Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees(livescience.com)
livescience.com
Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
https://www.livescience.com/animals/land-mammals/return-of-wolves-to-yellowstone-has-led-to-a-surge-in-aspen-trees-unseen-for-80-years
Paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037811272...
237 comments
It's amazing the impact that the reintroduction has had. On a recent winter trip there I also learned that the reintroduction literally moved rivers [1]:
- Elk quit loitering along streams, so willow and cottonwood shot up, anchoring soil and narrowing channels.
- The new woody growth gave beavers lumber; their colonies jumped from one in 1996 to a dozen within fifteen years, raising water tables and rebuilding wetlands.
- With healthier riparian zones came deeper pools, colder water, and a surge in native trout and song-bird nests.
[1] https://phys.org/news/2025-02-predators-ecosystems-yellowsto...
- Elk quit loitering along streams, so willow and cottonwood shot up, anchoring soil and narrowing channels.
- The new woody growth gave beavers lumber; their colonies jumped from one in 1996 to a dozen within fifteen years, raising water tables and rebuilding wetlands.
- With healthier riparian zones came deeper pools, colder water, and a surge in native trout and song-bird nests.
[1] https://phys.org/news/2025-02-predators-ecosystems-yellowsto...
I’ve always found the idea of “restoring” ecosystems a bit philosophically tricky. When we say that reintroducing wolves led to ecological improvements, what’s our reference point? Are we comparing it to Yellowstone 100 years ago? 500? Pre-human settlement?
Ecological baselines are inherently arbitrary—there’s no objectively “correct” state of nature to return to. The systems we call degraded are often just different, not necessarily worse. So when we talk about progress in this context, we’re really measuring against a value-laden idea of what we think nature should look like, not some neutral truth.
That doesn’t mean rewilding is bad—but I do think we should acknowledge that we’re shaping nature to fit human values, not restoring it to some pure, original state.
Ecological baselines are inherently arbitrary—there’s no objectively “correct” state of nature to return to. The systems we call degraded are often just different, not necessarily worse. So when we talk about progress in this context, we’re really measuring against a value-laden idea of what we think nature should look like, not some neutral truth.
That doesn’t mean rewilding is bad—but I do think we should acknowledge that we’re shaping nature to fit human values, not restoring it to some pure, original state.
Instead of thinking of this as a benefit of wolves (specifically), you can view it as an advantage of having something in their ecological niche. In this case, the niche is 'apex predator.' It's a niche which is repeated across pretty much every ecosystem. They keep populations of their prey species down, preventing overpopulation and the many indirect problems that come with it.
Perhaps without an apex predator the prey species would evolve out of the overpopulation problem eventually. However, species that evolve with a predator tend to reproduce more quickly, which helps avoid being completely wiped out by the predator - when the population constraint impose by the predator is removed, the prey population explodes, leading to particularly pronounced problems.
(Perhaps if we had to contend with some homo-vampirus, we wouldn't have global climate change...)
Overall, humans already interfered in the shape of the ecosystem by removing wolves. You're correct that there's no objective 'correct' state for an ecosystem. But it is worthwhile to help balance ecosystems, especially when they have been unbalanced by our own interventions. Without restoration work, we're headed to a world with humans, livestock, and the few species that manage to live on our margins.
Perhaps without an apex predator the prey species would evolve out of the overpopulation problem eventually. However, species that evolve with a predator tend to reproduce more quickly, which helps avoid being completely wiped out by the predator - when the population constraint impose by the predator is removed, the prey population explodes, leading to particularly pronounced problems.
(Perhaps if we had to contend with some homo-vampirus, we wouldn't have global climate change...)
Overall, humans already interfered in the shape of the ecosystem by removing wolves. You're correct that there's no objective 'correct' state for an ecosystem. But it is worthwhile to help balance ecosystems, especially when they have been unbalanced by our own interventions. Without restoration work, we're headed to a world with humans, livestock, and the few species that manage to live on our margins.
> species that evolve with a predator tend to reproduce more quickly
As an example of this, a healthy female rabbit will produce anywhere from 20 to 50 additional rabbits in a single year. There have been many documented explosions of rabbit populations due to lack of natural predators which have caused significant ecological crisis.
They've evolved to reproduce so quickly because they are the "food" in the food chain. Without the predators above them, they will _eventually_ stop reproducing so quickly because they are only killing themselves by doing so.
As an example of this, a healthy female rabbit will produce anywhere from 20 to 50 additional rabbits in a single year. There have been many documented explosions of rabbit populations due to lack of natural predators which have caused significant ecological crisis.
They've evolved to reproduce so quickly because they are the "food" in the food chain. Without the predators above them, they will _eventually_ stop reproducing so quickly because they are only killing themselves by doing so.
It's worth puzzling about the mechanisms that would lead a fast reproducing species to slow down...
My best guess is that internal competition for scarce resources leads to territoriality, which in turn might select for better resource utilization. Including reduced reproduction, which creates more resource competition. But this doesn't feel super obvious.
Otherwise, we have plague and starvation acting as stand ins for apex predators, which isn't much fun... And apparently isn't generally enough to reduce environmental externalities from over population.
My best guess is that internal competition for scarce resources leads to territoriality, which in turn might select for better resource utilization. Including reduced reproduction, which creates more resource competition. But this doesn't feel super obvious.
Otherwise, we have plague and starvation acting as stand ins for apex predators, which isn't much fun... And apparently isn't generally enough to reduce environmental externalities from over population.
The term of art for everything that includes those factors is "carrying capacity" [0].
It's not as much that the fertility necessarily drops, but that under some conditions the death rate equals or overtakes the birth rate.
And the system is dynamic. So conditions changes, as in some of your examples, even just because the population grows. EG scarcer resources.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
It's not as much that the fertility necessarily drops, but that under some conditions the death rate equals or overtakes the birth rate.
And the system is dynamic. So conditions changes, as in some of your examples, even just because the population grows. EG scarcer resources.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
That is not necessarily the case. Certainly, overpopulation can cause die-offs…
However, species don’t evolve as a unit. Which genomes are most likely to survive a die-off?
All else being equal?
The ones with the most copies. So not the ones that are holding back on reproductions.
However, species don’t evolve as a unit. Which genomes are most likely to survive a die-off?
All else being equal?
The ones with the most copies. So not the ones that are holding back on reproductions.
[deleted]
What causes them to stop reproducing is the destruction of their natural environment on which they feed on. Which is what you want to avoid.
> we're headed to a world with humans, livestock, and the few species...
It looks more and more like we're headed toward a world where we'll regenerate extinct species in labs; and grow our steaks in meat factories. If we no longer need cattle farms, it's possible we'll vote to preserve more lands.
It looks more and more like we're headed toward a world where we'll regenerate extinct species in labs; and grow our steaks in meat factories. If we no longer need cattle farms, it's possible we'll vote to preserve more lands.
I’m usually the last person to take this side of a discussion but I don’t see how feasible since:
- the existence species regeneration does not imply the incentivize to regenerate and manage the vast majority of extinct species
- lack of gene samples for vast majority of species
- we don’t and are not very close to having a viable model for environment and species fitness so we can’t accurately model what specifies to regenerate
- new species populations have to be managed before and after initial release
- land and labor capital investmentAll completely correct.
It has been extremely difficult to reintroduce functionally extinct species (ie, regenrate populations in zoos, and then reintroduce them to their original habitat). The animal culture piece is really big.
But probably the biggest issue is that, in almost all cases, the problems that led to extinction in the first place - lack of habitat, poaching, etc - rarely get better with time.
It has been extremely difficult to reintroduce functionally extinct species (ie, regenrate populations in zoos, and then reintroduce them to their original habitat). The animal culture piece is really big.
But probably the biggest issue is that, in almost all cases, the problems that led to extinction in the first place - lack of habitat, poaching, etc - rarely get better with time.
Is there any evidence this has any traction, is actually feasible (the reintroduction part), and is not merely a publicity stunt for some biotech startups?
I think a more realistic point of view is that once a species is gone, it's truly gone, and that we should worry about keeping alive those still existing, because there's no "undo" button.
I think a more realistic point of view is that once a species is gone, it's truly gone, and that we should worry about keeping alive those still existing, because there's no "undo" button.
i've always wondered how these plans to bring back extinct species intend to copy the non-genetic factors that made a species what it was.
early life experience learning from parents/siblings are essential for knowing how to properly behave in their environment.
early life experience learning from parents/siblings are essential for knowing how to properly behave in their environment.
That, and also how they expect to keep any species they manage to "bring back" alive (use of quotes because even that is questionable; the recent stunt with the "direwolves" didn't really create direwolves).
Which ecosystem are these species going to inhabit? How can we keep them alive when other currently existing species are at risk or going extinct?
Which ecosystem are these species going to inhabit? How can we keep them alive when other currently existing species are at risk or going extinct?
I hope so. In the meantime, we should try to preserve as much natural genetic information as possible, even assuming we can vet the species back.
> homo-vampirus
https://www.rifters.com/blindsight/vampires.htm
The book is great “what if?” in several directions at once including human vampires.
https://www.rifters.com/blindsight/vampires.htm
The book is great “what if?” in several directions at once including human vampires.
That’s a strong point. Thanks for the thought
Biodiversity, biomass, and ecosystem robustness are all objective measures.
Human settlement has a tendency to reduce all of them. The story here isn't that reintroducing wolves established some kind of human-centric value system, it's the surprisingly complex and far-reaching effects of just one change in the ecosystem, particularly the re-introduction of a top predator.
Note also that absent extinction altogether, without humans actively killing wolves, their numbers most likely would have recovered eventually, probably with similar effects. In essence, we just accelerated a type of healing process that would naturally take place when our enormous ecological footprint is removed.
Human settlement has a tendency to reduce all of them. The story here isn't that reintroducing wolves established some kind of human-centric value system, it's the surprisingly complex and far-reaching effects of just one change in the ecosystem, particularly the re-introduction of a top predator.
Note also that absent extinction altogether, without humans actively killing wolves, their numbers most likely would have recovered eventually, probably with similar effects. In essence, we just accelerated a type of healing process that would naturally take place when our enormous ecological footprint is removed.
This is a great question. We've restored over 20 acres of native ecosystems at our farm in the PNW, and one thing that's clear is that some conservationists are attempting to essentially create a painting of a particular moment in time. Others are more pragmatic and flexible — not seeing all non-native elements as "bad".
I think where I come down is trying to remove elements that threaten to take over and destroy the balance. Or restore elements that will help re-establish balance. And it doesn't have to all be "native".
And there are some natives like poison oak that I'll get rid of because they're obnoxious and will ruin people's experience of nature. And people's experience with nature matters because that's a big part of how you win people over and get them to support nature restoration work.
I think where I come down is trying to remove elements that threaten to take over and destroy the balance. Or restore elements that will help re-establish balance. And it doesn't have to all be "native".
And there are some natives like poison oak that I'll get rid of because they're obnoxious and will ruin people's experience of nature. And people's experience with nature matters because that's a big part of how you win people over and get them to support nature restoration work.
What is "balance"?
Equilibrium, steady state, stable, self healing/correcting, sustainable, resilient to disturbance...
dynamic state where the interactions between living organisms and their environment are in harmony, allowing for the continuation of essential ecological functions.
dynamic state where the interactions between living organisms and their environment are in harmony, allowing for the continuation of essential ecological functions.
I often hear this argument, "oh, but how far can we possibly go??! But deer are pretty?!", especially from farmers and grouse shooting estates here in the UK.
It's wild, because it's so easy to measure and asses: an ecological desert, dying ecosystem, rich in single overgrazing specie is unequivocally bad.
Rich, lush ecosystems sustaining great biodiversity and ecologically unique features (eg chalk streams or temperate rainforests in the UK) are good. Killing everything for the sake of one specie: Bad.
More on that if your position is honest: https://www.monbiot.com/2025/05/12/the-commoner-kings/
It's wild, because it's so easy to measure and asses: an ecological desert, dying ecosystem, rich in single overgrazing specie is unequivocally bad.
Rich, lush ecosystems sustaining great biodiversity and ecologically unique features (eg chalk streams or temperate rainforests in the UK) are good. Killing everything for the sake of one specie: Bad.
More on that if your position is honest: https://www.monbiot.com/2025/05/12/the-commoner-kings/
> But deer are pretty?!
Deer are simply tall, disease-carrying vermin--basically rats with long legs.
They eat everything. They multiply like bloody rabbits. They host a ton of diseases--especially when overpopulated (effectively everywhere that doesn't have lots of wolves or big cats).
I really don't understand why we don't hunt them aggressively when there is no apex carnivore to keep them under control.
Deer are simply tall, disease-carrying vermin--basically rats with long legs.
They eat everything. They multiply like bloody rabbits. They host a ton of diseases--especially when overpopulated (effectively everywhere that doesn't have lots of wolves or big cats).
I really don't understand why we don't hunt them aggressively when there is no apex carnivore to keep them under control.
Adult humans are often infected with various forms of the Bambi-Rudolph disease complex. Usually acquired in childhood, and very difficult to cure.
Invasive species in Australia, but it was introduced to hunt.
And hunters aren't sadly dumb enough to wipe the species out. They whittle down their numbers, and then leave them alone to repopulate.
Leading to my shock when I wrote off my car by hitting a deer, instead of a kangaroo as god intended.
And hunters aren't sadly dumb enough to wipe the species out. They whittle down their numbers, and then leave them alone to repopulate.
Leading to my shock when I wrote off my car by hitting a deer, instead of a kangaroo as god intended.
Hmm. I live among deer. They're fairly pleasant creatures and interact with other species such as magpies and house cats. We do have pumas and a few human hunters, and high speed motor vehicles, possibly the odd wolf here and there although I've never see one. Over 25 years I haven't noticed an increase in their population.
Oh yeah, but I'm talking about the UK. All the big predators, cats, wolves, have been eradicated. Hell, even bears and boars.
It's this bad.
It's this bad.
Indeed. For the UK in particular you clearly can't have "What it was without people" because that's far too long ago, there aren't records so we'd only be guessing. The New Forest - near me - was built about a thousand years ago, it's not "supposed" to be like that, it was built on purpose and it takes considerable maintenance to keep it that way, felling trees, managing trails, maintaining bridges and so on. Things like "The pigs eat acorns, that way the ponies don't eat the acorns and die†" could not possibly work without humans managing the forest. Left to their own devices the pigs would destroy that forest in a few years, and then the ponies die too, humans allow pigs out for a set period, to eat lots of acorns, then bring them all back by law.
We could try to build what was there before the forest, but it would be extremely disruptive to all the people who live there, and what for? The Forest isn't very useful today, but it's pretty and we know it's stable, and it has some uses, we grow some trees there, we farm some pigs and ponies, tourists come to see it - there are many worse options.
† Acorns are poisonous. Don't eat acorns without proper preparation. Unless you're a pig or a squirrel or something. In which case how are you reading this note?
We could try to build what was there before the forest, but it would be extremely disruptive to all the people who live there, and what for? The Forest isn't very useful today, but it's pretty and we know it's stable, and it has some uses, we grow some trees there, we farm some pigs and ponies, tourists come to see it - there are many worse options.
† Acorns are poisonous. Don't eat acorns without proper preparation. Unless you're a pig or a squirrel or something. In which case how are you reading this note?
Something I learned recently, acrons (properly prepared, they are indeed poisonous otherwise) used to be a human staple food in the Americas. It was displaced because it is annoying to prepare and the taste is relatively bland.
When I was a kid my family spent a day on a Native American Culture experience at Yosemite National Park. It was really cool! Flint knapping, and brain-tanning, and basket-making, and beadwork, and dancing, all led local tribe-members. Pitched at tourists, of course, but real content, and genuinely interesting.
Anyway, one of the deals was pounding and preparing acorns with a group of the older ladies. We went through the whole process, including cooking the mush with hot stones in a basket. It was... terrible. Bland, with astringent, tannic overtones. I remember my mother (not the most culturally-sensitive of people) asking incredulously if they really eat this. The woman who'd done it with us laughed, and said "No!", but that her grandmother always had, and for the kids (her), she'd always added lots of butter and brown sugar!
Sidenote: that woman was probably seventy, in ~1985, so her grandmother must have seen some shit. I wish I'd been old enough, and educated enough, to have appreciated that at the time.
Anyway, one of the deals was pounding and preparing acorns with a group of the older ladies. We went through the whole process, including cooking the mush with hot stones in a basket. It was... terrible. Bland, with astringent, tannic overtones. I remember my mother (not the most culturally-sensitive of people) asking incredulously if they really eat this. The woman who'd done it with us laughed, and said "No!", but that her grandmother always had, and for the kids (her), she'd always added lots of butter and brown sugar!
Sidenote: that woman was probably seventy, in ~1985, so her grandmother must have seen some shit. I wish I'd been old enough, and educated enough, to have appreciated that at the time.
I think one approach would be; restoring it to a known stable equilibrium. Meaning, if without wolves things continue to deteriorate and clearly hasn't reached a stable equilibrium but you know that with them things were stable over some long term period then you should reintroduce them
That does have the slight disadvantage that a glassed parking lot, utterly uniform and totally devoid of all life, is quite stable.
I agree that it'd be lovely to have a definition that is devoid of subjective (human) judgement, but I don't think "stable" is a useful direction to go for such a definition. It's way too easy to reach stability by ending up at some hellhole ecosystem that is lifeless or exceedingly uniform with nothing interesting. Which, yes, is entirely subjective. That's my point.
Alternative ways to go that seem more suitable to end up at a worthwhile definition that most ought to be happy with:
* Diversity. An ecosystem with more lifeforms is better than less, and complex lifeforms count extra. How much extra is for somebody to write down in detail at some point.
* Utility to humans. An ecological system that constantly causes issues to humans, for example by flooding out a town, spawning plagues that ruin crops, and so on is 'bad'. An ecosystem that humans like spending time in is 'good'.
We are humans and ought to be able to come together and find definitions close enough to what we want without falling into smashing each other's heads in because our definitions of 'nice to walk through' differ slightly. Part of what annoys me about 'modern' political thought is that it presupposes: Everybody hates everybody and we're all infantile morons who are utterly incapable of finding any common ground (and thus only solutions that work despite that state of affairs are worthwhile to think about). This isn't hard to determine. We don't need to eliminate human subjectivity from it.
I agree that it'd be lovely to have a definition that is devoid of subjective (human) judgement, but I don't think "stable" is a useful direction to go for such a definition. It's way too easy to reach stability by ending up at some hellhole ecosystem that is lifeless or exceedingly uniform with nothing interesting. Which, yes, is entirely subjective. That's my point.
Alternative ways to go that seem more suitable to end up at a worthwhile definition that most ought to be happy with:
* Diversity. An ecosystem with more lifeforms is better than less, and complex lifeforms count extra. How much extra is for somebody to write down in detail at some point.
* Utility to humans. An ecological system that constantly causes issues to humans, for example by flooding out a town, spawning plagues that ruin crops, and so on is 'bad'. An ecosystem that humans like spending time in is 'good'.
We are humans and ought to be able to come together and find definitions close enough to what we want without falling into smashing each other's heads in because our definitions of 'nice to walk through' differ slightly. Part of what annoys me about 'modern' political thought is that it presupposes: Everybody hates everybody and we're all infantile morons who are utterly incapable of finding any common ground (and thus only solutions that work despite that state of affairs are worthwhile to think about). This isn't hard to determine. We don't need to eliminate human subjectivity from it.
It's never been stable, that's the arbitrariness op is talking about.
There is absolutely stability if you zoom out to the time scale that permits evolutionary adaptation (and of course, if you zoom out much farther it all devolves to noise again). But it’s specious to say that “the only constant is change” and then declare all comparisons moot.
> When we say that reintroducing wolves led to ecological improvements, what’s our reference point?
Ecological diversity and utility to humans.
The GYE is more diverse thanks to having wolves check grazing populations. And the physical structure of the riparian environment is more stable, which means better (and cheaper) infrastructure and water management.
Ecological diversity and utility to humans.
The GYE is more diverse thanks to having wolves check grazing populations. And the physical structure of the riparian environment is more stable, which means better (and cheaper) infrastructure and water management.
I think this is a misunderstanding of what the goals are, it's not just to go back to some arbitrary time in the past. Often reintroduction of keystone species like wolves lead to increased biodiversity and resilience of the ecosystem, which is useful especially since we are currently going through a mass extinction.
I saw a PBS nature episode on keystone species (maybe you did too?), and how they keep ecosystems in balance. Was one of the most interesting documentaries I ever saw. Am glad to see that in wolf species actually did help rebalance the ecosystem, really amazing to see the theory in practice!
Another example: mosquitos. We can and should drive them to extinction. The species that feed on humans are nowhere food-web-critical. It's an arbitrary and wrong judgement that we should preserve mosquitos just because they happened to evolve with us. So what if eradicating them would be unnatural? So what if it would technically be a reduction in biodiversity? Not everything natural is good or optimal.
Mosquito introduction is an historical event (1820) in Hawaii (New Zealand, the Caribbean, etc). This devastated local bird populations driving many to extinction and halving the avian population in approximately a year due to virus propagation. The death of the birds led to less seed dispersal, loss of forest, and increased susceptibility to invasive plants.
Some are ancient, but have adapted to thrive in some human environments, but have spread well past their original areas by colonialism, slave trade, shipping, and war. The idea that modern mosquitoes are some "natural" ecosystem element is pretty funny. Perhaps they have destroyed the habitat that once existed and driven out competing species which once fit into the niche, but they are in most places relatively modern in ways other biting flies are not. The growing effects of malaria are not only on humans, but other animals including both chimps and reptiles as well.
Anopheles/Aedes/Culex mosquitos are the grey goo of insects, driving other flies, midges, and even mosquitos (which local fish and larval predators have evolved with) to exinction. Treat them like the infection they are.
Some are ancient, but have adapted to thrive in some human environments, but have spread well past their original areas by colonialism, slave trade, shipping, and war. The idea that modern mosquitoes are some "natural" ecosystem element is pretty funny. Perhaps they have destroyed the habitat that once existed and driven out competing species which once fit into the niche, but they are in most places relatively modern in ways other biting flies are not. The growing effects of malaria are not only on humans, but other animals including both chimps and reptiles as well.
Anopheles/Aedes/Culex mosquitos are the grey goo of insects, driving other flies, midges, and even mosquitos (which local fish and larval predators have evolved with) to exinction. Treat them like the infection they are.
I remember when it was announced that smallpox was eradicated (Yeah, I'm old enough to have a smallpox vaccination scar).
I remember someone moaning about how we had driven a species to extinction.
We're a funny lot, really. I've learned not to take us too seriously; especially the folks that take themselves very seriously.
I remember someone moaning about how we had driven a species to extinction.
We're a funny lot, really. I've learned not to take us too seriously; especially the folks that take themselves very seriously.
It is questionable whether smallpox is alive and so whether it can go extinct. If in some sense it can go extinct it seems both the Americans and Russians are determined to keep it alive "just in case".
Nobody was much concerned when we eradicated another infectious virus. Unlike Smallpox there was no "military rationale" for keeping copies on ice, so Rinderpest is gone. It appears that its close human relation, Measles, will be around for a long time though because "I don't believe in facts" trumps "My child has died of a preventable disease". So that's certainly evidence for you're "We're a funny lot" theory.
Nobody was much concerned when we eradicated another infectious virus. Unlike Smallpox there was no "military rationale" for keeping copies on ice, so Rinderpest is gone. It appears that its close human relation, Measles, will be around for a long time though because "I don't believe in facts" trumps "My child has died of a preventable disease". So that's certainly evidence for you're "We're a funny lot" theory.
A fairly common horror movie trope, is some Eocene zombiemaker virus, being thawed out of the permafrost.
I've heard talk about getting rid of a few species of mosquitoes; eliminating all would be an ecological catastrophe. They are pollinators and an essential food source for many species, like birds, bats, and frogs.
The interesting version of this is to exterminate the malaria carrying mosquito species. Only 40 of 3500 species can carry malaria. If we wipe them out, non malaria carrying species will likely take their place in the ecosystems.
250 million people have malaria, and 600k, mostly children die from it yearly.
And yet, I see a lot more people defending the mosquitos than the humans.
250 million people have malaria, and 600k, mostly children die from it yearly.
And yet, I see a lot more people defending the mosquitos than the humans.
You seem very well-informed on the matter.
If only we had a whole group of experts who study this as their life work to make these choices instead of thinking our random speculations are the best we can do.
I wouldn't say pre-human settlement, since Natives were in these areas for many years, but they didn't have the desire to mass hunt wolves (and culturally, would not do so). So pre-US colonialism, perhaps.
Philosophically though you're correct- humans very easily see themselves as "apart" from the environment, when really we're just another mammal doing our thing. We are nature as much as we are in it, even for all of our tools and manufacturing.
Philosophically though you're correct- humans very easily see themselves as "apart" from the environment, when really we're just another mammal doing our thing. We are nature as much as we are in it, even for all of our tools and manufacturing.
One way to measure this that isn't moral judgements is the ecological depth of an environment. If one part of the system is destroyed (e.g. a blight on plant A) how devastating to the rest of the system will that be?
One of the hallmarks of human engineered environments is how shallow and fragile they are. Changes, like the reintroduction of wolves, are "good" because they give us deeper and more resilient environments
One of the hallmarks of human engineered environments is how shallow and fragile they are. Changes, like the reintroduction of wolves, are "good" because they give us deeper and more resilient environments
"I’ve always found the idea of “restoring” ecosystems a bit philosophically tricky."
Me too, however I think that making an ecosystem functional, rather than dysfunctional is the goal, rather than actual restoration to a nominal "correct".
The thing is that diversity, fecundity and like measures are really important when it comes to ecology, not historical accuracy - that's for aircraft museums.
Me too, however I think that making an ecosystem functional, rather than dysfunctional is the goal, rather than actual restoration to a nominal "correct".
The thing is that diversity, fecundity and like measures are really important when it comes to ecology, not historical accuracy - that's for aircraft museums.
Ecosystems are dynamic by nature, so "make them like where 222.22 years ago" is a little meaningless.
But biodiversity is a good target and as unbiased as you can get. More biodiversity means more adaptability and resilience of the system.
But biodiversity is a good target and as unbiased as you can get. More biodiversity means more adaptability and resilience of the system.
I’ve also had this feeling when conservation of particular species comes up. Species come and go. Why conserve this particular species?
So, inevitably, the answer must be that people want to conserve them either because of sentimental reasons or because a given ecosystem suits human flourishing, or because it maximizes some metric like species diversity.
> we’re really measuring against a value-laden idea of what we think nature should look like, not some neutral truth.
I will remark, that “value-laden” is not opposed to “neutral truth”. All knowledge is value-laden. Value itself is part of reality. The fact-value dichotomy is a fiction.
So, inevitably, the answer must be that people want to conserve them either because of sentimental reasons or because a given ecosystem suits human flourishing, or because it maximizes some metric like species diversity.
> we’re really measuring against a value-laden idea of what we think nature should look like, not some neutral truth.
I will remark, that “value-laden” is not opposed to “neutral truth”. All knowledge is value-laden. Value itself is part of reality. The fact-value dichotomy is a fiction.
> I’ve always found the idea of “restoring” ecosystems a bit philosophically tricky.
I think you're confusing "arbitrarily meddling in wilderness" and "restoring ecosystems". The latter would be something like demolishing a Walmart and its parking lot and putting soil and trees in its place.
Basically giving back human development spaces back to nature and letting nature take care of itself. This involves things like cleaning up waterways.
I think you're confusing "arbitrarily meddling in wilderness" and "restoring ecosystems". The latter would be something like demolishing a Walmart and its parking lot and putting soil and trees in its place.
Basically giving back human development spaces back to nature and letting nature take care of itself. This involves things like cleaning up waterways.
Agree but more species is definitely better than less species. We are not aiming to get dinosaurs back, but pre industrial era levels of wildlife is not a bad thing.
When I wanted to get into aquariums, I stumbled upon some old man calling himself "father fish"
Basically his take on the whole hobby is that we should stop measuring, changing water and generally stressing about keeping the system as is.
Instead you create a good substrate, add lots of plants and just watch how life will evolve. Fish and plants might die, but that's ok because it's part of the natural process.
Basically his take on the whole hobby is that we should stop measuring, changing water and generally stressing about keeping the system as is.
Instead you create a good substrate, add lots of plants and just watch how life will evolve. Fish and plants might die, but that's ok because it's part of the natural process.
Using restoring less of IT term (like restoring from a backup) and more of a way of improving compared to current state is the key here.
>I’ve always found the idea of “restoring” ecosystems a bit philosophically tricky.
It's not even "tricky". It's purely a subjective political football if you live anywhere that was formerly glaciated because humans were there from day 1 and so it's basically a subjective question of which time period you want to restore.
It's not even "tricky". It's purely a subjective political football if you live anywhere that was formerly glaciated because humans were there from day 1 and so it's basically a subjective question of which time period you want to restore.
[deleted]
One point I rarely see made:
When you "destroy" an ecosystem, a new one will take its place. The remaining animals and plants will converge on a new balanced state.
The ecosystems we admire today are often that new balance after humans destroyed the natural one.
