Yellowstone's Northern Range - Greater Yellowstone Science ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

THE NORTHERN RANGE 102 complex set of processes that drive a wild ecosystem and shape its various components. Numerous commentators have considered the challenges of managing for ecological processes in the national parks (Darling and Eichhorn 1969; Cole 1971; Houston 1971, 1982; Chase 1986; Despain et al. 1986; Schullery 1989c; Rolston 1990; Kay 1990; Boyce 1991; Whitlock et al. 1991; Wright 1992; Christensen 1994; Wagner et al. 1995a; McNaughton 1996a, b). The policy statements that guide management are typically generalized enough that they are susceptible to countless rhetorical exercises, depending upon the interpretation each reader chooses to give them. Some observers have very sharply criticized natural regulation and National Park Service policies, most often for a perceived lack of definition or direction. Wagner et al. (l995a), for example, regarded the goal of achieving "naturalness" or replicating the ecological setting of some past time as "both unknowable and unattainable." This seems surprising considering that Wagner et al. and others (Kay 1995a) display extraordinary confidence in their ability to know how the prehistoric practices of the first Americans affected Yellowstone wildlife. Wagner et al. (1995a) insisted that "if the parks are to have seriously attainable, wildlife-management goals, they will have to be more realistic and less idealistic." They proposed, among other things, "management protocols" and a "menu of parameters" that would give managers a clear idea of when the ecological setting was misbehaving. On the other hand, all such prescriptions that have yet been proposed for making the goal "more realistic and less idealistic" are in fact proscriptions, that, by outlawing variation beyond some precisely defined point, pass judgment on what an ecosystem is or is not allowed to do. Considering the frequency with which these proscriptions are published, it is easy to propose such criteria, but has so far proven impossible to justify any of them to the satisfaction of science or the park's management professions. On the other hand, other observers have found "ecological process management" a satisfactory or at least promising approach (Boyce 1991). Boyce (1991), in discussing the entire greater Yellowstone ecosystem, maintained that "although humans have altered the ecology of the GYE, the ecosystem is neve11heless functioning and worthy of perpetuation." He then elaborated on the challenge facing present and future researchers here, not only in Yellowstone National Park and throughout the greater Yellowstone ecosystem: At some level, all environments in the world have been affected by human development and agriculture. But it is not always clear that these influences are great enough to require management intervention. Although ecologists tend to emphasize the interconnectedness of nature, perturbations at one link in the ecosystem do not necessarily cascade into all its dimensions. The issue is one of embeddedness, that is, how complexly a species is embedded within the ecosystem. In greater Yellowstone there has been little research on this issue. Thus in many cases we unfortunately have no concrete basis for establishing ecosystem management policy. Indeed, the conviction of the National Parks and Conservation Association (Gordon et al. 1989) is that the National Park Service does not understand well enough the resources it seeks to manage. Future management must depend on our developing research programs to ensure that we understand, as well as possible, the complex GYE ecosystem. Until we do, however, we should not interfere with its function while doing whatever we can to ensure that ecosystem components remain intact (Boyce 1991). As Yellowstone's northern range has repeatedy demonstrated over the past 120 years, landscapes are full of surprises, and ecology is an especially imperfect science. It has taken several generations of research to reveal the many flaws in earlier interpretations of the range's condition. Considering the well-intended but overconfident
CONCLUSIONS 103 efforts of previous generations of northem range observers and managers to control the northern range's behavior, recent proposals for how to "fix" or "control" the range seem almost embarrassingly naive. Thus, Boyce's recommendations for research programs, and his admonition to keep interference to a minimum, seem especially wellaimed at the northern range and its management issues. Indeed, there is a direct link between research and a range whose ecological processes are as little manipulated by humans as possible. Were it not for a natural regulation policy that gave ecological processes such free range over the past 30 years, research would have had far less opportunity to examine the true ecological character of the northern range. That said, the formulators of the original natural regulation policy 30 years ago would have benefitted much from the recent research initiative. Hindsight allows us to recognize shortcomings