1

The Controversial Elk Reduction Program in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming

Kyle Smith

Title Page

ENVL-3121-002: Wildlife Management

Instructor: Dr. Catherine Tredick

April 22nd, 2022

 2

Table of Contents
Title Page ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 2
Summary........................................................................................................................................ 3
Population Management Goals and Strategies ............................................................................ 3
Biological Considerations ........................................................................................................... 4
Human Dimensions ..................................................................................................................... 4
Political .................................................................................................................................... 4
Social ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Economic ................................................................................................................................. 6
Challenges and Complexities ....................................................................................................... 6
Improving Joint Management and Stakeholder Participation ..................................................... 6
Park Visitor Safety and Animal Welfare..................................................................................... 8
Hunter-Grizzly Conflict .............................................................................................................. 9
Implications of Proposed Solutions........................................................................................... 10
Importance................................................................................................................................... 11
Areas of Uncertainty for Further Research ............................................................................. 12
Literature Cited .......................................................................................................................... 14
 3

Summary

Population Management Goals and Strategies

The Jackson, Wyoming elk (Cervus elaphus) herd is currently the largest North

American elk herd and among the largest migratory wildlife herds in the United States, with an

estimated 10,985 head of elk in 2020 (Koshmrl 2020; NPS 2021). Since 1912, supplemental

winter feeding by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Wyoming Game and Fish Department

on the National Elk Refuge aimed to reduce elk grazing on cattle ranches has kept the Jackson

herd size artificially high. With the expansion of Grand Teton National Park in 1950, the U.S.

Congress authorized an annual Elk Reduction Program “when necessary” within park boundaries

to manage desired population sizes (Vernon and Clark 2016). The Wyoming Game and Fish

Department has set a management goal of maintaining the Jackson herd at 11,000 elk, including

the portion of the population that resides within Grand Teton National Park. Additionally, the

U.S. Department of the Interior’s 2007 Bison and Elk Management Plan aims to maintain a

summer herd of 1,600 elk in Grand Teton National Park and a wintering herd of 5,000 elk on the

National Elk Refuge to the southeast of Grand Teton National Park (NPS 2021). The Wyoming

Game and Fish Department sells licenses for the park hunt to “qualified hunters” based on quotas

derived from the joint recommendations of the National Park Service and Wyoming Game and

Fish Department each spring. The Secretary of the Interior must then deputize selected hunters as

“federal rangers” to sidestep laws that prohibit recreational hunting in U.S. National Parks (Clark

and Vernon 2015). Less than 20% of the park’s 310,000 acres is open to the hunt in Area 75 in

the southeast portion of the park (van Manen et al. 2019; NPS 2021). An elk hunt has occurred

from November through December of every year since the program’s inception, except for 1959

and 1960 when the herd was below desired population sizes (Vernon and Clark 2016).
 4

Biological Considerations

Elk are hunted in Grand Teton National Park as they migrate from their summer ranges in

Yellowstone National Park and Bridger-Teton National Forest (northeast) to lower elevation

wintering grounds on the National Elk Refuge (southeast). However, supplementary winter

feeding on the National Elk Refuge reduces both overwinter mortality and migratory behavior to

areas further south, which causes the Jackson elk herd to be maintained at about twice the winter

feed ground’s natural carrying capacity. Artificial confinement to feed grounds increases the risk

of brucellosis transmission among herd members and leads to overbrowsing of native vegetation

(Smith 2012). Based on radio collar data, Smith and Anderson (2001) determined that natural

dispersal out of the Jackson elk herd and Grand Teton National Park were not limiting factors on

herd size or elk numbers in the park. If the Elk Reduction Program’s stated goal of “reducing elk

impacts on woody habitats” is to be met, Smith and Anderson (2001) therefore concluded that

hunting must continue so long as the Jackson elk herd is maintained in excess of habitat carrying

capacity by supplemental winter feeding on the National Elk Refuge.

