Thanks to ongoing depredation, the near total loss of calf recruitment in the spring, and the aborted losses of calves, this herd now averages 9 to 10 years of age. Before those Canadian wolves were released into the region, the northern Yellowstone elk herd averaged 4 to 5 years of age. So, how does this benefit the herd? It doesn’t. Most affected are the pregnant females – and the combination of inadequate nourishment and the stress of constant flight from the predators is now causing many cow elk to abort their fetuses. Many elk go into the harshest weather of the year undernourished. This is especially true during the winter, when elk are constantly kept on the move by wolves – which keep the elk pushed away from the best feed sources that offer the greatest nourishment. Likewise, wolves that continually pursue their prey cause a great deal of stress on elk. However, the greatest loss has resulted from the 90+ percent loss of spring calf crops to predators – primarily to wolves which hunt very efficiently in packs. Much of the loss has been through direct depredation of adult animals, the healthy as well as the sick and weak. The late winter-early spring 2011 count revealed that only about 4,400 elk remain in that herd. Since the release of wolves into the Greater Yellowstone Area in 19, the herd has been in constant decline. Prior to the USFWS release of wolves from north-central Alberta, Canada, that elk herd was likely at an all time population high, with somewhere around 19,000 animals. One elk herd that best exemplifies how negatively wolves impact other wildlife resources has been the northern Yellowstone elk herd, which spends most of the year inside the park and winters in southern Montana. The residents of the Northern Rockies and the Upper Midwest have learned, the hard way, just how wrong those presumptions have been. This particular author went to great effort in his book “Never Cry Wolf” (published in 1963) to establish as fact how wolves only took out the weakest members of the herds, and that wolves killed only what they needed for sustenance. Reality reveals an entirely different outcome.Įarly writings by authors such as Farley Mowat implanted the belief that wolves only kill the sick, the injured and the weak. How factual have any of the claims made during the planning stages of this project been? Have wolves in fact made the herds stronger, and have they achieved a natural balance? This cow and calfs were sport killed, not for food. It was somewhat established, as fact, that on the average, each and every wolf would account for about 14 big game animals annually – and would have a minimal impact on elk, moose, deer and other big game populations. Fish and Wildlife Service, the experts involved with drafting those official documents for this project predicted the degree of impact wolves would have on other wildlife populations. If one goes back, and carefully thumbs through the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Plan, and even the 1994 Environmental Impact Statement filed by the U.S. Has the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project made the big game herds healthier and more vibrant by weeding out the sick and the weak?Īfter all, those who have been the strongest advocates of this modern wildlife conservation experiment have repeatedly claimed that wolves are the sanitarians of nature, and kill off those undesirable elk, moose, deer and other large game animals which negatively affected the overall health of the herds, leaving only the strong and healthy animals to breed and pass on those traits. The pro wolf movement of this country claimed that the “reintroduction” of this apex predator would be a wondrous thing for the ecosystem, restoring a natural balance that had been missing since the eradication of wolves during the late 1800s and early 1900s.īut, have the wolves accomplished anything positive? That depends on what the real agenda was in the first place. Rocky Mountains, where non-indigenous Canadian gray wolves were introduced in 1995. Their leading adversary became the wolf itself, especially along the northern U.S. Those people, groups and organizations who consider themselves “pro wolf” literally ran out of ammo to defend the spread of wolves in the Northern Rockies and the Upper Midwest several years ago. Sportsmen Taking Charge of Predator Problems By: Toby Bridges
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |