wallowa.com
One wildlife biologist responds to another
I want to provide the readers of the Chieftain a slightly different interpretation of what to expect with wolf restoration than the one Pat Valkenburg offered (Wallowa County Chieftain, April 5).
I appreciated the even-toned analysis that Mr. Valkenburg presented in his editorial on wolves and their potential effect on hunting. There was much good information and perspective which I won't repeat. However, it is not clear that the presence of predators necessarily significantly affects hunting opportunities. Plus, predator control and indiscriminate hunting may disrupt the social ecology of predators leading to increased human conflicts.
Although predators can at times reduce big game herds, what one finds is that wolves and/or the combination of multiple predators does not usually affect hunting opportunities across an entire region or state. Even today in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming where wolf numbers exceed 1,600 animals, most elk hunting units are at or above objectives. In Idaho, 23 out of 29 elk hunting units were at or above objectives and hunter success last year was 20 percent. In Wyoming, elk exceed objectives by 29,000 animals and hunter success exceeded 40 percent. And in Montana, since wolves were introduced elk numbers have climbed from 89,000 to between 140,000-150,000 animals. At least so far it can hardly be argued that wolves are destroying hunting opportunities in most areas.
There are a few places where game numbers have declined, but in nearly all instances, it's difficult to pin the blame exclusively on wolf predation, if at all. For instance, research on the decline of an elk herd in the Bitterroot Valley of Montana by the Montana Dept of Fish, Wildlife and Parks attributes the cause of decline primarily to past overhunting of cow elk by hunters, combined with loss of security due to greater access provided by ORVs, along with ongoing predation from other animals like cougar and bear. But wolf predation appears, so far, to be a minor influence.
Furthermore, what we see in other places with significant wolf populations like the Upper Midwest is that the presence of wolves (along with coyotes and black bears) has not significantly reduced hunting opportunity there. With more than 3000-3,500 wolves alone (more than double the combined wolf population in the entire Rockies), Minnesota hunters kill 200,000 whitetail deer annually out of a herd of more than a million deer despite the presence of thousands of wolves. Similar large hunter success is reported for Wisconsin and Michigan – both of which have higher numbers of wolves than any Rocky Mountain state.
It is true that predators can at times reduce big game populations, and even suppress them for a period of time. But that logically leads to the question: what ecological "good" results? A periodic decline in big game herds due to predation may give plant communities some respite from browsing/grazing (predation from elk) pressure. Predator presence, by changing elk habitat use and numbers, results in greater growth in browse species like willow, cottonwood, and aspen. This in turn creates more songbird habitat and greater hydrological function in streams with an increase in trout habitat. And because aspen groves tend to be fairly resistant to fire, an increase in aspen may even serve to reduce the spread of fires as well.
The presence of wolves has also influenced other predators like coyotes which tend to decline in the presence of wolves. Reduction of coyotes has been shown to lead to higher pronghorn fawn survival. And the absence of coyotes in the areas around wolf dens and rendezvous sites has led to higher rodent populations which have become a magnet for birds of prey.
The Wolves in the Great Lakes States are an admix of Gray and Eastern Wolf
New research suggests that predator control/hunting can disrupt the social ecology of the predator leading to "social chaos." Where there is significant random killing of predators due to hunting and/or predator control (as opposed to the limited surgical removal of specific targeted animals) we find predator populations are skewed towards younger animals, and in the case of wolves, may be broken up into smaller packs. This leads to greater conflict with humans since younger wolves (or cougars) are like teenagers everywhere — bold, brash and fearless. They are far more likely to attack livestock and hang out in areas frequented by humans than older, more experienced animals.
In addition, packs fragmented by predator control are smaller, and less able to maintain their territories, which means they are often forced into new areas where they are less familiar with prey habits and locations, making them more likely to take livestock. Smaller packs also are less able to defend kills from other scavengers and thus may even ultimately kill more prey per capita than a larger pack.
Finally, because most hunters utilize the larger blocks of public land for hunting like the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, they are unlikely to remove the very animals most likely to be problematic for ranchers and/or humans. In fact, random killing may remove animals who by nature or experience are less likely to kill livestock or create other conflicts. If the habitat is good, the void may be filled by animals, particularly younger animals, which may be more inclined to conflict with humans.
A bit of background on myself: I studied wildlife biology, worked as a biologist for several federal agencies, as well as a hunting guide in Montana, and have been observing and studying predators for decades myself. I spent 20 seasons in Alaska, as well as considerable time observing the effect of wolves in places like Glacier National Park and Yellowstone National Park. More than a decade ago, I also published a paper on the potential for wolf recovery in Oregon that concluded that Oregon, based on prey densities, human and road densities, could likely sustain as many as 2,000 wolves.
