PEAX Equipment

How wolves change rivers

It sounds just like another tree hugger trying to bend the truth again. To me.
last I heard, the Yellow Stone Elk herd is something like 1/4 of what it was 12-15 years ago.
He seemed to leave out the Fact that Wolves are killing machines, and don't just kill to eat, they kill for fun, from everything that I have read about them. as a Sportsman, we don't need or want them

Kevin
 
If I were narrating to you, Richard, concerning a red deer stag in England, I would not refer to a buck or a bull. Perhaps in Europe, elk are deer, but hey, this is about Yellowstone Park, Wyoming, USA.

I contacted Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC), the premier conservation organization which studies and intends to protect the greater Yellowstone area. GYC was listed in the credits for this film, but disavowed any relationship with the production and guessed that footage or information must have been taken from their website or other GYC sources. GYC was amused at the narration.

The wolf issue is a hot-button topic in Montana, Wyoming and elsewhere. Although I remain steadfast in my assertion that the trophic cascade depicted has not dramatically "changed rivers", I must concede that other scientifically researched effects have been recognized in certain areas. "Certain areas" is the key phrase and qualifier. The dynamics created by the wolf intro have improved vegetation in certain areas, although not Park-wide. Aspens, willows, and cottonwoods have regained in certain areas. Songbirds have increased their presence in those same areas. Beavers have increased in certain areas. It would be a stretch to conclude an increase in ravens and eagles, as they have always been plentiful and able to benefit from the winter ungulate deaths.

To conclude that YNP has altered geographically due to wolves and that wolves have decreased river erosion, caused rivers to meander less, stabilized banks and fixed river courses is an irresponsible assertion. To focus a visual image on the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone while reiterating the thesis that wolves have somehow enhanced this natural river condition is absurd!

Generally, it seems unprofessional and merely as a propaganda tool for Mr. Monbiot to dramatically express such bold statements without the scientific support of those who are continuously studying such dynamics.

Yes, the Canadian grey wolf intro into YNP has resulted in many and various results, some viewed as good, some not so much ... at great expense. But a top-down cascade of dramatic geographical alteration of rivers is not one of those results.
 
buckykm1 said:
It sounds just like another tree hugger trying to bend the truth again. To me.
last I heard, the Yellow Stone Elk herd is something like 1/4 of what it was 12-15 years ago.
He seemed to leave out the Fact that Wolves are killing machines, and don't just kill to eat, they kill for fun, from everything that I have read about them. as a Sportsman, we don't need or want them

Toby
Click to expand...

I went ahead and fixed your signature line.:D
 
I'm by no means an expert in any of this, but here's my two cents. Do wolves have an impact on the environment they are reintroduced in? Absolutely. Are some of these consequences predicted and are some unforeseen? I bet so. Seeing a rise in beaver and songbird populations is probably not something that people thought too much of regarding wolf introduction (I could be wrong, as there are people much more knowledgeable than myself on this). I have a feeling the video overstated some of these effects as well (is there less soil erosion in areas, probably, but not to the point where it's drastically affecting the course of rivers).

The other problem I have with the video (other than the complete lack of facts supporting any of these statements) is that it leaves out entirely the negative aspect of wolf reintroduction. Can some of these consequences be viewed as positives? On their own, sure. But these changes came with a price, and the tradeoff to more birds, aspen saplings, and soil erosion is less elk, deer, bison, and increased human/wolf conflict.
 
And for the record, I'd rather see more elk than chickadees. My guess is that most people that visit Yellowstone would say the same. But hey, that's like, just my opinion man!
 
Funny part about the entire beaver comments is that just prior to wolves being reintroduced to YNP, there was a concerted effort to increase beaver populations in the Greater Yellowstone area. I would have to go back and look at the numbers, but if I recall properly, 120+ beaver were relocated to Yellowstone, a couple years prior to wolves showing up.

As expected, those wanting to paint scientific studies as supporting their pre-conceived biases, will ignore any bigger picture facts that would weaken the case they want to make. This beaver increase is one of those bigger picture facts that makes me laugh when these amateurs want to extrapolate studies to conclude that wolves are the reason why beaver may have increased and provide that conclusion without consideration of the other factors, current and past.

