Taming the Wild Western Politician: Elk Management in the Western US

When man enters an ecosystem, he, like any other generalist species, remolds the functioning mechanisms of the ecosystem. Sometimes this is unbeknownst to him; other times, it is his very intention. The role of man in the wild areas of the Western United States is one such case where man has attempted to create a niche for himself without disturbing other animals' niches. Even in one area where he has been attempting to minimize his role since the turn of the century, Yellowstone Park, he finds that his intervention can have both positive and negative effects. The United States government has taken a "hands-off" approach to Yellowstone management (Budainsky 80), which represents the diametric pole opposite the vigorous "hands-on" approach which the state of New Mexico uses to manage wildlife, elk specifically. A survey of the available evidence suggests that the best solution is not a hands-on approach, but that we must not be so vigorous in our "natural regulation" policies so as to allow nature to go haywire.

Plans for managing elk herds are varied. New Mexico has decided to remedy suspected damages (to be discussed in Section II) through granting elk hunting permits to landowners whose land they have damaged. The intent is to "provide compensation to landowners for elk that invade and destroy their private property" (Thomas 793). The landowners then can sell the permits to hunters who are allowed to kill a specified number of elk on the ranch where the original damage occurred, but the permit is valid only in the following hunting season (19 N.M.A.C. 30.5 § 8.1, Thomas 793). The State determines how many permits shall be issued based on factors such as desired elk herd size (in the aggregate), previous years' hunting successes within each of the state's Game Management Units, and the size of the ranch involved (19 N.M.A.C 30.5 § 8.1). The permits have sold for around $1000 for mature bull permits (Petzal 36). New Mexico's approach represents what I shall call a hands-on approach to game management.

Yellowstone's official policy is the opposite, dubbed "natural regulation" (Reiger 22). Under a natural regulation scheme, natural forces are allowed to interact however they wish (Budiansky 82). As George Reiger, a writer for Field & Stream writes, "Yellowstone Park administrators claim that the elk herd as of now is about the right size and all that's needed in terms of management is to leave well enough alone (22)." Budiansky also criticizes the semantics of natural regulation, charging park administrators of defining the proper elk herd size so that it cannot grow too large "almost by definition" (82). Under a natural regulatory policy, government's role is not selling hunting permits, but to selling camera film and providing tourist latrines. Government takes a hands-off approach.

Elk (Alces alces), like their close cousins (deer) in Dunes Acres IN, have been remarkably good at coexisting with humans in the absence of hunters. Yellowstone's elk population has rocketed from 3100 in 1968 (one year after the sanctioned culls ended), to 20,000 in the latest estimate (Budainsky 80). Elk, however, have effects on several other plants and animals in their ecosystem. The most notable are as follows:

1. Intraspecific Competition. Since elk all fill the same niche, they engage in exploitation competition for a limited number of food resources, which will be discussed shortly. The survival of the fittest becomes of paramount importance. The impact of humans is less certain. What is certain is that unlike natural predators, humans kill the strongest animals. David E. Petzal discusses in Field & Stream, a hunters' magazine, an excerpt from his 20 years of elk hunting in New Mexico:

The strongest members of the herd are what make the best trophy heads. In this case, the "monster" weighed 1200 lbs and needed a half dozen men and a winch to haul to the taxidermist. The New Mexican program (like the Dunes Acres deer cull) uses as a control agent unnatural hunters armed to the teeth with the latest in guns capable of bringing down both elk and small aircraft.

Yellowstone, by contrast, has recently reintroduced wolves into the park as a biological control agent. The Park Administration predicts a 20% decline in the elk population thanks to the wolf (Reiger 22). But we must remember that since everything is connected, the reintroduced wolves may affect others in the ecosystem. Vividly etched in our minds is the Lake Michigan salmon, which was introduced as a biological control agent and game fish, only to be nearly wiped out by pollution. The response, of course, is that the wolf had previously been in the ecosystem, but the ecosystem may have had time to eliminate or fill the wolf's niche. Whether the wolves will succeed as a biological control agent is highly debatable.

Adding fuel to the fiery debate is that wolves have detrimental effects on livestock like the elk, though in a different way. Wolves harass livestock whereas elk eat livestock's food (to be discussed shortly). While ranchers reduce the elk problems, they gain a wolf problem. In a way, they exchange one competitor for another. Park administration must strike a balance between the marginal cost of a wolf and the foregone marginal benefit of an elk.

