what you get when you rely on heresay and anecdotes!
Steve Hunts — Sep 25 2009 06:03 PM
Janet,
Note that I said Madison RANGE and not VALLEY. You're twisting my words around. Once you're changed around my words you accuse me of relying on heresay and anecdotes!!! You have not refuted a single fact of mine, just butchered my statement.
All the elk down on those Madison Valley ranches are down there to avoid getting eaten by the wolves, they have left the mountains to the east for the security of the private land. I happen to know personally several ranchers in the Madison Valley group. The ranchers ARE mad as hell because they don't want the elk down on their grass. B4 the wolves this was not an issue BTW. The fly over this summer was to the east of the private land. That was where they counted 150 elk(in public land, in the Madison RANGE).
The BUSH administration stated repeatedly that there was not ENOUGH scientific research to make an informed decision on global warming(like you down playing the links John R provided).
Bush did the same thing with mercury. When his administration wanted to muddy the waters a little more, and slow things down, they had THEIR scientists publish papers that refuted environmental concerns. I am not arguing that scientific research isn't worthwhile just that there is more to the story.
I won't deny that I have heard MFWP folks make some contrary statements depending on who is in the room with them. This issue is so heavily politicized that are very careful on what they say, especially in a public forum. Suffice to say that I know several(some very important) who, on more than one occasion, have talked about the dramatic effect wolves are having on elk numbers. Also, take a look at what is happening over in Idaho with their elk numbers. Here's what Mark Gamblin of Idaho F & P had to say recently-
"in the Lolo and Sawtooth Zones the recent, sharp decline in elk productivity and recruitment I referred to is due to wolf predation of productive cows and their calves, not hunting mortality. The radio-telemety data we have for cows and calves in those zones gives us the fate of each collared elk and allows us to accurately estimate the wolf predation rate of cows and calves. Having good baseline data for these elk populations from previous years, including hunting harvest data, we can say with certainty that wolf predation has pushed elk production and recruitment in these two zones below levels that have required substantial reductions in the elk hunting opportunity that was allowable with essentially the same habitat when wolves were introduced. HOW we manage this new wildlife population dynamic (elk-wolf) and the necessary changes in public uses and benefits of those resources is of course our challenge."
One question. Whatever happened to the target wolf population numbers that were agreed to by the non profits of several years ago? Now that the number of wolves is over twice that target number we still see these groups arguing for MORE wolves on the landscape. Where are their scientific papers showing us the exact number of wolves that should be maintained on our public/private lands???
Muhair — Sep 25 2009 10:32 PM
Fyi, "decimate" means reduce by 1/10th. So, perhaps wolves do decimate the elk population, but apparently it's not the end of them.
JJ England — Sep 26 2009 12:02 PM
As an outside, removed observer reading this blog purely out of interest for these issues, it seems that both sides here have merit. Here's what I've noticed:
1. Advocates on both sides of this issue have something important in common—protection and conservation of wildlife is a top concern.
2. You differ on introduction of predatory species because this causes changes in ecology that humans must react to (and admittedly, change is hard, perhaps which is shown best by affected ranchers who, in an ideal world, ought to be compensated).
It seems very likely that introduction of wolves into an area may represent a "shock" to the wildlife and ecology in that system, perhaps temporarily even resulting in a "decimation" of elk. However, as Matt states in his original post, over time these shocks subside and local wildlife and ecology begin to work in harmony, as they should.
For you experts out there, I'd appreciate it if you could humor me by answering a couple questions. What are the current estimated densities of wolf populations in the *local* (where local is defined scientifically, perhaps as an area where one group of elk or wolves primarily live) areas where wolves have been reintroduced (i.e., not looking at statewide figures), and are these densities sufficient to: (1) cause *local*, short-term negative elk population growth, and (2) cause long-term reductions in *local* elk populations. If the answer to either of these questions is "yes" or "maybe," will higher density populations of wolves eventually spread out to other areas, resulting in lower wolf densities and an equilibrium where wolves and elk coexist naturally, or could reintroduction of wolves have cumulative negative impacts on local elk populations due to continued high densities of wolf populations?
I'm asking these questions specifically at the local level because statewide figures aren't all that telling about what's going on in a local ecology.
I understand that the answers to these questions may not yet exist, but I would appreciate any insights that you all might have to offer (on both sides). I'm just trying to understand the issues here…
It seems that perhaps the only way to answer these questions is to use radio tags, attach them completely at random to x number of elk and y number of wolves, and run statistical analyses at certain time intervals to see what the short and long-term impacts of wolf reintroduction and wolf populations on elk loss of life and geographical migrations are, in order to determine the precise impacts that wolves have on elk, at all levels including short-term, long-term, local, and regional.
Perhaps that is what Idaho F&W was trying to do, but Mr. Gamblin's ultimate comment regarding their collected elk radio telemetry appears to be misleading. His comment merely states that "wolf predation has pushed elk production and recruitment in these two zones [down]." What he does not include in his comment is whether the affected elk have migrated to other areas in order to seek shelter from wolf populations. I admit that I don't know a whole lot about the "Lolo and Sawtooth zones," but it seems that this would be important information for him to include in any comment on this subject. Is Idaho F&W’s radio telemetry data and methodology for animal-selection in this program publicly available?
Thanks everyone,
JJ England (Palm Beach Gardens, FL)
Matt Skoglund — Sep 28 2009 04:22 PM
All,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and the interesting discussion.
For more on the science behind our position (i.e., why the current recovery goals are out of date and more wolves are needed for meaningful recovery), see this document:
http://docs.nrdc.org/wildlife/files/wil_08022001A.pdf
Thanks.
Matt