I appreciated the even-toned analysis that Mr. Valkenburg presented in his editorial on wolves and their potential effect on hunting. There was much good information and perspective which I won't repeat. However, it is not clear that the presence of predators necessarily significantly affects hunting opportunities. Plus, predator control and indiscriminate hunting may disrupt the social ecology of predators leading to increased human conflicts.
Although predators can at times reduce big game herds, what one finds is that wolves and/or the combination of multiple predators does not usually affect hunting opportunities across an entire region or state. Even today in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming where wolf numbers exceed 1,600 animals, most elk hunting units are at or above objectives. In Idaho, 23 out of 29 elk hunting units were at or above objectives and hunter success last year was 20 percent. In Wyoming, elk exceed objectives by 29,000 animals and hunter success exceeded 40 percent. And in Montana, since wolves were introduced elk numbers have climbed from 89,000 to between 140,000-150,000 animals. At least so far it can hardly be argued that wolves are destroying hunting opportunities in most areas.
Gray Wolf in the Rocky Mtn States
There are a few places where game numbers have declined, but in nearly all instances, it's difficult to pin the blame exclusively on wolf predation, if at all. For instance, research on the decline of an elk herd in the Bitterroot Valley of Montana by the Montana Dept of Fish, Wildlife and Parks attributes the cause of decline primarily to past overhunting of cow elk by hunters, combined with loss of security due to greater access provided by ORVs, along with ongoing predation from other animals like cougar and bear. But wolf predation appears, so far, to be a minor influence.
Furthermore, what we see in other places with significant wolf populations like the Upper Midwest is that the presence of wolves (along with coyotes and black bears) has not significantly reduced hunting opportunity there. With more than 3000-3,500 wolves alone (more than double the combined wolf population in the entire Rockies), Minnesota hunters kill 200,000 whitetail deer annually out of a herd of more than a million deer despite the presence of thousands of wolves. Similar large hunter success is reported for Wisconsin and Michigan – both of which have higher numbers of wolves than any Rocky Mountain state.
It is true that predators can at times reduce big game populations, and even suppress them for a period of time. But that logically leads to the question: what ecological "good" results? A periodic decline in big game herds due to predation may give plant communities some respite from browsing/grazing (predation from elk) pressure. Predator presence, by changing elk habitat use and numbers, results in greater growth in browse species like willow, cottonwood, and aspen. This in turn creates more songbird habitat and greater hydrological function in streams with an increase in trout habitat. And because aspen groves tend to be fairly resistant to fire, an increase in aspen may even serve to reduce the spread of fires as well.
The presence of wolves has also influenced other predators like coyotes which tend to decline in the presence of wolves. Reduction of coyotes has been shown to lead to higher pronghorn fawn survival. And the absence of coyotes in the areas around wolf dens and rendezvous sites has led to higher rodent populations which have become a magnet for birds of prey.
The Wolves in the Great Lakes States are an admix of Gray and Eastern Wolf
New research suggests that predator control/hunting can disrupt the social ecology of the predator leading to "social chaos." Where there is significant random killing of predators due to hunting and/or predator control (as opposed to the limited surgical removal of specific targeted animals) we find predator populations are skewed towards younger animals, and in the case of wolves, may be broken up into smaller packs. This leads to greater conflict with humans since younger wolves (or cougars) are like teenagers everywhere — bold, brash and fearless. They are far more likely to attack livestock and hang out in areas frequented by humans than older, more experienced animals.
In addition, packs fragmented by predator control are smaller, and less able to maintain their territories, which means they are often forced into new areas where they are less familiar with prey habits and locations, making them more likely to take livestock. Smaller packs also are less able to defend kills from other scavengers and thus may even ultimately kill more prey per capita than a larger pack.
Finally, because most hunters utilize the larger blocks of public land for hunting like the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, they are unlikely to remove the very animals most likely to be problematic for ranchers and/or humans. In fact, random killing may remove animals who by nature or experience are less likely to kill livestock or create other conflicts. If the habitat is good, the void may be filled by animals, particularly younger animals, which may be more inclined to conflict with humans.
A bit of background on myself: I studied wildlife biology, worked as a biologist for several federal agencies, as well as a hunting guide in Montana, and have been observing and studying predators for decades myself. I spent 20 seasons in Alaska, as well as considerable time observing the effect of wolves in places like Glacier National Park and Yellowstone National Park. More than a decade ago, I also published a paper on the potential for wolf recovery in Oregon that concluded that Oregon, based on prey densities, human and road densities, could likely sustain as many as 2,000 wolves.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment