We assessed the potential for reestablishing elk (Cervus elaphus) in Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP), USA, by estimating vital rates of experimentally released animals from 2001 to 2006. Annual survival rates for calves ranged from 0.333 to 1.0 and averaged 0.592. Annual survival for subadult and adult elk (i.e., ≥ 1 yr of age) ranged from 0.690 to 0.933, depending on age and sex. We used those and other vital rates to model projected population growth and viability using a stochastic individual‐based model. The annual growth rate (λ) of the modeled population over a 25‐year period averaged 0.996 and declined from 1.059 the first year to 0.990 at year 25. The modeled population failed to attain a positive 25‐year mean growth rate in 46.0% of the projections. Poor calf recruitment was an important determinant of low population growth. Predation by black bears (Ursus americanus) was the dominant calf mortality factor. Most of the variance of growth projections was due to demographic variation resulting from the small population size (n = 61). Management actions such as predator control may help increase calf recruitment, but our projections suggest that the GSMNP elk population may be at risk for some time because of high demographic variation.

Elk (Cervus canadensis) translocation success is thought to be facilitated by high post‐release herd cohesion and limited movements; both should ensure genetic mixing following release. Such mixing is important to reduce potential effects of inbreeding or genetic drift, which can be especially important in small founding populations. We had a natural experiment where we could evaluate genetic mixing of 2 distinct lineages of elk after translocation to the same area. Founding elk ultimately came from north and south of a road barrier at Elk Island National Park (EINPN or EINPS, respectively), Alberta, Canada and the 2 groups were genetically distinct. During 2000 to 2003, elk originating from Elk Island National Park were translocated to Cumberland Mountains, Tennessee (TNCM) and Great Smoky Mountains National Park, North Carolina (GSMNP), USA (some elk spent time at Land Between the Lakes Recreation Area, Kentucky, USA, before their final translocation). At TNCM, translocated elk were hard released, whereas at GSMNP elk were held in pens up to 60 days before release (i.e., soft release). We hypothesized that associations formed in the source population would affect genetic structure in the future population. We predicted that matrilineal groups would stay closer together and have similar movements after translocation. We used 16 microsatellite markers to analyze genetic composition and structure of translocated elk and their offspring in the years after release. Most source elk used for translocation strongly assigned to either EINPN or EINPS (93.2%, n = 204). Evaluating the genetic structure of offspring after translocation, we found the 2 genetic groups mostly persisted ≥11 years following release. We measured the Euclidean distance between all possible pairs of telemetered female elk during each season and year and calculated the maximum distance moved from the release sites for females surviving >1 year. Mean Euclidean distances between pairwise locations of female elk were similar for each genetic cluster for each area. The mean distances for all paired locations (genetic clusters combined) in TNCM were 14.67 km (n = 4,576 ± 13.23 [SD]) and in GSMNP were 9.30 km (n = 1,468 ± 9.75). However, when looking at only simultaneous locations <50 m apart, the frequency of occurrence was higher (P < 0.001) for elk with the same genetic structure (71.1%) compared with those with different structure (28.9%). The maximum distance travelled from the release site was not different for the 2 genetic groups, but EINPN females tended to travel farther. Pairwise female distances were lower in GSMNP where we used a soft release. Release methodology and social structure appear to affect movements and possibly genetic mixing after translocation. Given that restoration success can depend on maintaining genetic diversity and number of founders, our analyses suggest that within‐cluster breeding bias can result in lower genetic variability and a smaller effective population size than previously assumed. © 2018 The Wildlife S...