At 08:17 AM 4/25/99 -0700, S. Downes wrote:
>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

Very weird way to dispute a statement...

> 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.

Supporting the statement that "elk didn't use to live in forests,
they only do so because of human-caused changes on the landscape
level" with observations noted in the L&C journals, a highly selective
set of data points, is ... lame.

Using their observation as evidence that elk lived in open country
is, of course, another story. Obviously they did then, and they
do now, though in much more limited numbers due to habitat
changes.

Presumably elk lived in both forested and open country, and the
result of human-caused changes to the landscape has been to restrict
their range to the point where the vast majority now live in
more forested areas. Forest management practices may well have
increased available habitat on forested lands, as well.

"The only reason that the common belief that elk must have cover
to survive is because this knowledge was grandfathered into our brains."

Our grandfathers didn't have satellite telemetry technology...

Your statement's a strawman, anyway. The claim that some elk
in some parts of their range are dependent to some degree on
forest for cover during some parts of winter is in no way a
claim that all elk must have cover to survive. I don't know
where you pick that up from anything I've said, nor
do I see any evidence given that this is, indeed, the common
belief (among who?).

Such an extrapolation is just as lame as extrapolating the
fact that L&C saw elk on the plains, but not in the forest
during winter (spent holed up with or near indian winter
camps for the most part) into a claim that elk were strictly
an open-county species in those days. Both extrapolations
seem equally unwarranted.

Certainly the bazillions of tourists who see the elk herd
at Jackson Hole realize they can spend harsh winters in
the open. Do these folks hold common beliefs or not?



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net