21 Oct 2008, 4:14pm
Deer, Elk, Bison Homo sapiens
by admin

The “Natural Regulation” Debacle at Yellowstone NP

W.I.S.E. is pleased and honored to present a review of Dr. Fred Wagner’s excellent book, Yellowstone’s Destabilized Effects, Science, and Policy Conflict, in our Wildlife Sciences Colloquium [here].

Fred Wagner is former associate dean of the Natural Resources Dept. at Utah State University. The review was written by Cliff White of Parks Canada, Banff, Alberta. Both men are world-recognized environmental scientists, managers, and greatly accomplished experts.

From Cliff White’s (also excellent) review:

For those unfamiliar with the Yellowstone situation, removal of native peoples from the park in the 1800s and reduction in large carnivores in the early 1900s provided favorable conditions for the population of elk (Cervus elaphus), a generalist herbivore, to increase dramatically. After government biologists observed the effects of high densities of elk on soil and vegetation in the 1920s, park rangers routinely culled the herd for over 4 decades. In the 1960s, recreational game hunters lobbied to take over the cull. Given the potential political incompatibility of sport hunting with conservation in one of the world’s premier national parks, the federal government made the decision to cease elk culling. Park managers and senior scientists then carefully selected a generation of researchers to evaluate the revised policy. The result was a new paradigm of “natural regulation” that was underlain by 4 key hypotheses:

1) long-term human hunting, gathering and burning had not substantially influenced the ecosystems of North America’s Rocky Mountains;

2) ungulate populations in Yellowstone were, over the long term, generally high;

3) carnivore predation was a “non-essential adjunct” having minimal influence on elk numbers; and

4) high elk numbers would not cause major changes in plant communities, ungulate guilds, and other long-term ecosystem states and processes.

Although the natural regulation paradigm seems rather farfetched today, remember that it was born in the 1960s, a time of antiestablishment flower children, when wilderness was untrammeled by Native Americans, when biologist and author Farley Mowat’s wolves subsisted on mice (Mowat 1963), and the only “good fires” were caused by lightning. Moreover, an excellent argument can be made that ecological science needs large “control ecosystems” with minimal
human influences.

In the 40 or so years since the implementation of the national regulation policy, both the National Park Service and outside institutions conducted many ecological studies. These culminated in 1997 with a congressionally mandated review by the National Research Council. It is this wealth of research and documentation that Fred Wagner uses to evaluate changes over time in the Yellowstone ecosystem. He provides meticulous summaries of research in chapters on each of several different vegetation communities, the ungulate guild, riparian systems, soil erosion dynamics, bioenergetics, biogeochemistry and syntheses for the “weight of evidence” on the primary drivers of ecological change. This background allows readers to develop their own understanding on the results of this textbook case of applied ecological science.

Wagner clearly shows that most studies did not support the hypotheses of natural regulation. In cases where studies did seem to support a hypothesis, methods and results were suspect. The elk population clearly grew beyond predictions, some plants and animals began to disappear, and the importance of Yellowstone’s lost predators and Native Americans should have become undeniable. However, faced with these incongruities, park managers still supported the natural regulation policy. Some researchers closely affiliated with management then began to invoke climate change as a potential factor for observed ecosystem degradation, but the evidence for this was similarly tenuous. On the basis of the almost overwhelming evidence, Wagner concludes that much of the park-sponsored science on the natural regulation paradigm “missed the mark” and that “Yellowstone has been badly served by science.”

24 Oct 2008, 11:21am
by Charles


Mike, regarding the “recovery” of YNP. It is ALL BULL****!!!

I was in YNP a couple of years ago with the Chief Scientist for Parks Canada, other scientists from Parks Canada, and Bob X [a well-known wildlife biologist]. Aspen has NOT recovered and willows have increased in height in only a few, select locations.

The idea that Ripple and Beschta floated in the scientific literature, and which has become the darling of the Greens and the media, that the wolves are moving the elk around thus allowing plant recovery, is pure scientific fiction! R&B do not claim that wolves have had any significant impact on elk numbers and instead claim that wolves have induced elk behavioral effects called “the landscape of fear”.

At the end of our multi-day field trip, I asked Bob X a simple question. Yes, the wolves have moved some elk from point A to point B, and the willows have grown taller at point A, BUT (and this is a very large BUT) there used to be tall willows at point B where the elk are now concentrated. How are you ever going to restore tall willows at point B?

I and the Canadians are still waiting for an answer, because there is none under R&B’s view of the world. As to beaver, yes there are more beaver than in the past because a few, recently formed colonies on the northern range are more than the former 50 year mean of ZERO. Beaver have NOT been restored to their previous abundance! That too is BULL****.

In the Rocky Mtn parks of Canada, willows and beaver have just about completely recovered and aspen has recovered in high wolf use areas — all since wolves recolonized the parks, and this is on top of predation by grizzlies, black bears, and mountain lions. But, unlike here in the US, the Canadians readily admit this is because combined predation pressure has reduced the elk population by 80-90% or more. Plus, moose have just about been eliminated, as have mule deer.

Did you ever wonder why the Feds and the Greens never mention the work that has been done in Canada? It is because it does not fit their claim that predators have no effect on game numbers, which, of course, is more fiction. You may also be interested to know that Parks Canada now has a policy of allowing native hunters to reduce overly abundant ungulate populations in that nation’s national parks. The Canadians are light-years ahead of the Americans in park management, thanks in large part to Steven Woodley, Chief Scientist; Cliff White; Ian Pengelly; Tom Hurd, and others. “Natural” includes native hunting AND aboriginal burning.

I strongly suggest people read Fred Wagner’s book on YNP. The truth will do them some good.

*name

*e-mail

web site

leave a comment


 
  • Colloquia

  • Commentary and News

  • Contact

  • Follow me on Twitter

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Meta