We read all the time that wild animals need natural predators. Some believe that a wild animal isn’t completely a wild animal if it isn’t always under the stress of being killed by a “natural” predator. Toss out man being a natural predator because today it is difficult for many to understand that man is tops on the food chain.
Some believe that in places like the Rocky Mountain National Park where there are too many elk, wolves should be brought in to take care of the numbers. Isn’t it funny how wolves can and can’t have any effect on game animals depending on which argument is being levied on a given day. When people lay claim that wolves are decimating the elk herds in certain locations, defenders of the wolf say that wolves have very little effect on the elk and they throw out statistics in an attempt to prove that in areas where wolves are present, elk herds are flourishing.
But when you have a case of an over abundance of elk, so much so that they are destroying the ecosystem, these same people who lay claim that wolves have very little effect on elk herds, want to bring in wolves in order to reduce populations. So, which is it?
In the Rocky Mountain National Park case, people have made noise against the notion that park officials want to spend millions of dollars over 10 years to hire sharpshooters to hunt at night to kill the elk. When the people, with the support of some Congressional representatives, began claiming that public hunting could accomplish the same thing at no cost to the government, things began to change. First, officials in the park began to change their statements saying that there were not as many elk as they first thought.
Once again the talk of introducing wolves was brought back up. This same wolf that has no real effect on elk herds wants to be used to have an effect on the Rocky Mountain National Park elk herd. Go figure.
The press continues its spin and bias on liberal environmental issues by printing false claims. Today in the Houston Chronicle, Washington Post writer Rick Weiss, says that because the Rocky Mountain National Park elk have no natural predators, they somehow aren’t real elk. He cites one study conducted in Siberia that when audio recordings of wolves, bears and tigers where played, it made the elk cluster together in fear. He says when the same recordings where played in RMNP, the elk had no reaction. What does this prove?
In an attempt to justify some talk of bringing wolves into the park, I would suppose this is an effort to convince readers that in order to reduce elk the “natural” way, we need to scare them to death.
Make no mistake about it, wolves do have an effect on elk herds. What that effect is will vary according to an untold number of factors. But we should dispel the myth that forcing wolves to live with elk will somehow make them “wilder”. Some believe that with wolves around elk, they will scatter more to become a more difficult target for wolves and hunters I suppose. This idea that a wilder elk is a healthier elk is not fully supported by scientists or facts.
A recent study, its full report to be released soon, done by the University of Wyoming, shows that any changes in elk habits due to wolf presence is only momentary. The report claims that habitat is the driving factor for elk.
His research showed that the predation risk is driven more strongly by habitat features than distribution of wolf packs. Elk are more likely to be killed in open meadows than in forested areas with slopes.
The research also concluded that elk do not adjust their willingness to forage based on areas that are riskier for predation. Instead, elk will forage where food is available, particularly in later months in the winter when there is less food.
This new study contradicts one done earlier by the University of Oregon that stated that elk do change feeding habits.
Weiss’ article is completely based on the theory that fear in elk from predators such as wolves and bears will naturally control the elk population. He says that because of the study about audible sounds of predators scaring elk in Siberia and not in Colorado, this is scientific proof that elk will not scatter and thusly they are congregating to eat all the forage in one area.
The large carnivores that once attacked elk in Colorado have been gone for decades, and with those predators went the fear that once sent the elk fleeing.
This audible sounds study, conducted by Joel Berger of the Wildlife Conservation Society in Teton Valley, Idaho, claims to prove that animals such as elk need the fear of wolves in order scatter the herd. This is in contradiction to the University of Wyoming study.
The results, published in an online issue of Conservation Biology, show not only that fear dissipates in the absence of predators but also that it returns in areas where the predators have been reintroduced — including Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks, where wolf populations have been replenished at a cost of tens of millions of dollars.
Whether Berger’s study proves that elk scatter, I don’t know. According to this article, the fear generated from playing recordings of bear, wolves and tigers caused the animals to cluster together.
Perhaps Berger’s study does show that in areas where bears, wolves or tigers live, animals like elk are more fearful as they come to realize that those sounds are associated with death. What it doesn’t prove is that wolves are a necessary part of the elk management equation in Colorado.
Whether we want to admit it or not, man is a predator of game animals. The biggest reason the elk in and around RMNP are so abundant is because they are protected from hunting. A well laid out plan to hunt the animal will cure the over population problem. The social and political problems that will come from reintroduction of wolves far outweigh any inconvenience shutting the park down for a week or two for hunting would cause.
Weiss also distorts facts about hunting wolves in his attempt at promoting the reintroduction of wolves.
The data is timely, scientists say, because plans are in the works to allow large numbers of wolves to be hunted in some U.S. areas where they were reintroduced.
The results suggest it may be important to keep those populations high enough so that prey species maintain proper vigilance levels.
It is an outright lie to state that plans are in the works to allow large numbers of wolves to be killed. I assume he is talking about the plans to delist the wolf in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. Nowhere are there plans to kill large numbers of wolves. There is talk and in some cases plans to offer a limited number of tags for wolf hunting in areas determined through wolf management plans approved by the USFWS. Strict plans limit the number of wolves that can be hunted to maintain a specified number of wolves and breeding pairs, which I might add, is far above what scientists believed would be a full recovery of the animal.
If the results of this study are supposed to show that it keeps the elk more “vigilant”, then I have to ask why that is important? Nothing in this study shows that elk are healthier or will have any control over elk populations. If this study is to prove it necessary for elk to be scared all the time, then certainly we can begin a program that would teach the Colorado elk to be scared over something other than wolves. Once they learn to be scared of let’s say humans, then we can set up loudspeakers and pump in human sounds to keep them on their toes.
Science remains in contradiction as to how any kind of fear instilled into elk herd effects them. Certainly any rational person can conclude that the idea of bringing wolves into Colorado as part of an elk management tool would be foolish and unfounded.
Tom Remington
