# Why Are Yellowstone's Elk Disappearing ?



## RonSwanson (Apr 20, 2016)

Jager Pro said:


> Good point, whatever did nature do before the mighty man showed up to save it?


Had many more predators and many fewer ungulates.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Once we get a few more wolves in the L.P., we will get to see what happens to our elk herd.
The bears have been here and I doubt their population will change significantly in the near future.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

DirtySteve said:


> They were not a top predator just more than wolves. The article you are referring to was probably written about the Mississippi state predator study. It was referring to the first phase of the study done where wolves are not as prevelant. In that phase coyotes were number one followed by bobcat then bears if I remember correctly. Later the second phase results came out and wolves and coyotes where more equally responsible for fawn deaths and they were at the top of the list.
> 
> Lots of good info available on their website. The shocking part to me was that 70% of fawns don't make it for one reason or another and it didn't seem to matter what the predators are. The other part that amazed me was the role that bobcats played. I would have assumed bobcats wouldn't have shown up on the list with the way their numbers have declined.


Not included in that study was does killed by wolves during the months of April. May, June, and July which would leave the fawns unprotected. So a doe is killed by wolves and the two fawns are killed by a bobcat. Nature has its way of doing things, without the wolf doing its part the bobcat might go hungry. This kind of causes the Mississippi State study to be tainted. It is also not uncommon for a wolf to kill an animal and leave it uneaten and other predators will find it. Another factor that was not factored into the Mississippi State study. What I have read on the study, I will give them an A for effort but their numbers could be way off.


----------



## RonSwanson (Apr 20, 2016)

kingfisher 11 said:


> Has anyone read the comments below the article? I did and it repeats what the locals have been saying. Elk numbers started the decline just after the wolf introduction and numbers grew. At one time there was so many elk they were giving out more cow tags. I know I was hunting in the area. Some are trying to claim the wolf have very little effect. The areas where they have no population of wolf, elk are doing well. That alone should be a red flag. Ten years ago this was a concern and locals fore told the out come. They predicted what was going to happen to the herd if wolves were allowed to go unchecked. Now we are there and to much money was spent just to sway public opinion. It does not take a Phd to see what the cause is. You have a healthy elk herd for 80 years and you introduce the wolf. Over time the herd starts to disappear and you want to claim grass and Grizzlies are to blame? You have to be some kind of idiot not to see what was going on. I personally think Mr Middleton was either not qualified or bias. Just the fact he was claiming the little cutthroat trout was feeding the bear population is a joke. The small fish only spawns in the creeks in the spring or fall. They are not big enough to sustain a big grizzly. Grizzlies also hibernate once the winter comes. Although I have seen them in high elevations when the first snows arrive.
> Humans can do some amazing things but, sometimes I wonder how we can be so lacking of common sense.


Would you like the actual publication? They made a strong case for the grizz/trout relationship. 

We had grouse in abundance until turkey showed up. Doesn't mean the turkey are hunting te grouse.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

FREEPOP said:


> Once we get a few more wolves in the L.P., we will get to see what happens to our elk herd.


Good point but that is unlikely to happen anytime soon. I don't think that many swim across, and it only freezes good about every 15 years.


----------



## junkman (Jan 14, 2010)

Also keep in mind when a study is done the out come is normally in favor of who ever funded it.Always follow the money.When a group funds a study it is normally to push their agenda.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Robert Holmes said:


> Good point but that is unlikely to happen anytime soon. I don't think that many swim across, and it only freezes good about every 15 years.


It froze last year didn't it? ........and the year before? 
There's already a few there. Reproduction and some crossing over............... WAG of 5-10 more years.


----------



## stagliano (Nov 10, 2006)

kingfisher 11 said:


> Over time the herd starts to disappear and you want to claim grass and Grizzlies are to blame? You have to be some kind of idiot not to see what was going on. I personally think Mr Middleton was either not qualified or bias. Just the fact he was claiming the little cutthroat trout was feeding the bear population is a joke. The small fish only spawns in the creeks in the spring or fall. They are not big enough to sustain a big grizzly. Grizzlies also hibernate once the winter comes. Although I have seen them in high elevations when the first snows arrive.
> Humans can do some amazing things but, sometimes I wonder how we can be so lacking of common sense.


It's very well established that the bears in the Yellowstone region use spawning cutthroats as a major food source in the spring when they are spawning. If you read and understood the article, you would have gathered that the cutthroat trout that are being targeted by bears during the spring spawning runs are from Yellowstone Lake and run into the Yellowstone River and it's small tributaries. These are very large lake fish but they declined significantly when the Lake Trout was introduced. Now that there are less fish to eat in the spring, the bears are killing more elk calves. I understand this explanation doesn't fit your needs but it is based on fact. Wolves have an impact on elk, bears have an impact on elk, grass production has an impact on elk, humans have an impact on elk. The takeaway here should be that wildlife issues are multifaceted and complicated that doesn't help your position that "WOLVES ATE ALL THE ELKS!!!" so I'm sure you will reject it.