When you "destroy" an ecosystem, a new one will take its place. The remaining animals and plants will converge on a new balanced state.
The ecosystems we admire today are often that new balance after humans destroyed the natural one.
This is pretty naive take. We have turned eras of lush forests into essentially deserts and killed water sheds. These things don’t default back to a thriving ecosystem. Lots of the time they are just dead. Pre tree planting, after clear cutting, there’s a lot of “forests” in bc that are just one canopy hemlock swaths. They need to be thinned and diversified because the are essentially “dead” forests. A lot of work needs to be put into these areas, as the water sheds are falling apart and dying as a result.
That’s because it’s a bad point. An ecosystem can collapse for multiple reasons, e.g. collapse due pollution will not create a thriving ecosystem.
In almost all cases, when a collapsed ecosystem reaches homeostasis again, the result is a more fragile and less diverse balance than what was there previously.
In almost all cases, when a collapsed ecosystem reaches homeostasis again, the result is a more fragile and less diverse balance than what was there previously.
It's a question of timescales and degrees and magnitudes, not of binary "did or didn't destroy". If we hadn't stopped redwood logging in the 20th century, yeah, the ecosystem would be replaced... But probably by something smaller and faster growing. Victory! Redwoods got replaced by smaller trees, mission success.
Monocultures are a scary thing (I'm sure you've heard about how we had to completely switch banana varietals), and having resilient ecosystems is important. I think ATM the consensus is having an apex predator does actually help the stability of these sorts of ecosystems and leads to outcomes most would consider favorable (greater diversity, better density, closer to an equilibrium). Now, we could surely fix this problem by doing it ourselves (eg by subsidizing deer and rabbit hunting and venison), but wolves are probably cheaper.
Monocultures are a scary thing (I'm sure you've heard about how we had to completely switch banana varietals), and having resilient ecosystems is important. I think ATM the consensus is having an apex predator does actually help the stability of these sorts of ecosystems and leads to outcomes most would consider favorable (greater diversity, better density, closer to an equilibrium). Now, we could surely fix this problem by doing it ourselves (eg by subsidizing deer and rabbit hunting and venison), but wolves are probably cheaper.
> The remaining animals and plants will converge on a new balanced state.
There's no guarantee that this be a stable equilibrium.
If it doesn't stabilize, we get mass extinctions. We have had five large ones and are rapidly moving towards the sixth ones by all accounts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
There's no guarantee that this be a stable equilibrium.
If it doesn't stabilize, we get mass extinctions. We have had five large ones and are rapidly moving towards the sixth ones by all accounts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
> are rapidly moving towards the sixth ones by all accounts
The scientific consensus isn't that we're "moving towards" a mass extinction. It's that we're deep into one, and accelerating.
"Current extinction rates are estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background extinction rates [13][14][15][16][17] and are accelerating."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
The scientific consensus isn't that we're "moving towards" a mass extinction. It's that we're deep into one, and accelerating.
"Current extinction rates are estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background extinction rates [13][14][15][16][17] and are accelerating."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
Often ecosystem quality is measured by diversity, eg number of species. Diverse ecosystems are considered more resilient.
It doesn't have to be exact, but pre-anthropocene is typically a good reference point, considering we are an extinction event.
> we’re shaping nature to fit human values
Biodiversity is a good measure of ecosystem health, no? Is it really a human value?
Biodiversity is a good measure of ecosystem health, no? Is it really a human value?
If "restoring" is tricky, does that mean going in the non-restoring direction is less so?
I've got to agree. I like Aspen trees, but I like Elk better.
It sure sounds like we're just choosing the species we like. It's like a big walled garden.
It sure sounds like we're just choosing the species we like. It's like a big walled garden.
The Aspen trees provide ecosystem benefits to animals other than Elk-- birds, etc. Shorter grasses allow smaller animals to live and hide.
It's not choosing species we like as much as that there was previously an equilibrium all ecosystems trend towards, and our influence (killing the wolves) lead to significant ecosystem imbalances that hurt more than just wolves.
It's not choosing species we like as much as that there was previously an equilibrium all ecosystems trend towards, and our influence (killing the wolves) lead to significant ecosystem imbalances that hurt more than just wolves.
>I’ve always found the idea of “restoring” ecosystems a bit philosophically tricky.
..we’re shaping nature to fit human values,
You’re right to question it, because the philosophy itself is based on the emotionally satisfying but ultimately unscientific “Gaia” theory of “balance” and “self-sustaining” / “self-correcting” systems.
..we’re shaping nature to fit human values,
You’re right to question it, because the philosophy itself is based on the emotionally satisfying but ultimately unscientific “Gaia” theory of “balance” and “self-sustaining” / “self-correcting” systems.
> because the philosophy itself is based on the emotionally satisfying but ultimately unscientific “Gaia” theory of “balance” and “self-sustaining” / “self-correcting” systems.
I’m certain some have used those ideas, but that is not what the philosophy itself is based on.
I’m certain some have used those ideas, but that is not what the philosophy itself is based on.
There is a "correct" state of nature: one without modern humans.
Why do you hate yourself?
It's not hate, it's love.
"But man is a part of nature, and his war against nature is inevitably a war against himself. We are challenged as mankind has never been challenged before to prove our maturity and our mastery, not of nature, but of ourselves." ―Rachel Carson
"But man is a part of nature, and his war against nature is inevitably a war against himself. We are challenged as mankind has never been challenged before to prove our maturity and our mastery, not of nature, but of ourselves." ―Rachel Carson
[flagged]
As far as I know, the science on this is far from settled. There is no consensus and the evidence in favor of a trophic cascade in Yellowstone came predominantly from two studies done by the same team/person. Later studies failed to replicate findings.
Do wolves fix ecosystems? CSU study debunks claims about Yellowstone reintroduction
https://eu.coloradoan.com/story/news/2024/02/09/colorado-sta...
A good story: Media bias in trophic cascade research in Yellowstone National Park
https://academic.oup.com/book/26688/chapter-abstract/1954809...
Do wolves fix ecosystems? CSU study debunks claims about Yellowstone reintroduction
https://eu.coloradoan.com/story/news/2024/02/09/colorado-sta...
A good story: Media bias in trophic cascade research in Yellowstone National Park
https://academic.oup.com/book/26688/chapter-abstract/1954809...
That looks like a quite biased interpretation of these studies. Direct quotes:
> The average height of willows in fenced and dammed plots 20 years after the initiation of the experiment exceeded 350 cm, while the height in controls averaged less than 180 cm
> This suggests that well watered plants could tolerate relatively heavy browsing. It also shows that the absence of engineering by beavers suppressed willow growth to a similar extent as did browsing
They posit that the growth in control groups not matching the fenced areas is evidence of wolves reintroduction not having the effects they are said to have. It is a pretty unconvincing argument since there are so many other variables involved. They also prove that IF the wolves have indirectly lead to either the return of beaver dams, or reduced elk browsing, there is undoubtedly an impact in tree growth, which is a positive result regardless.
Their theory that things will never return to their original state, and instead will settle into a new alternate equilibrium is probably correct, but does not seem like the definitive blow to the wolf theory that it’s made out to be.
> The average height of willows in fenced and dammed plots 20 years after the initiation of the experiment exceeded 350 cm, while the height in controls averaged less than 180 cm
> This suggests that well watered plants could tolerate relatively heavy browsing. It also shows that the absence of engineering by beavers suppressed willow growth to a similar extent as did browsing
They posit that the growth in control groups not matching the fenced areas is evidence of wolves reintroduction not having the effects they are said to have. It is a pretty unconvincing argument since there are so many other variables involved. They also prove that IF the wolves have indirectly lead to either the return of beaver dams, or reduced elk browsing, there is undoubtedly an impact in tree growth, which is a positive result regardless.