in their approach. Recent research in other areas shows that they may have underestimated the potential effects that predators may have on ungulates. Gasaway et aJ. (1992) and others showed that predators can hold some ungulate populations at less than one half of ecological carrying capacity. Working with equilibrium models available at the time, the formulators of natural regulation policy may have predicted too much of a steady state in northern range ecological processes. The recent discovery that aspen recruit only episodically on the northeln range is a strong indication of the great variability of this system. Furthermore, natural regulation's formulators could not have foreseen the public acquisition of thousands of acres of additional winter range north of the park in the 1980s, and thus could not have predicted the tremendous recolonization of that range by elk, and attempted recolonization of it by bison. Much has been learned in the past 30 years about natural regulation and the very reallimitations such a policy must face in a IDultijurisdictional situation like the northern range. No doubt much more will be learned in the next 30 years. It therefore seems appropriate that the management model devised in the early 1970s be periodically revisited. It is time for the managers of Yellowstone, in cooperation with the scientific community, to restate the management model in accord with current knowledge. As ecological understanding advances, so must ecological process management. If the northern range has one overriding lesson to offer, it may be this: each generation of Yellowstone's caretakers (including managers, scientists, and advocacy groups) has assumed that they knew enough about this ecosystem to manage it aggressively and intensively, and each generation was viewed by the next generation as having gotten it wrong. Many position-holders in today's debates over the northeln range have adopted this same confident position. This is not to say we lack faith in the science of the northern range. Quite to the contrary, it is the science of the last 35 years that has led us to where we are today. Science has given us a sound theoretical basis and a solid empiIical foundation for the park's current management direction. In the past three decades most of the foundation concepts and certainties held by earlier generations have been reconsidered, revised, or entirely rejected. Many longstanding interpretations of soil erosion, grassland condition, aspen/ willow history, elk canying capacity, effects of predators, and many other topics are now regarded as uninformed, naive, or simply wrong. The rate of conceptual change has also accelerated; new interpretations and hypotheses are challenged and reconsidered in the space of only a few years. Thus, while the current generation of scientists and managers is wealthy with knowledge compared to the previous ones, we must assume that the next generation will know much more. It seems therefore shOlisighted to suggest that National Park Service management of the northem range should be less idealistic. In fact, there is a great deal to be said for honoring the idealism that seems to make critics of the current management policy so nervous. This hardly seems the time to abandon a very promising idealism in favor of yet another recipe-book, inttnsive, and manipulative approach to management. The northem range's ecological processes are making
Page 1:
YELLOW"STONE'S NORTHERN RANGE COMPL
Page 4 and 5:
.. •.
Page 6 and 7:
Suggested citation: Yellowstone Nat
Page 8 and 9:
c=J Northern Winter Range _ Boundar
Page 10 and 11:
Aspen, willows, and biodiversity ..
Page 12 and 13:
vii
Page 14 and 15:
THE NORTHERN RANGE xii range criter
Page 16 and 17:
L ~I , }! \,.'1. J 4 f ; " IF , , 1
Page 18 and 19:
THE NORTHERN RANGE 2 Figure 1.1. Ph
Page 20 and 21:
THE NORTHERN RANGE tion. There was
Page 22 and 23:
THE NORTHERN RANGE 6 Figure 1.6. Gr
Page 24 and 25:
THE NORTHERN RANGE 8 Figure 1.8. El
Page 26 and 27:
THE NORTHERN RANGE 10 unpopular or
Page 28 and 29:
THE NORTHERN RANGE 12 earlier Yello
Page 30 and 31:
, ! ~ , I~ " 1 \, • .' '-, , \, ,
Page 32 and 33:
THE NORTHERN RANGE 16 Northern rang
Page 34 and 35:
Figure 2.3. Sum ot rotal annual riv
Page 36 and 37:
THE NORTHERN RANGE 20 Figure 2.4 Tr
Page 38 and 39:
THE NORTHERN RANGE 22 dendrochronol
Page 40 and 41:
THE NORTHERN RANGE 24 Figure 2.7. A
Page 42 and 43:
THE NORTHERN RANGE 26 et al. (1991)
Page 44 and 45:
THE NORTHERN RANGE 28 earlier time,
Page 46 and 47:
.', P (/ i0~ , • 9 ~ § , , ~ , i
Page 48 and 49:
THE NORTHERN RANGE 32 systems-range
Page 50 and 51:
THE NORTHERN RANGE 34 indicates the
Page 52 and 53:
THE NORTHERN RANGE 36 Data were gat
Page 54 and 55:
THE NORTHERN RANGE 38 grazed and un
Page 56 and 57:
THE NORTHERN RANGE showed that graz
Page 58 and 59:
, ~ , • V , '. ~ ;' t ~ " ~ .' .~
Page 60 and 61:
Figure 4.1. Northern range, showing
Page 62 and 63:
Figure 4.2. Willow distribution in
Page 64 and 65:
THE NORTHERN RANGE 48 Figure 4.4. I
Page 66 and 67:
THE NORTHERN RANGE 50 public lands,
Page 68 and 69: THE NORTIlERN RANGE 52 Figure 4.5.
Page 70 and 71: THE NORTHERN RANGE 54 able uncertai
Page 72 and 73: THE NORTHERN RANGE 56 to confirm an
Page 74: THE NORTHERN RANGE 58 RESEARCH RECO
Page 77 and 78: SOIL, EROSION, SEDIMENTS, AND WATER
Page 79 and 80: SOIL, EROSION, SEDIMENTS, AND WATER
Page 81 and 82: ated with ungulate winter ranges. T
Page 83 and 84: ELK POPULATION ISSUES IS YELLOWSTON
Page 85 and 86: ange grazing issue, Yellowstone man
Page 87 and 88: ELK POPULATION ISSUES 71 ... Other
Page 89 and 90: ELK POPULATION ISSUES 73 1996d), so
Page 91 and 92: ELK POPULATION ISSUES 75 the northe
Page 93 and 94: ELK POPULATION ISSUES 77 It has evo
Page 96 and 97: 4 , ~ 1 v " 'It , \ J~ ~""~ .:,~ ",
Page 98 and 99: THE NORTHERN RANGE 82 Competition t
Page 100 and 101: Figure 7.3. Bison winter range. Sin
Page 102 and 103: THE NORTHERN RANGE Figure 7.7. Envi
Page 104 and 105: THE NORTHERN RANGE 88 not aware of
Page 106 and 107: THE NORTHERN RANGE 90 tion size, an
Page 108 and 109: THE NORTHERN RANGE 92 activity (95
Page 110 and 111: THE NORTHERN RANGE 94 pursue the su
Page 112 and 113: THE NORTHERN RANGE 96 factors were
Page 114 and 115: THE NORTHERN RANGE Figure 7.13. Num
Page 116 and 117: , .. , , " , ! I ." ~, ~ " ,.\ ,•
Page 120 and 121: THE NORTHERN RANGE 104 practically
Page 122 and 123: THE NORTHERN RANGE 106 appear suppr
Page 124 and 125: AppendixA. Conferences, Meetings, a
Page 126 and 127: lJO Year Estimate Comment Source 19
Page 128 and 129: lJ2 , Estimated # of Elk Year Date
Page 130 and 131: lJ4 Winter Total Count 1967-68 397
Page 132 and 133: 116 Year Date of Count Parkwide Par
Page 134 and 135: 118 Counts and estimates of mule de
Page 136 and 137: 120 Northern Yellowstone winter ran
Page 138 and 139: 122 Population estimates and reduct
Page 140 and 141: 124 Actual count Inside Outside Est
Page 142 and 143: Pronghorn counted during spring sur
Page 144 and 145: 128 Year 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1
Page 146 and 147: Ground and aerial counts of bighorn
Page 148 and 149: REFERENCE LIST NOTES ON THIS REFERE
Page 150 and 151: Pages 199-210 in Carbyn, L.N., S.H.
Page 152 and 153: Yellowstone National Park. Technica
Page 154 and 155: mammal mortality in the 1988 Yellow
Page 156 and 157: National Park. International Journa
Page 158 and 159: Mehus, C.A. 1995. Influences ofbraw
Page 160 and 161: __ , and __ . 1996a. Preburn root b
Page 162 and 163: Pages 127-138 in F.J. Singer, ed. E
Page 164 and 165: some northern Yellowstone elk. M.S.
Page 166: I I I I I
show all

Yellowstone's Northern Range - Greater Yellowstone Science ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?