Maybe the presence of wolves did increase the number of beaver, but I suspect you would have to consider prior efforts to increase beaver via translocation, in drawing that conclusion. And when people do not account for that prior work with beaver, in their conclusions that wolves the only reason for increased beaver numbers, my BS meter starts to redline.

The fringe on both sides are pretty good at selecting what science they talk about and what science they ignore. No one seems to have cornered that market.

I am getting to the point that when I read anything about a study that has even a slight mention of wolves, I pretty much discount the popular interpretations of that study. What is provided as summaries and interpretations is usually a lot more politics and marketing than it is science and biology.
 
Good points, Big Fin. Furthermore, the assertions of change also ignore the effects of other predators on elk / deer numbers and behavior, such as the increase in lions and bears and the overhunting by man near Gardiner. An obvious condition overlooked is the continuing increase in the number of bison, although the wolf intro was in part an effort to reduce the bison population.

Also it seems premature to me for any valid conclusions about changes in Yellowstone due to wolves when they have been recently on the scene for less than twenty years.
 
1.) For the record, I support introduction of beaver whenever possible.

2.) To think that by changing the way elk react to increased predation would have no effect on riparian areas where we try to exclude cattle due to delitirious effects would be ignoring the bigger picture that Fin rightly points to. I have no doubt that wolves have an impact on the plant communities by chasing hooved critters around. I also think that if we don't recognize those established facts (Trophic cascades is quickly being established as credible and sound) that we risk losing more elk.

It all ties back to the land & what it can and cannot grow.
 
I don't know... I've watched the willows in the park portion of the Gallatin rebound dramatically which improves the habitat for all river critters - hard to deny the wolves' role in keeping the elk from browsing the willows down to nubs.

I think the clip falls short in explaining that much of the benefits are from the reduced number of elk... they'd like to believe the wolves are just chasing them away from these areas and ignore the population drop.
 
Seems it's always how the wolf has saved the whole environment by keeping elk etc. away from the riparian areas. Does not more beaver mean less trees and willows and you never hear much if any mention about moose who browse more than elk. Did the wolf help the moose population, not in my area. We once had thirty plus moose in the fall and now your lucky to see a pair of moose. Maybe disease maybe?
 
To say the wolf alone is the savior of the environment or the plague to ungulates is overly simplistic and unjust.

They have made a significant impact though in Yellowstone, I'm anxious to see what the next 10 years looks like for the Northern Herd. We already see wolf numbers dropping, and wolves dispersing as the elk numbers have bottomed out. My hunch is we've reached the other end of the pendulum and we'll start to see a better balance.

That is if winters remain average, test and slaughter doesn't get approved, no crazy amounts of wildlife fencing get approved for winter range, the MT legislature doesn't act like a bunch of a-holes etc. etc. etc.
 
This video is easy to dismiss because it is basic and because the narrator is British, referring to wapiti as deer, rather than the common term in the US of elk, which the Europeans refer to moose. But how many would sit through a presentation with the science? In this day and age of the Attention Deficit Disorder, fast food generation, you have to try and reach people through short visuals and small sound bites. Hell, I have had a MT paper editor tell me I needed to dumb down an op ed that had two statistics in it as being too technical, to make more of an emotional plea - bison transmission risk to cattle is 0.0% - 0.3% (0.3% is an academic safety net) and that elk risk to cattle in MT is 0.00024%. If that is too technical then we have a problem with our media.

Granted it could be that the media would rather I be viewed as the over emotional environmentalist woman making emotional appeals like the anti-trapping women are depicted. It is okay to take my stats and put them in the mouth of Dr. Mark Albrecht, but patriarchal god forbid science should come out of the mouth of a woman who advocates for hunting and science in Montana. So how do you reach the masses with a wee bit of science and keep their attention?

Here is a National Geographic video (15 minutes) produced about a year ago, which goes at it from the science - The Importance of Predators, the Yellowstone Case. Hydrologist Bob Beshta relates the condition of the Lamar River, referencing documentation from when settlers first began arriving in the area. Also referenced are biologists Bill Ripple and Eric Larsen who first looked to plant disease to see if that was what was responsible for the disappearance of willows and aspen. Doug Smith is interviewed. All of these people have written peer reviewed academic papers on the subjects.