Human Dimensions

Political

Given the migratory patterns of the Jackson elk herd, cooperative management of the

herd by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, and U.S. Forest Service is necessary. However, the Elk Reduction Program is jointly

managed by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and National Park Service- agencies with

fundamentally conflicting mandates (Vernon et al. 2016). The National Park Service mandate is

to preserve and protect natural resources while simultaneously providing opportunities for public

use and enjoyment (U.S. Congress 1916). In contrast, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department
 5

mandate is to conserve wildlife for the public and manage game species for hunting (Wyoming

Game and Fish Department n.d.). Since the program’s inception, Wyoming’s deep-seeded view

that wildlife is state property has also created clashes between state versus federal authority in

wildlife management decisions on federal lands. The National Park Service has expressed the

desire to phase out feed-and-hunt practices, whereas the Wyoming Game and Fish Department

favors status quo management (Clark and Vernon 2017). The Wyoming Game and Fish

Department holds public meetings every spring in which stakeholder preferences for elk

management in the park are discussed, though the National Park Service does not provide similar

opportunities (Vernon and Clark 2016). Based on a literature review, federal and state officials

generally held the expectation that the Elk Reduction Program should follow an authoritative

approach, but the lack of stakeholder participation in the decision-making process was a widely

regarded issue by non-consumptive and consumptive wildlife users alike (Vernon et al. 2016).

Social

Based on a literature review, environmental advocacy groups, wildlife viewers, and

wildlife photographers overwhelmingly felt the elk hunt was an improper and unethical use of a

national park, where they expected wildlife to be protected. Such moralistic, non-consumptive

wildlife users generally expressed concerns that the hunt endangers visitors, hunters, elk, and

grizzly bears (Vernon and Clark 2016). Non-consumptive wildlife users frequently pointed to the

following incidents: an elk hunter was mauled by a federally threatened grizzly bear (Ursus

arctos) during the park hunt in 2011, another hunter killed a grizzly bear in self-defense in 2012,

and some reports claimed that park hunters were “herd-shooting” at elk (Vernon et al. 2016).

Non-consumptive wildlife users tended to resent the perceived political power hunters had in the

Elk Reduction Program. Since hunting license fees support the Wyoming Game and Fish
 6

Department’s budget, outfitters and hunters generally expected the Wyoming Game and Fish

Department to act in their best interests and manage the Jackson herd as a renewable resource.

Such utilitarian, consumptive wildlife users tended to resent the interference they perceived the

National Park Service and non-consumptive wildlife users to have in Wyoming’s game

management (Vernon and Clark 2016).

Economic

The artificially high population size of the Jackson elk herd maintained through

supplemental feeding on the National Elk Refuge was partially intended to promote park

visitation from wildlife viewers and provide hunting opportunities, which in turn would support

local economies of the Teton Counties of Wyoming and Idaho (U.S. Department of the Interior

et al. 2007). When non-consumptive and consumptive wildlife users visit Grand Teton National

Park, they often spend money on hotels, restaurants, souvenirs, equipment, guides, rentals,

gasoline, and other goods and services (Loomis and Caughlan 2004). Based on face-to-face

surveys of Grand Teton National Park visitors, Loomis and Caughlan (2004) estimated that

natural elk population reductions from abandoning both the supplemental feeding program and

Elk Reduction Program would reduce park visitation by up to 20% relative to visitation under

current management practices. Abandoning all active management of the Jackson elk herd was

therefore projected to cause a loss of over $62 million to local businesses and increase local

unemployment by up to 11.3% (Loomis and Caughlan 2004).

Challenges and Complexities

Improving Joint Management and Stakeholder Participation

The mandate of the National Park Service tends to favor natural regulation of the Jackson

elk herd, while the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s mandate and economic interests
 7

strongly favor hunting of the Jackson elk herd. This disparity in mandates, coupled with decades

of mistrust between state and federal agencies, has produced status quo management practices

that reflect the special interests of hunters rather than the common interests of a diverse group of

stakeholders (Clark and Vernon 2017). Improving cooperation between the National Park

Service and Wyoming Game and Fish Department will be an uphill battle, but it is necessary for

these two agencies to exhibit stronger joint leadership in the management of the Jackson elk herd

to better reflect a balance of moralistic and utilitarian values. To make meaningful improvements

in the decision-making processes that underlie the Elk Reduction Program, agency officials must

place stronger emphasis on the human dimensions of this management issue by facilitating the

transition from an authoritative approach to a transactional approach. The National Park Service

and Wyoming Game and Fish Department should collaboratively initiate focus or nominal group

workshops where non-consumptive wildlife users and consumptive wildlife users can discuss

their management preferences within Grand Teton National Park, seek to better understand each

other’s perspectives, and negotiate mutually acceptable alterations to the Elk Reduction Program

within the boundaries of science-supported reductions to the Jackson elk herd that bring the

population closer to habitat carrying capacity. A major hindrance to this proposed democratic

process is that the Wyoming Game and Fish Department currently has a vested economic interest

in managing elk for the benefit of hunters whose license fees support their budget, while non-

consumptive wildlife users lack this economic influence and thus their preferences are not given

serious consideration (Vernon and Clark 2016). Diversifying conservation funding sources to

include contributions from non-consumptive wildlife users would level the playing field in terms

of how much weight agencies assign to different stakeholder preferences and would also bolster

the national funding base for conservation. Just as the Pittman-Robertson Act places an 11%
 8

excise tax on firearms and ammunition used by hunters, a similar excise tax could be placed on

equipment used by wildlife viewers and photographers, such as cameras and binoculars (Organ

et al. 2010). Since this federally collected money is pooled and then allocated to state wildlife

agencies to carry out conservation programs, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department would

now be receiving funds from both consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife users alike.

Park Visitor Safety and Animal Welfare

Even as a hunter myself, I must fairly note that elk hunting is a discordant use of a U.S.

National Park by definition, as the National Park Service mandate reflects moralistic values that

preach wildlife protection and non-interference (U.S. Congress 1916). Since 2013, Grand Teton

National Park rules state that no more than a single shot can be fired at a running herd of elk and

hunters can carry no more than seven cartridges with them per day to limit the number of elk that

may be accidentally wounded. However, in 2014 several park visitors witnessed hunters drive

elk into Hunt Area 75 from an area off-limits to hunting and open fire from a roadway on the

running herd, resulting in two illegally killed bulls, several other wounded elk, and multiple

citations (Koshmrl 2014). The risk to visitor safety is much more difficult to assess than the

obvious risks to wildlife welfare. Between 1991 and 2021, the total number of November visits

to Grand Teton National Park doubled, though from 1979 to 2021 the month of November also

has the lowest average visitation. Hunt Area 75 was closed to public access in November 2021 to

reduce the safety risks to nonhunting park visitors (NPS 2021). Since closing this area to non-

hunting park visitors may again seem like managers are privileging hunters, a better solution

would be to leave Hunt Area 75 open to public access with warning signs and increased park

ranger presence to deter unethical and unsafe hunting behavior.

 9

Hunter-Grizzly Conflict

Non-consumptive wildlife users often opposed the Elk Reduction Program on the

grounds that it harms federally threatened grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) recovery efforts in the

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and jeopardizes hunter safety (Vernon et al. 2016). Backcountry

elk hunting can have a negative influence on grizzly bear recovery efforts, as it elevates the risk

of human-grizzly conflicts. In the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service lists “hunter self-defense” as one of the threats to recovery. Indeed, 27 grizzly bears were

killed by mule deer and elk hunters in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in self-defense from

1992-2000, representing 37% of all known human-caused mortality (Gunther et al. 2004). It is

also undeniable that a hunter was mauled, and a bear was killed by a hunter in self-defense in

successive years of the Grand Teton National Park hunt (Vernon et al. 2016). Since the recovery

criteria for the Yellowstone Distinct Population Segment states that known human-caused

mortality cannot exceed 4% of the population estimate annually and there were an estimated 700

grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem as of 2020, more than 28 bears would have

to be incidentally killed in a single year to prevent delisting (USFWS 1993; Burnham and Mott

2020). As such, it is unlikely that the park hunt alone represents a serious barrier to grizzly

recovery, given that there is only one documented instance of direct hunter-caused mortality in

the 72-year history of the Elk Reduction Program (Vernon et al. 2016). Importantly, in this

region about 90% of female grizzly bears have entered their dens by the end of November and

about 90% of males by mid-December (Haroldson et al. 2002). Based on genetic sampling of

elk-kill sites, van Manen et al. (2019) found that the late timing of the Elk Reduction Program

attracted only the relatively few resident grizzlies that had not yet entered hibernation, thus the

risk of hunter-grizzly conflict during the park hunt was determined to be “low.” In addition to
 10

closing Hunt Area 79 (northeast) where the incidents occurred, hunters in Grand Teton National

Park are now given basic bear safety education, required to carry bear spray, and prohibited from

using elk calls to minimize the potential for deadly conflicts (van Manen et al. 2019). Ideally,

better gut pile and carcass disposal practices by hunters would prevent humans from accidentally

encountering active grizzlies that are attempting to defend their food source. Although it would

be difficult due to the terrain and body mass of an elk, park rangers could utilize off-road

vehicles to help hunters transport harvested elk from the field to a station where carcasses could

be processed outside of grizzly territory.

Implications of Proposed Solutions

Status quo management of the Jackson elk herd in Grand Teton National Park has

produced enormous political and social tension, created the potential for severe elk overbrowsing

through inflated population sizes, and exacerbated the risk for Chronic Wasting Disease and

brucellosis transmission (Clark and Vernon 2017). However, simply terminating the feed-and-

hunt practices as suggested by many non-consumptive wildlife users could result in a loss of one

out of every nine local jobs, conservation funding, wildlife viewing opportunities, and park

visitation (Loomis and Caughlan 2004). Without feed-and-hunt practices, the Jackson elk herd

will not be able to exceed its habitat’s carrying capacity indefinitely, and up to a 90% overwinter

die-off could possibly ensue after available vegetation has been overbrowsed (Clark and Vernon

2017). This represents a conundrum where current management practices no longer make sense

for most stakeholders, but ending such practices may be devastating to the short-term functioning

of the human and natural systems of the Teton Counties. Fortunately, a majority of stakeholders

interviewed said they would support “significant alterations” to the feed-and-hunt practices. It is

therefore advisable to implement adaptive management that gradually phases out both the
 11

supplemental winter-feeding program and the park elk hunt, as was originally suggested in the

U.S. Department of the Interior’s 2007 Bison and Elk Management Plan (Vernon and Clark

2016). Over time, this should curtail elk numbers to a point where natural regulatory factors like

overwinter mortality and predation from grey wolves (C. lupus), grizzly bears (U. arctos), and

mountain lions (P. concolor) may eventually be able to maintain the Jackson elk herd closer to

habitat carrying capacity. The Teton Counties would also be afforded additional time to

transition to an economy that is not predicated on artificially high elk numbers.

Importance

Most notably, the Elk Reduction Program represents a peculiar instance in which federal

laws have been bent to permit a recreational hunt in a U.S. National Park, which conflicts with

the National Park Service mandate of protecting wildlife (Clark and Vernon 2015). The handling

of the Elk Reduction Program by multiple governmental agencies has also been and will

continue to be a test of the hunter-centric North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

According to the model’s first pillar, wildlife is a public trust resource: “owned by no one and

held by government in trust for the benefit of present and future generations” (Organ et al. 2010).

In the case of the Elk Reduction Program, a growing segment of the public (non-consumptive

wildlife users) is largely being excluded from the decision-making process while the Wyoming

Game and Fish Department continues to pander to the wants of an ever-declining segment of the

public (consumptive wildlife users). Nationwide participation in hunting has declined drastically

since the peak in 1982, with hunters now comprising less than 4% of the U.S. population (Moore

2021). The historical underpinnings of this program and any future revisions concerning

stakeholder involvement will ultimately shed light on how we can expect governmental agencies
 12

to balance the wants of non-consumptive versus consumptive wildlife users as the proportion of

hunters continues to decline in the U.S. population into the 21st century.

This case study also provides insight into how governmental agencies have historically

responded to the man-made problem of overabundant wildlife. For 110 years now, supplemental

winter feeding on the National Elk Refuge has kept the Jackson elk herd well over habitat

carrying capacity. For 72 years now, the agency response to reducing the ecological damage

caused by artificially overpopulated elk has been direct population management through

recreational hunting in Grand Teton National Park. In the past seven years though, calls for the

end of the supplemental winter-feeding program have intensified, signaling a shift in public

opinion to favor elk management through habitat alteration and natural population decline (Clark

and Vernon 2015; Vernon and Clark 2016). Still, the feed-and-hunt practices are economically

beneficial to local outfitters and businesses (Loomis and Caughlan 2004). Additionally, the feed-

and-hunt practices safeguard local ranchers’ cattle from brucellosis transmission (Smith 2012).

Whether the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Wyoming Game and Fish Department continue

the feed-and-hunt practices or abandon them will be an indicator of how governmental agencies

plan to rectify wildlife overabundance in the 21st century when serious local economic

implications are at stake.

Areas of Uncertainty for Further Research

Since feed-and-hunt practices have persisted for decades, the outcomes of terminating

such programs on the Jackson elk herd and Grand Teton National Park ecosystem are largely

unknown. Some have called for an experimental termination of the park hunt to gain scientific

insights, though this is a high-risk strategy with the potential for disastrous local consequences as

previously discussed (Clark and Vernon 2015). If supplemental winter feeding on the National
 13

Elk Refuge and the Elk Reduction Program in Grand Teton National Park are to be phased out, it

is pertinent to first determine whether predation from grey wolves (C. lupus), grizzly bears (U.

arctos), and mountain lions (P. concolor) can naturally regulate the Jackson elk herd.

Christianson and Creel (2014) and Mosely and Mundinger (2018) examined the effects of natural

predation on the Northern Range elk herd in Yellowstone National Park, but no such study exists

for the Grand Teton segment of the Jackson elk herd. For the population segment that summers

in Grand Teton National Park, it is therefore recommended that researchers fit a representative

sample of elk according to age classes with radiocollars containing mortality sensors. Aerial and

ground telemetry surveys should be conducted in Grand Teton National Park to confirm

live/dead status. Hair sampling at kill sites could be used to determine which predator species

was responsible for death and carcasses could be necropsied to determine age at death. Program

MARK could be used for survival analyses to help determine the extent to which natural

predation represents additive or compensatory mortality. Given the migratory nature of the

Jackson elk herd, this type of study would require similar efforts in Bridger-Teton National

Forest and the National Elk Refuge. While this would undoubtedly be expensive and require

significant personnel, it is essential to know if natural predation can replace hunting as a limiting

factor to the Jackson elk population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

 14

Literature Cited

Burnham, J., and N. Mott. 2020. Timeline: A history of grizzly bear recovery in the lower 48

states. Montana Public Radio. Retrieved March 30, 2022, from

https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2021-04-02/timeline-a-history-of-grizzly-bear-

recovery-in-the-lower-48-states.

Christianson, D., and S. Creel. 2014. Ecosystem scale declines in elk recruitment and population

growth with wolf colonization: A before-after-control-impact approach. PLoS ONE 9(7):

e102330.

Clark, S.G., and M.E. Vernon. 2015. Governance challenges in joint inter-jurisdictional

management: The Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming, elk case. Environmental

Management (New York) 56(2): 286–299.

Clark, S.G., and M.E. Vernon. 2017. Elk management and policy in southern Greater

Yellowstone: Assessing the constitutive process. Policy Sciences 50(2): 295–316.

Gunther, K.A., B.A. Aber, M.T. Bruscino, S.L. Cain, K.L. Frey, J. Copeland, M.A. Haroldson,

and C.C. Schwartz. 2004. Grizzly bear–human conflicts in the Greater Yellowstone

Ecosystem, 1992–2000. Ursus 15: 10–22.

