Yellowstone herd numbers out

Well, eventually he will be right... :confused:

Park biologist Doug Smith says 2010's decline of 1,435 animals was unexpected because the herd had shown signs of stabilizing in recent years.

But Smith says a smaller herd is more healthy, and that there is no reason to suspect its size will continue to plummet.
Click to expand...
 
FWP's herd objective is between 3,000 and 5,000 animals.

Hopefully the herd will rebound, but the past highs of 20,000 animals was not sustainable. BTW - FWP is legally obliged to manage to the objective, which means that they will no longer offer late season hunts for this herd.

Also, the Park's number of wolves has dropped significantly from over 90 to roughly 35. That will give the herd some breathing room.
 
How did you/they determine that 20,000 animals wasn't sustainable? Seems like everything I've ever read said the bio's had no clue just how many animals the habitat could support. Seems like the NPS says the same thing.

http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/elk.htm

I don't buy wolf numbers given by anyone. No one has a FUGGING CLUE how many wolves there are in or outside the park. 35 wolves in the park? Ok sure... thats a good number for today.

Who knows what is really causing the decline, I'm guessing its a lot of things to include predation, and hunting, but losing a 1/4 of the herd in a year is bad news any way you want to look at it.
 
The true health of any species is not based solely on population counts. Of greater importance is the amount of young surviving to adulthood. If you can't replace the adults than the population drops. Our family vacationed in yellowstone a couple of years ago. We only saw a couple of calves. Based on our non scientific observations I would say that the cow / calf ratio was near 100/1.
 
Habitat degradation due to over grazing, out-migration and the late season hunt in Gardiner for extended periods of time (which indicates over-objective populations) and a general consensus from biologists that there were too many elk for the available habitat (remember, it's not just Y-stone, but the winter habitat outside the park). Beyond that, states generally don't manage for carrying capacity of wildlife, but for social tolerance of landowners surrounding herds. We could theoretically carry a lot more elk in the rockies, but the competition for resources w/ ag producers has given us a model that seems to be workable.

The park wolves are the most intensively studied wolves in the U.S. Is 35 a spot on count? I doubt it, but it's probably pretty darned close. Outbreaks of parvo and mange along with a loss of prey are what is driving down the population of wolves in the park.

Absolutely agree that losing 1/4 of the herd is a bad, bad deal. That's why everyone should support congressional delisting of wolves. :D
 
I remember several years ago, when the feds killed a pack of wolves in the Madison Valley and claimed "there were no longer wolves in the Madison Range." The very next weekend I saw a pack of 8 - not too far from where they killed the others.

I attended a meeting last winter where FWP shared the "alarming trends" (ie. nosediving) they were seeing with elk numbers in the Gallatin Canyon. Yet, they again allowed unlimited hunting this season, where early winter resulted in extremely heavy hunter harvest. I also learned that day, there were 16 wolves in the Gallatin.

I remember the early 90s and the elk in the upper Yellowstone Valley, and how that's changed. What I am looking forward to, are all the hunters that come to this area next fall, looking for a 2010 repeat in November.
 
I remember the 1994 Reintroduction EIS that predicted this would happen if FWP didn't cut back on the number of late season elk harvested.
 
Bambi - Yellowstone is one of the most studied places on Earth. I think they've got a pretty good handle on how many wolves they have moving in and out of the park.

I was at talk given by one of the park biologists and he kept pushing the drought issue rather than placing the bulk of the blame on the wolves. I haven't looked at the numbers, but if that's the case, wouldn't the eastern MT herds responded similarly if not more significantly given the absence of any high alpine refuge out in the ponderosa forests? Some of the news articles also quote Doug Smith as saying that the above average snowpack this year may have led to decreased detection probability in the their aerial counts. I've never done it, but I'm fairly confident it would be easier to pick out a congregated group of elk in snow than it would be to find smaller groups in areas with little or no snow. It's one thing when the wolf advocates try to divert attention away from what appears to be happening, but it's a little disturbing when biologists are doing it.

I was up hanging out at the ranch up the Taylor Fork around Christmas when I drove by a wolf kill along the creek. I assumed it was a cow, but my buddy at the had pictures of a beautiful 6x7 hanging out along the creek the night before. He said it had a slight limp. The next morning he drove out to get the paper and found the bull dead only a few hundred yards from where he saw it the night before. Said it looked like there was a pretty good struggle. He didn't have anything on him to cut the head off, so he drove out to get the mail and had to head into Big Sky real quick. By the time he got to town and called his dad at the ranch to go get the head, someone had already gotten to it. I about punched him in the face for leaving that thing behind.
 