Their theory that things will never return to their original state, and instead will settle into a new alternate equilibrium is probably correct, but does not seem like the definitive blow to the wolf theory that it’s made out to be.
Both links are paywalled so I can't comment on what they say (positive or negative). That said, I did attend an interesting lecture about systems that looks a bit at the Yellowstone as a cautionary tale about extrapolating how a system works from observational data. Basically it came down to there are secondary and tertiary effects from systems variables that express visibly differently depending on both the magnitude of the system elements influence and the time where it it changes. Thus making "simple" conclusions like 'wolves did this' often insufficient to explain system behavior and sometimes outright incorrect.
However, the introduction of wolves did, incontrovertibly, add a system element that had not been present before. Exactly what that element was, and how it expressed is up for interpretation :-)
However, the introduction of wolves did, incontrovertibly, add a system element that had not been present before. Exactly what that element was, and how it expressed is up for interpretation :-)
Brilliant observation. Dynamic systems like this are rarely a cut-n-done. Like the study of ozone, with it's seven counter intuitive steps, it is all an evolving study.
It also proves the worth of just simple studies over a long period of time. Science used to do a lot of that, and it was very interesting, as many appear on hacker news, but now it seems that cut-n-done grab more popular news.
It also bears the question: what longitudinal studies are popular here besides this one, and retro computing?
It also proves the worth of just simple studies over a long period of time. Science used to do a lot of that, and it was very interesting, as many appear on hacker news, but now it seems that cut-n-done grab more popular news.
It also bears the question: what longitudinal studies are popular here besides this one, and retro computing?
> Both links are paywalled so I can't comment on what they say (positive or negative).
Fixed!
https://eu.coloradoan.com/story/news/2024/02/09/colorado-sta... | https://archive.is/k0NqZ
https://academic.oup.com/book/26688/chapter-abstract/1954809... | https://annas-archive[.]org/md5/3d5be21998575e23a28fdaa53ff5...
(You will have to replace "[.]" with "." in the above link in case that wasn't obvious.)
Fixed!
https://eu.coloradoan.com/story/news/2024/02/09/colorado-sta... | https://archive.is/k0NqZ
https://academic.oup.com/book/26688/chapter-abstract/1954809... | https://annas-archive[.]org/md5/3d5be21998575e23a28fdaa53ff5...
(You will have to replace "[.]" with "." in the above link in case that wasn't obvious.)
Awesome thanks. Added to my libraary. Interesting that the Coloradan study was asking a slightly different question regarding wolves in Colorado vs the magnitude of the wolf impact in Yellowstone. I felt the experimental setup was also good but might quibble that Elk have more impact than just eating, they can squash saplings just by walking on them. The point that Colorado maintains its Elk population by hunting was relevant as well, any impact of wolf predation would be less than it would be on a previously un-predated population. All in all though, I quite agree that the stories of Yellowstone’s wolves likely overstate the specific impact of wolves and understate the system dynamics that had other mechanisms also affecting them.
I also recognize that ‘popular’ writing is more about persuasion than facts :-) and it was important to persuade people that wolves weren’t “bad/evil” just predators that had lived there before. Telling that story as a rebalancing is certainly more palatable than saying “Yeah, if we had allowed hunting Elk (and perhaps Bison) in Yellowstone it would have similarly improved.” Generally keeping the human role as apex predator out of the headlines :-). Thanks again, great links.
I also recognize that ‘popular’ writing is more about persuasion than facts :-) and it was important to persuade people that wolves weren’t “bad/evil” just predators that had lived there before. Telling that story as a rebalancing is certainly more palatable than saying “Yeah, if we had allowed hunting Elk (and perhaps Bison) in Yellowstone it would have similarly improved.” Generally keeping the human role as apex predator out of the headlines :-). Thanks again, great links.
> Thanks again, great links.
It was the least I could do to help the discussion, as I’m not really knowledgeable enough about Yellowstone ecology personally to have a nuanced discussion with you or others in this thread, so I have to find other ways to contribute positively to help us all catch where catch can by enabling debate through proper context.
You’re welcome, and thank you for your response on the points for the benefit of me and the thread, as it was beyond my ken.
It was the least I could do to help the discussion, as I’m not really knowledgeable enough about Yellowstone ecology personally to have a nuanced discussion with you or others in this thread, so I have to find other ways to contribute positively to help us all catch where catch can by enabling debate through proper context.
You’re welcome, and thank you for your response on the points for the benefit of me and the thread, as it was beyond my ken.
And this one from the National Park Service web site, funded by NSF:
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/ys-24-1-the-challenge-of-unde...
TL;DR - the observed reduction of the elk herd correlated with wolf introduction, but also with an increase in cougars, grizzly bears, and even bison, all of which either reduce or compete with elk. Human hunting also added pressure, but that has been limited as the herd size reduced. It is complicated.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/ys-24-1-the-challenge-of-unde...
TL;DR - the observed reduction of the elk herd correlated with wolf introduction, but also with an increase in cougars, grizzly bears, and even bison, all of which either reduce or compete with elk. Human hunting also added pressure, but that has been limited as the herd size reduced. It is complicated.
I also read it as "biodiversity is a good thing"
[deleted]
It’s hard to wrap your head around how complex the earth is and how we fucked it up. It’s great to see news like this, it shows we can and should undo the harms we’ve caused.
It sounds like something out of a fable, but it's literally just ecology doing its thing once balance is restored
Not sure where opinion ended up on this, are there dissenting voices still?
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/scientists-debun...
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/scientists-debun...
Because data it is inconclusive. I.e this publication that says that the impact of wolves is beyond their population pressure, reducing traffic accidents by making deer more wary:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2023251118
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2023251118
"It is a classic example of how saying something many times with enthusiasm can make it true, regardless of what the science says," Hobbs said.
Welcome to the age of social media.
Welcome to the age of social media.
There’s a raging battle to decimate wolf populations in Montana. I’d encourage any and all to speak up.
https://fwp.mt.gov/aboutfwp/public-comment-opportunities Click on the dropdown for “Fall 2025–Winter 2026 Furbearer and Wolf Trapping and Hunting Seasons and Quotas.”
> Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MTFWP) is proposing new, despicable wolf hunting regulations that could allow up to 500 wolves to be killed. This would increase the number of wolves that can be killed next season by 50 percent, nearly half the state’s entire wolf population. MTFWP is also pushing expanded hunting and trapping rules, including allowing hunters to kill up to 30 wolves per person.
> This proposal comes despite livestock losses remaining near historic lows, with only 35 confirmed cattle deaths in 2024, and a significant drop in the number of wolves killed due to livestock conflicts. It is also worth noting that revenue from wolf hunting licenses is among the lowest ever recorded – which helps explain why these expanded rules are less about science and more about politics, profit, and desperation.
> The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission will vote on this proposal at its next meeting on August 21. In the meantime, public comments are open through August 4, and wolves need your voice. In your comment, consider including the following:
- There is no scientific or ethical reason to kill this many wolves.
- Wolves pose no significant threat to humans.
- Wolves help maintain healthy prey populations by targeting the weak or sick, which may help control the spread of chronic wasting disease in elk and deer.
- Legal hunting can increase poaching.
- Traps and snares are cruel, outdated, and often harm pets and endangered species.
https://fwp.mt.gov/aboutfwp/public-comment-opportunities Click on the dropdown for “Fall 2025–Winter 2026 Furbearer and Wolf Trapping and Hunting Seasons and Quotas.”
> Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MTFWP) is proposing new, despicable wolf hunting regulations that could allow up to 500 wolves to be killed. This would increase the number of wolves that can be killed next season by 50 percent, nearly half the state’s entire wolf population. MTFWP is also pushing expanded hunting and trapping rules, including allowing hunters to kill up to 30 wolves per person.
> This proposal comes despite livestock losses remaining near historic lows, with only 35 confirmed cattle deaths in 2024, and a significant drop in the number of wolves killed due to livestock conflicts. It is also worth noting that revenue from wolf hunting licenses is among the lowest ever recorded – which helps explain why these expanded rules are less about science and more about politics, profit, and desperation.
> The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission will vote on this proposal at its next meeting on August 21. In the meantime, public comments are open through August 4, and wolves need your voice. In your comment, consider including the following:
- There is no scientific or ethical reason to kill this many wolves.
- Wolves pose no significant threat to humans.
- Wolves help maintain healthy prey populations by targeting the weak or sick, which may help control the spread of chronic wasting disease in elk and deer.
- Legal hunting can increase poaching.
- Traps and snares are cruel, outdated, and often harm pets and endangered species.
The science is pretty clear on the ecological role of wolves, yet here we are debating whether to wipe out half a state's population
The subtitle explains:
"Gray wolves were reintroduced ... to help control the numbers of elk that were eating young trees"
"Gray wolves were reintroduced ... to help control the numbers of elk that were eating young trees"
I talked to a local who was friends with ranchers who now lose stock to wolves. They hate it. Its an interesting use case of local control, is the greater good more important than the people who live there?
Or it's a reflection on is individualism really a thing when everything is actually interconnected?
"The greater good" is a bit abstract, and your framing suggests it's somehow separate from "the people who live there". A different framing of this question is should individuals be able to degrade ecosystem wealth in order to maximize their personal wealth?
This is the climate story in microcosm. We all know burning carbon is against the "greater good", but if we can pretend that our high-energy lifestyle is somehow independent and unconnected to the planetary ecological systems that support us, then of course, why shouldn't I mortgage my descendants' future for some toys today.
"The greater good" is a bit abstract, and your framing suggests it's somehow separate from "the people who live there". A different framing of this question is should individuals be able to degrade ecosystem wealth in order to maximize their personal wealth?
This is the climate story in microcosm. We all know burning carbon is against the "greater good", but if we can pretend that our high-energy lifestyle is somehow independent and unconnected to the planetary ecological systems that support us, then of course, why shouldn't I mortgage my descendants' future for some toys today.
> A different framing of this question is should individuals be able to degrade ecosystem wealth in order to maximize their personal wealth?
It's the United States, that's virtually a constitutional right. If your skin color and cultural conformance checks out.
It's the United States, that's virtually a constitutional right. If your skin color and cultural conformance checks out.
The logic of short-term gain at the expense of long-term viability is the same, just dressed up in different costumes
Losing stock to wolves and bears was why we used to have shepherds, shepherd dogs, fences etc, at least in Europe.
Eradicating predators created a very convenient, intermittent period where this was less of a necessity, but it also had quite negative externalities.
So the question isn't "is the greater good more important than the people who live there?", but more "is the greater good more important than the convenience of some people who live there?"
This is a question we have to ask ourselves a lot; nobody wants to live near a landfill, a prison, a sewage treatment plant etc, and yet we want them for the greater good.
Eradicating predators created a very convenient, intermittent period where this was less of a necessity, but it also had quite negative externalities.
So the question isn't "is the greater good more important than the people who live there?", but more "is the greater good more important than the convenience of some people who live there?"
This is a question we have to ask ourselves a lot; nobody wants to live near a landfill, a prison, a sewage treatment plant etc, and yet we want them for the greater good.
Convenience, lifestyle and the ability to hire fewer people (keeping more money). If it doesn’t make money after expenses, get a second or third job like most artisans.
More important than their desire to continue doing business the way they're used to? I'd say so. You phrase it like we're feeding them to the wolves.
It's not just predators vs livestock, there are a bunch of things that we didn't used to understand about ecosystems that we do now. The societal cost of letting people displace or kill wild animals with abandon is quite high.
Zoonotic diseases are the first to come to mind. How many preventable cases of Plague or Lyme disease is that livestock worth to us?
It's not just predators vs livestock, there are a bunch of things that we didn't used to understand about ecosystems that we do now. The societal cost of letting people displace or kill wild animals with abandon is quite high.
Zoonotic diseases are the first to come to mind. How many preventable cases of Plague or Lyme disease is that livestock worth to us?
Colorado, at least, provides several resources for minimizing and compensating wolf depredation.
https://cpw.widencollective.com/assets/share/asset/pzqhipzb1... (see Funding)
Cursory search shows that not just Colorado does this.
https://cpw.widencollective.com/assets/share/asset/pzqhipzb1... (see Funding)
Cursory search shows that not just Colorado does this.
Oof. Bad place for a ranch. Natural ecology needs those apex predators. They should consider relocating if they are deep in the ranching world. If we've learned anything since the industrial revolution, we have learned that sustainability is highly desirable, even more so than marginal ranchland.
I guess the subsequent question is whether there are good places for ranches. If the benefits of predators reintroduction/protection become widely known, it will likely be practiced elsewhere in the future.
Great question! Once lab grown meat becomes economically viable, there will be few good places for ranches that make sense.
Plant-based "meat" seems to have been a commercial failure recently. It's hardly a sure thing that lab-grown meat will take over the market (without government intervention), especially considering that there's currently essentially zero market presence.
> I talked to a local who was friends with ranchers who now lose stock to wolves. They hate it.
Well if they liked it, their anscestors wouldn't have killed the wolves in the first place.
Well if they liked it, their anscestors wouldn't have killed the wolves in the first place.
Their ancestors were killing a lot more than wolves. This isn't a particularly noble point.
Your question rephrased from an Indigenous People's perspective:
"is the greater good more important than the original people who lived there?"
"is the greater good more important than the original people who lived there?"
The Clovis are indeed important but they no longer exist.
Most colonists say no
"greater good" is a poor phrasing that doesn't point to the real thing-under-discussion. I prefer the phrase "common good" because it points to the feature that is unique to this good - it can only be held in common. That is, rather than being a "bigger" or a "fuller" good, it is a good that can only be achieved through collective action. No one person can have it of themselves, but together we can all have it. This necessitates collective sacrifice for the sake of this good.
It is also worth noting that not every good that is a "common good" is a necessary good. There are many common goods that can be legitimately given up because there is a hierarchy of goods as well.
It is also worth noting that not every good that is a "common good" is a necessary good. There are many common goods that can be legitimately given up because there is a hierarchy of goods as well.
Yes. They should nut up and get over it.
[deleted]
Spoke with someone on the Yellowstone team a few weeks ago. They mentioned most wolves lose life to ranchers. Avg wolf life in Yellowstone is just 3 years!
More important their businesses? Yes, very likely. To what extent should their business interests be protected over nature?
[deleted]
I think framing it as "locals vs. greater good" oversimplifies things
Yes, that's why it's called the 'greater' good.
Welfare ranchers grazing on BLM land? Yes.