----------



## stagliano (Nov 10, 2006)

Robert Holmes said:


> Not included in that study was does killed by wolves during the months of April. May, June, and July which would leave the fawns unprotected. So a doe is killed by wolves and the two fawns are killed by a bobcat. Nature has its way of doing things, without the wolf doing its part the bobcat might go hungry. This kind of causes the Mississippi State study to be tainted. It is also not uncommon for a wolf to kill an animal and leave it uneaten and other predators will find it. Another factor that was not factored into the Mississippi State study. What I have read on the study, I will give them an A for effort but their numbers could be way off.


Lacking the capacity to understand something doesn't make it wrong or invalid. It simply means you can't understand it.


----------



## junkman (Jan 14, 2010)

Hey could we introduce a breeding population of Grizzlies to Detroit.They could den up in abandoned houses and eat crackheads as their main food source.It would be a win win situation.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

stagliano said:


> You're brilliant Robert. Do you think that the "biologists" would introduce "grizzleys" to the UP? Are you that dense?


Yes and No. Prove otherwise but biologists thought it was a good idea to bring Asian Carp to the United States.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

junkman said:


> Hey could we introduce a breeding population of Grizzlies to Detroit.They could den up in abandoned houses and eat crackheads as their main food source.It would be a win win situation.


They could do that in the UP.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

stagliano said:


> Lacking the capacity to understand something doesn't make it wrong or invalid. It simply means you can't understand it.


Oh, I understand it. The numbers in the study are naturally altered to make it so the wolf does not play a major factor in whitetail deer reduction. Blame it on hard winters, bobcats, bears, coyotes, chickadees, just don't blame it on wolves.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

FREEPOP said:


> It froze last year didn't it? ........and the year before?
> There's already a few there. Reproduction and some crossing over............... WAG of 5-10 more years.


Haa. We barely had shore ice last winter


----------



## kingfisher 11 (Jan 26, 2000)

_ C


stagliano said:



It's very well established that the bears in the Yellowstone region use spawning cutthroats as a major food source in the spring when they are spawning. If you read and understood the article, you would have gathered that the cutthroat trout that are being targeted by bears during the spring spawning runs are from Yellowstone Lake and run into the Yellowstone River and it's small tributaries. These are very large lake fish but they declined significantly when the Lake Trout was introduced. Now that there are less fish to eat in the spring, the bears are killing more elk calves. I understand this explanation doesn't fit your needs but it is based on fact. Wolves have an impact on elk, bears have an impact on elk, grass production has an impact on elk, humans have an impact on elk. The takeaway here should be that wildlife issues are multifaceted and complicated that doesn't help your position that "*WOLVES ATE ALL THE ELKS!*!!" so I'm sure you will reject it.

Click to expand...


Claim BS, I read the same thing you did. I don't believe, even before the decline of cut throat the bear was carried in the spring by just those trout. They consumed calves also and may have showed a increase in the kill rate after the decline in cut throat. Grizzlies need to be reduced also. Adding another top predator with no control was the straw that broke the camels back. No where did I claim the BS line "Wolves killed all the elk". Just another attempt to demonize the message. You are trying to argue that it is just a coincidence all this was the perfect storm the same time wolves were introduced. I don't buy it and will take the opinion of the locals who lived there and hunted it. Same with the UP, some guys will have all kinds of reasons why the deer numbers are down to defend the wolves. _


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Robert Holmes said:


> Haa. We barely had shore ice last winter


My memory isn't good at all


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

In the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's the UP had coyotes, bears, bobcats, and a few other predators that killed deer. Some years had very harsh winters that also killed deer. The Mississippi State students can do all of the expensive studies that they want to do and publish all of their results. It is nothing but a bunch of BS. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can tell you that wolves are the single factor that has caused a steady decline in the whitetail deer population in the UP. Until we have a meaningful wolf season that will take 300 or more animals out of the population the deer will never rebound.


----------



## lodge lounger (Sep 16, 2005)

I read the article and found it interesting. I didn't consider it a bunch of liberal hogwash nor BS. I merely thought it irrelevant to the question of whitetail predation by wolves in Michigan. Are wolves having a detrimental impact on UP whitetail populations? For sure. Do wolves constitute the greatest detrimental impact? Could very well be. Does the referenced article shed any light at all on the situation in Michigan? Most assuredly not.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

It does shed light on similar ecosystems that have too many predators and not enough prey. Ultimately the predators will consume a majority of the prey then we will be faced with a situation that is bound to happen. The predators will attack humans and livestock. Humans would be very easy prey considering most of us enter areas inhabited by large predators unarmed and we are among the slowest animals on the face of the earth. If it is Yellowstone or the UP sooner or later we will have to kill some "protected predators".


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

Robert Holmes said:


> In the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's the UP had coyotes, bears, bobcats, and a few other predators that killed deer. Some years had very harsh winters that also killed deer. The Mississippi State students can do all of the expensive studies that they want to do and publish all of their results. It is nothing but a bunch of BS. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can tell you that wolves are the single factor that has caused a steady decline in the whitetail deer population in the UP. Until we have a meaningful wolf season that will take 300 or more animals out of the population the deer will never rebound.


I agree with your opinion on the harsh winters. That has been happening forever. Some are worse than others. It's just a cycle that happens. However over the years I have noticed a lot more coyotes and I think that has been a major impact on the deer. Throw in the wolves and then you have a recipe for disaster. We are lucky we have the occasional milder winter or we would really be screwed.


----------



## junkman (Jan 14, 2010)

RonSwanson said:


> I'm a professional scientist who has written and been awarded grants. I ask questions, collect data, and publish results. I have also served as a peer reviewer on internal grant panels and for scientific journals. If your experience as a professional scientist is different, I'm all ears and would obviously apologize for my incorrect assumptions. I would also like to know which funding agencies have paid you to falsify data and which publications are fraudulent.


Just as I thought you don't know me.You don't know my background.And you don't know what I do for a living.As far as being a scientist goes anybody on the internet can make that claim.You have no more credibility then anybody else on here.Have a great day.:cheeky-sm


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

stagliano said:


> You might think you have "an ounce of common sense" but what you lack is an above average intelligence quotient.


Let me explain in simple terms: As the wolf population increased in the UP there has been a steady decline in the deer population. You can blame it on other factors but we don't have CWD or Blue Tongue in the UP.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

stagliano said:


> Prove the numbers in the study are altered. Get all the data from the researchers and prove it. This is where the rubber meets the road for you Robert. Prove it. You are the biggest BS artist on this forum. You make things up like your above statement all the time.


I took Forestry, Wildlife Management, Fisheries Management, and similar classes to get my college degree. I did research papers on similar topics to get my degree. In all of the studies that I did and that my fellow classmates did (yes we had group projects) we had room for error and plenty of it. Even in the Mississippi State Study there are a few deer documented as death by unknown causes. In any of these studies there is grant money available and the study never ends with the final chapter. Why? Because there is more grant money available. Sorry Stag. I have been there and done that. I have two college degrees to back me up.


----------



## RonSwanson (Apr 20, 2016)

Robert Holmes said:


> I took Forestry, Wildlife Management, Fisheries Management, and similar classes to get my college degree. I did research papers on similar topics to get my degree. In all of the studies that I did and that my fellow classmates did (yes we had group projects) we had room for error and plenty of it. Even in the Mississippi State Study there are a few deer documented as death by unknown causes. In any of these studies there is grant money available and the study never ends with the final chapter. Why? Because there is more grant money available. Sorry Stag. I have been there and done that. I have two college degrees to back me up.


Where were they published?


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

RonSwanson said:


> Where were they published?


Right, I was one of the students who worked 40 hours per week and took a full load of classes. Getting through college on a small budget was a top priority not getting things published. I also did not suck up government grant money at every opportunity to do a useless study.


----------



## RonSwanson (Apr 20, 2016)

Robert Holmes said:


> Right, I was one of the students who worked 40 hours per week and took a full load of classes. Getting through college on a small budget was a top priority not getting things published. I also did not suck up government grant money at every opportunity to do a useless study.


So you have the same amount of experience as anyone who had to complete a lab report. Not quite the same thing.


----------



## kingfisher 11 (Jan 26, 2000)

RonSwanson said:


> So you have the same amount of experience as anyone who had to complete a lab report. Not quite the same thing.


Lots of educated idiots walking around so that's not your trump card.


----------



## junkman (Jan 14, 2010)

RonSwanson said:


> So you have the same amount of experience as anyone who had to complete a lab report. Not quite the same thing.


Wow,now your are going to belittle a man that worked his fingers to the bone putting himself threw school.Dude you have some real class.


----------



## RonSwanson (Apr 20, 2016)

kingfisher 11 said:


> Lots of educated idiots walking around so that's not your trump card.


Even more Google scholars…


----------



## RonSwanson (Apr 20, 2016)

junkman said:


> Wow,now your are going to belittle a man that worked his fingers to the bone putting himself threw school.Dude you have some real class.


How is it belittling? Equating a group project to a published paper is not even close to apples to apples.


----------