I was a bit surprised to see five moose up there that weekend too. I see more moose up there than anywhere else. I can't figure out why they decided to close that unit down to moose and don't change anything with the elk hunting. I realize bull harvest isn't going to influence population growth that much, but seems like they should be saving just about every elk they can if the numbers are as slow as they say.
 
So you're saying 16 wolves and hundreds of guys with rifles hunting in winter conditions appears to take a toll? Go figure.

FWP won't make a change in the Gallatin until the place doesn't have a single elk in it.
 
FWP got hammered by guys in Bozeman for even talking about changing the regs in the Gallatin, if I remember correctly.
 
Around 5 years ago, the sportsman org. I belong to, sent out a notice to all the sportsmen's clubs in the state. We told them to look at page 55 of the EMP. It essentially said that the total number of counted elk in a HD, you would need to subtract those elk numbers that lived on refuge private property's. Then compare that number to the objective for the HD. this way the public lands elk wouldn't be removed. We never got a response back, nor did anybody over there do anything about it. Those area's keep right on killing with liberal seasons because people like opportunity.

Greenhorn, a few years back, I told you and others that a day of reckoning was headed for you guys. I was scoffed at. Maybe not by you but others. That day is here. We have our problems too, but are ahead of the game because of an active sportsman club. Had we tar and feathered our old Bio sooner, our game herds would be normal. Remember, the state legislature mandated that we get our game herds at or below elk objective levels by 2009. Areas without wolves are being hammered too. The Breaks had 4000 counted head of elk. The objective is 2000. Liberal season for a few years to come there. The EMP needs to be addressed, and those low political numbers need to be upped. We will need everyone's help to get this done. Be ready for many fights to come, or give up hunting opportunity.
 
Last edited:
Greenhorn has it right, the FWP and the Commission will not act until its a total crisis. They have a history of nothing but REACTIVE management. They have never been proactive in the management of elk near the park and I dont see them doing anything but more of the same.

Also, I dont think its appropriate for the FWP or the Commission to ignore basic biology and population trends just because hunters dont want to see less opportunity. Its no more right to ignore biology to make hunters happy than it is to do the same for landowners or outfitters, etc.

The one thing that continually frustrates me is how easily the commission and the FWP ignore science and biology and how the actual health of MT's wildlife is typically way down the list. IMO, doing whats best for the wildlife should be priority #1, no exceptions. If that priority is met, then meet the priorities of the other interests.

Its a jacked up mess and its not getting better.
 
I went to the meeting called by the FWP on the "plan to reduce hunting" in the Gallatin. I didn't hear of any plan to reduce hunting, (it was an attention grabber) nor any opposition voiced by hunters on reducing the hunting. Instead, the trends that were being seen in the elk counts in HD 310. With little discussion, when asked what the "plan" was for the immediate future... allow the wolf issue to take its course through the political avenues, and LEAVE THE HUNTING AS IS.. unlimited permits. So fast forward to three months ago, winter comes early, and every special needs hunter with a driver's license and elk tag manages to kill an elk in the Gallatin. I'm dying to see the upcoming winter counts..

Accurate press releases are hard to come by.
 
Just talked with Pat Flowers (R3 admin) and his recollection was that Ault almost got massacred at a meeting in the FWP Garage last fall - around 250 people there telling him to leave it as it was and not reduce opportunity. Is that the same meeting you were at?

Just curious, the damage is done.

Buzz - 110% agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cheeser
Isle Royale Remote Lake Superior island wolf numbers are stable but moose population declining
Replies
1
Views
148
djacker
D
elkfanatic
15 year old sons first elk hunt
Replies
19
Views
2K
Outdoorsfl
O
B
2 Alberta Bull Elk Draw Tags
Replies
14
Views
1K
Benfromalbuquerque
Benfromalbuquerque
T
2023 Cow #2
Replies
4
Views
466
rebelmdb
rebelmdb
K
Our first ever elk hunt!
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
EricW15
EricW15
Yeti GOBOX Collection

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,417
Messages
1,958,171
Members
35,172
Latest member
ss8

Share this page

Back
Top