In addition, the National academy of Sciences did a review, published in 2002 - Ecological Dynamics on Yellowstone’s Northern Range which discusses this area from prehistoric times to current, the changing conditions, 150 year weather cycles, etc. Dendrochronological studies in the GYE of aspen showed the weak aspen regeneration was due to high ungulate density, not evidenced before, due to several factors - human habitation outside Park (which partly kept ungulates confined to Park for longer periods for security), human change in ungulate use and removal of predators.

"Ripple and Larsen (2000b) hypothesized that the disruption of natural predator-prey relationships may have contributed to the observed differences in aspen regeneration. Furthermore, they suggest that the reestablishment of wolves in 1995 may benefit aspen in the long term. In addition to reducing elk population size, wolves may also influence ungulate movement and browsing patterns."

The report is a good read on many levels, for those of you who like to read beyond a few paragraphs - 198 pages. Not necessarily what some want to hear concerning predators and ungulate populations, but after much research, I am firmly entrenched in the biotic community, ecosystem, conservation sciences (however you want to term it) camp with Leopold, Tighem, Petersen and others, that see predators as being a necessary component of a healthy landscape and ungulate population numbers at natural levels as well - for their health.
 
Kat, I always appreciate your scientific approach and due diligence in completing research, however, after wading through the above, I am uncertain of your point. 'Not necessarily your fault, I' m the guy always looking for the relevant high points and often gets lost.

Do you agree with the conclusion that YNP has altered geographically due to wolves and that wolves have decreased river erosion, caused rivers to meander less, stabilized banks and fixed river courses, and in particular dramatically changed the Yellowstone River, as the video seems to infer?
 
I for one totally disagree that wolves have saved a river from erosion. You cannot control the hydraulics of water on a big high water year or flash flood. I have lived on a river that man has tried to control for decades and it hasn't worked yet. There is far more bank and river bed destruction in the winter than any high water
 
I somewhat agree with Robert, but thats a pretty simplistic look at riparian systems and how they function.

Sure, a real raging highwater event can change channels, accelerate cut/fill, entrench channels, etc.

In a "natural" situation, rivers and streams move across their flood plains over time. The problem we have with a lot of rivers, streams, etc. is the lack of deep binding root mass. Armoring of banks to try to STOP rivers from doing what they do best, (meandering across their flood plains), clearing willows, grazing up to the edge of rivers and streams at the WRONG times, etc.

All of those changes to try to stop natural channel migration, actually work to degrade water quality, widen stream channels, accelerate stream velocity downstream of "hard" treatments like bank armoring, and in general are epic failures. Mainly because, outside of of channelizing a river with concrete, we cant stop a river from, well, acting like a river.

The BEST way to slow the movement of rivers across their flood plains is to increase deep binding root mass via willow, cottonwoods, in some cases in smaller streams, even sedges function as bank stabilizers.

Not only do those willows, dogwood, cottonwoods, etc. provide bank stabilization, they also provide shade to keep peak water temperatures lower, decrease TMDL's, and provide biomass to the river for increases in macroinvertabrates.

Any management actions we take to do the above, will undoubtedly change the way a river functions, thats just a fact. Been there, and done did it.

That said, if in fact wolves are truly keeping elk from loitering in riparian areas, that could in fact make some level of change to a river. To what extent is surely open for arguement, debate, and study. IMO, without baseline data, trying to prove what was stated by the limey bastard, is going to be a tough thing to prove and/or sell, to someone that understands riparian functions.

Probably more than my 2 cents worth...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SD_Prairie_Goat
Hawaiian Electric Utility, operation changes due to lawsuit? Domino Effect?
Replies
17
Views
1K
hank4elk
H
M
Weiser River Elk
Replies
13
Views
2K
PrivateIdho
P
IK-NWhunter
Southcentral River Access?
Replies
4
Views
783
IK-NWhunter
IK-NWhunter
wa_archer
First year first Tom
Replies
15
Views
880
JohnCushman
JohnCushman
W
WI ELK, the story of a once in a lifetime hunt
6 7 8
Replies
150
Views
13K
SFC B
SFC B
Caribou Gear

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,197
Messages
1,950,825
Members
35,075
Latest member
ceemee63

Share this page

Back
Top