2. Competition With Livestock. Elk and livestock compete for the same food resource as both are herbivores that feed in open hills and meadows (Field & Stream 108-9). Livestock is a relatively new coming party to the ecological tango, as are humans. Explains Field & Stream:

The New Mexican regulations may provide ranchers with a relief of their animalistic desire for vengeance by killing a representative member of the damaging species, but it suffers from a lag effect. Because landowners first have to document deprivations (19 N.M.A.C. 30.5 §7.7), then apply for a permit, market it, and hope a hunter is willing and able to use it, the desired effects (see above) are not incurred until the year later, if at all (Thomas 804).

Yellowstone does not face this problem, though elk do necessarily migrate across the invisible park boundaries. When the Yellowstone elk herd flourishes, its members may chose to venture out of the park in search of food. Thus, the depravations to livestock occur outside the boundaries of the Park and are thus less relevant.

3. "Competition" with human fixtures. Elk also damage fences and human establishments of the like (Thomas 801). The reasons for this are elusive, but we might speculate that elk destroy fences for the same reason they roam outside Yellowstone: in search of food. Limiting their numbers, by whatever means, has positive effects here. On the other hand, humans are part of the ecosystem and can not expect to win every time.

4. Interspecific competition with other herbivores. Large herbivores engage in resource partitioning: whitetail deer eat from streambottoms; mule deer forage in forests; and elk eat grasses on open hills (Field & Stream 108). However, when food is scarce, all bets are off and the animals take whatever food they get (exploitation competition) (Field & Stream 108). Elk are the greatest generalist species of the group, so they generally are more successful than others and are less susceptible to natural limiting factors. Natural regulation is less effective on elk. However, the herd still varies in size, so a more blind policy like New Mexico's may not work perfectly either.

5. Consumption of aspen and forage material. Elk damage to the understory and sapling aspen by eating them is well documented by Dr. Charles Kay of Utah State University. Kay's research of side-by-side photos documents a 96% decline in aspens over the last century in Yellowstone. As Budiansky explains: "The woody understory that provides food for mice, deer, and many small animals is lost. Centuries-old aspen stands ... no longer ... regenerate under the intense grazing pressure (82)." The aspens' loss eliminates beavers' food, and their dams and ponds, which trap silt and build stream beds and banks. The streams are no longer held by roots, so they collapse. The water table falls with the lowered streambeds, making it impossible for willows to regenerate (Budiansky 82). As Budainsky concludes:

The Park Service expected aspen to regrow after the 1988 fires, which they did, but they were constantly eaten by elk wandering from the grassy hills to the charred tree stands (Budiansky 83). Comparison of fenced in control areas and neighboring open areas bears out elk damage (Budiansky 83). Without a suitable control agent, be it wolves, disease, or hunters, the Yellowstone elk have destroyed the young plant-based life in Yellowstone.

The Park Service has a multi-pronged response. First, they blame the losses on climate change or the policy of suppressing wildfires (now abolished). They also note that the decline is being experienced throughout the west. Biodiversity, however, has not suffered, they claim, because all species are still represented (Budiansky 82-83). Biodiversity is not the only measure of ecosystem health. An ecosystem in such a bad condition as Yellowstone clearly needs a change in course.

The natural regulation policy is popular, however (Budiansky 83). People come to parks to see critters in their natural environment. Hunters and culls destroy the park nature of Yellowstone, in tourists' eyes. Dr. Kay has a blunt response: "If you want lots of elk and bison to make the tourists happy, (then) it's not a nature park, it's a theme park--it's entertainment. So you might as well let Disney run it" (Budiansky 83).

The best elk management plan is neither the vigorous hands-on approach of New Mexico, nor is it Yellowstone's hands-off approach. What is needed is a large-scale regional environmental coordination effort with representatives of hunting groups, parks, ranchers, and tourists. We must strike the delicate balance between obliterating the herd and letting it grow out of control. However, with many groups going many different directions in response to the elk numbers, an effective policy will never be formulated. The jury is still out on the best policy, but it clearly lies on neither extreme.

Works Cited

"Big Game Competition," Field & Stream, March 1995, 107-8.

Budiansky, Stephen. "Yellowstone's Unraveling," USN & WR, Sep 16, 1996, 80, 82, 83.

Petzal, David E. "The Land of Smiles," Field & Stream, January 1997, 34, 36.

Reiger, George. "Yellowstone Elk," Field & Stream, October 1997, 22.

Thomas, Brian. "The Multiplication of Fractional Elk--New Mexico's New Math," 36 Natural Resources Journal 4, 1996, 793-848.