Don and other tweets,
The only reason that the common belief that elk must have cover to survive
is because this knowledge was grandfathered into our brains. I will have
to dispute the fact that Don makes in that "elk can be adaptive" yes, they
can be adaptive but just because they are using a habitat "widely" that
does not fit our preconcieved notion of "elk habitat" does not mean that
these animals are being adaptive. It should be pointed out that the
state's 2 largest herds are not on "forested" areas: Hanford reserve and
Mt. St. Helens.
Basically elk need forage and water, where they can get these
requirements they will do just fine. Sure Elk use thermal cover, but USE
does not imply NEED.
So Lydia, if the pellets looked Elk in shape and size,
the hoof prints look Elk in shape in size then as the saying goes it was
probably a ...... ELK.
Don't let th preconcieved notions of "Elk must have forest cover" throw
you, I would just be careful that the prints and pellets were correctly
identified as some people have mistaken elk "signs" for deer "signs".

Scott Downes
sdownes at u.washington.edu
Seattle WA

"Birds don't read bird books. (That's why they are seen doing things they
are not supposed to do)." -Mary Wood


On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Don Baccus wrote:

> > The US army's Yakima Firing Range, the Hanford
> >Reservation (including the Waluke Slope and Arid Lands Ecology Reserve)
> >and some of the abutting lands actually contain a rapidly growing herd of
> >elk. In fact, if it were not for a little hunting pressure around the
> >edges of these areas they would have probably eaten themselves out of
> >house and home by now, given the lack serious sized predators in this
> >area.
>
> Elk are very adaptive, no doubt. To point out that they thrive in
> open lands is not proof that they've not historically thrived in
> many forested areas as well. They're adapted to live in both, and
> early data showing them on open lands does not disprove that they
> lived in forested lands as well.