Haroldson, M.A., C.C. Schwartz, S. Cherry, D.S. Moody, M. Ternent, and K.A. Gunther. 2002.

Grizzly bear denning chronology and movements in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Ursus 13: 29–37.

Koshmrl, M. 2014. Onlookers dismayed by elk-herding hunters. Jackson Hole

News and Guide. Retrieved April 3, 2022, from

https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/environmental/onlookers-dismayed-by-elk-

herding-hunters/article_a21e928d-926e-5fd9-b92c-9886d4d0fe3e.html.
 15

Koshmrl, M. 2020. Jackson Hole's elk herd thriving as hunt historically slow. Jackson Hole

News and Guide. Retrieved March 20, 2022, from

https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/the_hole_scroll/jackson-holes-elk-herd-thriving-as-

hunt-historically-slow/article_097cd104-6396-558f-8665-

e844a80df192.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CUsually%2C%20there's%20more%20like%20

1%2C500,size%20started%20shrinking%20by%20design.

Loomis, J., and L. Caughlan. 2004. Linking intended visitation to regional economic impact

models of bison and elk management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9(1): 17-33.

Moore, A. 2021. Decline in hunting threatens conservation funding. NC State University,

College of Natural Resources News. Retrieved March 26, 2022, from

https://cnr.ncsu.edu/news/2021/01/decline-in-hunting-threatens-conservation-funding/.

Mosley, J.C., and J.G. Mundinger. 2018. History and status of wild ungulate populations on the

Northern Yellowstone Range. Rangelands 40(6): 189-201.

National Park Service. 2021. Elk management. U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved March

20, 2022, from

https://www.nps.gov/grte/planyourvisit/elkreduction.htm#:~:text=Elk%20reduction%20p

rogram%20begins%20Saturday%2C%20November%206&text=The%20park's%20enabli

ng%20legislation%20of,of%20the%20Jackson%20Elk%20Herd.

National Park Service. 2021. Grand Teton NP (GRTE) reports: Summary of visitor use by month

and year (1979 - last calendar year). U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved April 3,

2022, from

https://irma.nps.gov/STATS/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Summary%20o
 16

f%20Visitor%20Use%20By%20Month%20and%20Year%20(1979%20-

%20Last%20Calendar%20Year)?Park=GRTE.

Organ, J.F., S.P. Mahoney, and V. Geist. 2010. Born in the hands of hunters: The North

American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The Wildlife Society. Retrieved March

26, 2022, from www.wildlife.org.

Smith, B.L. 2012. Where elk roam: Conservation and biopolitics of our national elk

herd. Guilford, CT: Lyons Press.

Smith, B.L., and S.H. Anderson. 2001. Does dispersal help regulate the Jackson elk

herd? Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(1): 331-341.

U.S. Congress. 1916. The National Park Service Organic Act, 39 STAT 535, 16 U.S.C. 1, 2, 3,

and 4. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and

the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2007. Final bison and elk management plan

and environmental impact statement for the National Elk Refuge/Grand Teton National

Park/John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway, Teton County, Wyoming. Jackson,

WY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan. Missoula, MT. 181 pp.

van Manen, F.T., M.R. Ebinger, D.D. Gustine, M.A. Haroldson, K.R. Wilmot, and C.L.

Whitman. 2019. Primarily resident grizzly bears respond to late-season elk harvest. Ursus

2019(30e1): 1–15.

Vernon, M.E., and S.G. Clark. 2016. Addressing a persistent policy problem: The elk hunt in

Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. Society and Natural Resources 29(7): 836–851.

Vernon, M.E., Z. Bischoff-Mattson, and S.G. Clark. 2016. Discourses of elk hunting and grizzly
 17

bear incidents in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. Human Dimensions of

Wildlife 21(1): 65–85.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. n.d. Forging the future: Strategic plan. Retrieved March

20, 2022, from

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/About%20Us/WGFD_StrategicPlan.pd

f.