Dear MSSA Friends,

A month ago I reported that MSSA director and Vice-Chairman of the House
Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee, Joe Balyeat, joined with the Chairman
of the House FWP Committee, Dan Fuchs, and the Chairman of the Montana FWP
Commission, Dan Walker, to travel to the Paradise Valley and count elk from
the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd.

According to their count, there are only 11 calves per 100 cows, way below
the number of neonates needed to replace lost herd members and keep the
population sustainable. FWP personnel criticized this as an amateur
effort, discounted the results, and recommended that counting of wildlife
be left to the professionals.

Well, the "professional" study is out today. Read this story from the
Bozeman Chronicle, and my comments to the Chronicle writer.

Gary

========================


Bozeman Chronicle

Elk numbers Plummet 

03/12/02
By SCOTT McMILLION Chronicle Staff Writer 


LIVINGSTON - Chalk one up for the "windshield" biologists. 

Early last month, a group of elk enthusiasts with binoculars and spotting
scopes calculated there were 12 elk calves per 100 cows in the northern
Yellowstone elk herd. 

Now professional biologists with extensive training and a helicopter say
the amateurs were pretty close to the mark. The actual number is 14 calves
per 100 cows, they announced Monday, the lowest it has been for at least 34
years. 

Using a helicopter, biologists spent 10.5 hours counting 4,001 elk in and
near the northern part of Yellowstone National Park on Feb. 27 and 28.
Their calf/cow ratio of 14 is the lowest since the annual counts began in
1968. 

That ratio is called a "recruitment rate." An average of about 30 is
considered necessary to sustain a herd. 

That number has averaged 33 since 1968 for the northern Yellowstone herd. 

Since 1995, the year wolves were first reintroduced to the park, the rate
ranged from 22 to 34. 

Two Montana lawmakers and members of the Friends of the Northern
Yellowstone Elk Herd calculated the early February ratio, dismissed by some
wolf advocates as a "windshield" count. 

Rep. Joe Balyeat, R-Belgrade, was one of those lawmakers. 

"The fact that we were right is not the important point," Balyeat said
Monday. "The important point is the calf ratio has dropped in half in one
year." 

"All I can say is I told you so," said Bill Hoppe, a former outfitter from
Jardine and president of FNYEH. 

Balyeat reiterated his position that it's time to remove federal
protections for wolves and turn their management over to state wildlife
agencies. 

"When there's a drastic drop in the percentage (of calves) like this, the
only reasonable conclusion is that the reintroduction of such large numbers
of wolves has affected the recruitment rate," Balyeat said. 

There are about 210 wolves in and around Yellowstone. About 65 of them prey
on the northern herd, consuming an average of one elk apiece every two
weeks during the winter. 

Biologists in Yellowstone and for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks agree that wolves are having an impact, but they also say there
are lots of other factors that must be considered. 

A record low recruitment rate is "sending up a flag, but it's not all
necessarily related to wolves in my opinion," said Ken Hamlin, who has been
researching elk for FWP since 1988. 

Recruitment rates are dropping in many areas in western Montana, including
some that have no wolves, he said. 

"I'm not going to say that wolves aren't having an impact, because they
are," Hamlin said. "They eat red meat for a living. But at this stage, it's
going to be hard to sort things out." 

The region's long-term drought could be having an impact, he said. 

In the Elkhorn Mountains and the Big Belts, he noted, recruitment rates
have fallen into the 20s. 

The northern Yellowstone herd summers mostly in the park but thousands of
animals migrate into Montana every winter. 

Tom Lemke, an FWP biologist in Livingston, said he expected a lower
recruitment rate, partly because last year's pregnancy rate dropped to 60
percent, 10 percent below the historic average. 

"I have to say we really don't know the cause of this year's low
recruitment," said P.J. White, a newly appointed ungulate biologist for the
National Park Service in Yellowstone, though he agreed predation is one
factor. 

One year of low recruitment doesn't necessarily mean the size of the herd
will drop, he said. Elk between the age of 2 and 20 will continue to
produce young, he said. 

In a December count, the herd numbered just under 12,000 animals, which is
within the normal range of fluctuation. 

Biologists in the park have calculated how many elk wolves kill in the
winter, but they haven't been able to figure out how many newborn calves
they kill in the summer. 

"We need to do that study," said Doug Smith, leader of the Yellowstone Wolf
Project. 

He agreed that wolves have an impact, but so do lots of other things. 

Drought, the low pregnancy rate, a late hunt that takes over 1,000 animals
a year and five other species of predator all affect the herd, Smith said. 

"I can guarantee you it's a little bit of all of those," he said. 

Hoppe, the former outfitter, said the low recruitment rate is bound to mean
fewer adult elk in the future, especially if bad winters return to the area. 

"If you don't put more in the bank than you take out, you know what
happens," he said. 

Scott McMillion is at scottm@gomontana.com. 

==========================

Scott,

Greetings from Missoula.

I've just finished reading your article about "Elk Numbers Plummet". Thank
you for that reporting.

There is one issue about your story that struck me. I think you are being
misled, at least a bit. You may wish to delve into this.

The wildlife biologist have told you in 47 different ways that they "just
don't know" if wolves are the reason for the declining elk recruitment and
population. The way this is said leads the reader to believe that there
is, in the minds of the biologists, a high degree of uncertainty about
cause and effect. What the biologists actually mean by "we just don't
know", I think, is that there is not yet proof so conclusive that no other
explanation is possible, and dissembling no longer a viable option.

It is certainly strongly intuitive that wolves are THE new factor in the
elk herd population dynamic. There is absolute proof of declining
recruitment. Simple logic is strongly suggestive that excessive predation
by wolves IS the cause.

Could it be that there's a reason why the biologists all pretend a high
degree of uncertainty about this? Could it be that they have a bias in
favor of a "natural order", or in favor of wolves, or that they are
attempting to cover up for their wolf reintroduction buddies working as
biologists for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Have you asked about the credentials of the biologist who assert that they
"just don't know"? Since FWP biologist Lemke's specialty is bat biology
(yep, small flying animals that navigate by sonar and catch insects), is it
really any surprise that he "just doesn't know" about elk and wolves? What
about the others?

While there may not be conclusive proof - maybe videotaped recordings of
every wolf kill of an elk calf in the Spring -, the preponderance of
evidence strongly suggests that wolves are the problem. Wildlife
biologists and FWP make management decisions every day based on
preponderance of evidence. They never really know for sure, and are always
making educated guesses. Given the preponderance of evidence in this
situation, isn't it time these biologists admit that the emperor has no
clothes? I must say that they look pretty stupid running around buck naked
in Montana winter continually claiming that they really "don't know for
sure" that both they and the emperor have no clothes.

Best wishes,

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association