Yes.
Yes
"Greater good" is a misnomer abused by all sorts of abusive meddlers.
yes
I think it's very obvious that it is more important what people like me who sit on the other side of the world thinks about wolves in Yellowstone, than what the people living there think.
It's incredible how much damage we have done to ourselves in the past 250 years, and how much effort do we now need to spend to undo that damage
> how much effort do we now need to spend to undo that
Moving a few wolfs, I would hardly call that effort! Stopping regulations and allowing some hunters in Yellowstone would have similar effects!
It is more like morons, who do not understand biology are in goverment! Overprotection allowed elk overpopulation!
Moving a few wolfs, I would hardly call that effort! Stopping regulations and allowing some hunters in Yellowstone would have similar effects!
It is more like morons, who do not understand biology are in goverment! Overprotection allowed elk overpopulation!
It really wouldn't. Hunters aren't very effective for deer control: they are interested in shooting impressive bucks, which doesn't make a substantial dent on populations.
[deleted]
It's incredible how much good we have done to ourselves in the past 250 years, and how much good we can do in the now and the future.
These replies that simply restate a previous comment by inverting its meaning are really starting to annoy me. They're neither witty nor intelligent. Just lazy and annoying.
Waiting for someone to reply to this doing exactly this
Waiting for someone to reply to this doing exactly this
People assuming that last 250 years were predominantly harm are annoying. The human race is thriving by every objective metric of nature: population, lifespan, dispensable energy per capita.
Humans on their phone 24/7 due to addiction and/or who hold multiple jobs and still can't afford rent and/or who suffer from racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc. are not thriving.
Oh, but they live to be 75, can buy a 75 inch television, and there are 8 billion of them. I'd still say they're not thriving.
Would you consider the folks in Brave New World thriving?
And don't get me started on environmental destruction. This post was about wolves and trees thriving, by the way.
Oh, but they live to be 75, can buy a 75 inch television, and there are 8 billion of them. I'd still say they're not thriving.
Would you consider the folks in Brave New World thriving?
And don't get me started on environmental destruction. This post was about wolves and trees thriving, by the way.
In response to a one-sided and overdone statement a reversed and equally overdone statement is a good way to point out the problems with such statements. I am annoyed and dismayed by the simpleminded self-flagellation implied by statements like the one I reacted to and think that people who make such statements should be time-warped back the mentioned 250 years and made to live in that era for, say, a year or so. When they are returned to the current era they will sound a different tune - that is if they manage to survive that year without succumbing to disease, some violent attack by man or beast or by starvation.
The question is how much of that power will we use to do good for the rest of the species on the planet? I’ve just finished reading “Not the end of the world” and found it to be an informative and balanced discussion on the topic that recognizes the vast benefits of human development (to humans), the cost to the rest of the planet and the progress we’ve made in the past 50 years in undoing some of the harm. This is a nuanced topic and deserves that kind of debate.
Which exact species do you want to help? Ticks, mosquitos and anthrax or more like birds, trees and elk? Where do you draw the line?
What a strange question. As a starter I’d like to see us help trees, coral, other primates and megafauna as much as possible. The former because they support so much other biodiversity and the latter because they’re nice to have in the world. Generally speaking though I favor sustainability where that means continuing to improve the quality of life for humans, especially those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, whilst trying to minimize the number of other species we drive to extinction. Again, nuance is key here - I don’t think my inability to enumerate every species worthy of help means that we should just dismiss the effort to help other species.
I don't ask you to "enumerate every species worthy of help" but rather to formulate a criteria you use to figure out who is worthy of help and who is not.
The "nice to have in the world" sounds quite arbitrary to me. I don't think the question I ask is strange, I'm trying to figure out the idea you believe in. So far you assume we share some core belief on the topic and the rest is obvious, which I don't think is the case.
The "nice to have in the world" sounds quite arbitrary to me. I don't think the question I ask is strange, I'm trying to figure out the idea you believe in. So far you assume we share some core belief on the topic and the rest is obvious, which I don't think is the case.
OK, I apologize if I misunderstood. My core belief is that it’s possible for humans to continue to prosper without causing a mass extinction of other species. I believe that largely happens through managing our impacts on the environment in which the species live and not just through direct intervention in the lives of those species, e.g. reducing deforestation and rewilding, reducing ocean acidification to save coral reefs. So I don’t think we have to choose specific species we wish to save and those we are willing to let go extinct.
It’s is! Just in medicine alone. And then economically, as well as justice. From 98% of the people living in abject poverty, no pairs of shoes, two changes of clothes, selling off relatives for money, dying from simple infections… to where we are today. It’s like the glory days of Rome but much better.
Surely this is the best of all possible worlds, Dr. Pangloss.
Are you really promoting the philosophy of Leibnizian Optimism in 2025?
I suggest reading Candide by Voltaire, first published 266 years as a critique to the philosophy you are currently espousing.
I suggest reading Candide by Voltaire, first published 266 years as a critique to the philosophy you are currently espousing.
People: "If God, then why bad?"[0]
Leibniz: "God and bad can coexist. E.g. we live in the best possible world."[1]
Voltaire: "Here's a depiction of some fictional bad."
[0] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
[1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds
Doesn't Leibniz's argument assume a single all-powerful god, and an external notion of good and evil? I would call it a 'not-even-wrong' argument - perhaps it's perfectly correct given its assumptions, but the assumptions aren't (necessarily) anything to do with this world...
[deleted]
I suspect that "being right in the mathematical sense" is the very thing that Voltaire was lampooning.
We've come a long way in those 266 years: global population 10x'd, meanwhile the share of the population living in extreme poverty went from over 80% to nearly 8%, so not all optimism was misguided. Also there's a lot of room between despair and a Panglossian caricature, and I don't think acknowledging that a lot of good has happened in the past (and not necessarily suggesting it was all inevitable or automatic) rises to that caricature.
I don’t really see how you got there from what they actually said.
Downvoted as this comment feels like it's trying to be witty/upshowing the parent comment without actually engaging with it or offering anything of substance. If the comment was along the lines of "yes, but we've also done a lot of good, let's reflect on both", great. But that's not what it was. Instead it feels like a statement that's trying to argue with the parent comment despite the parent comment never saying we haven't done any good.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
regaurdless of what was intended your downvote and reply shows a lack of good faith.
regaurdless of what was intended your downvote and reply shows a lack of good faith.
It wasn't a criticism of what they were saying (a point on which I agree with that poster), but whether the comment itself was contributing to the discussion or not. It was a very low-effort comment that offered no reflection on what the parent said, doesn't tie into the original post, and lacks depth towards its own point.
Low effort but I disagree about the rest - the opposition helps makes it clear how silly the formula it was paroding is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W88Sact1kws
"Embark on a journey to Yellowstone, where a few wolves did not just roam, but rewrote the rules of an entire ecosystem. Discover how these majestic predators triggered a cascade of life, transforming not only the park's wildlife but its very rivers and landscapes. It's a story of how nature's architects can reshape our world in ways we never imagined."
"Embark on a journey to Yellowstone, where a few wolves did not just roam, but rewrote the rules of an entire ecosystem. Discover how these majestic predators triggered a cascade of life, transforming not only the park's wildlife but its very rivers and landscapes. It's a story of how nature's architects can reshape our world in ways we never imagined."
Yellowstone seems like one of the most resilient ecosystems we do science on, seems it can reorganize to respond to changes in species.
Can other ecosystems do this? Or is Yellowstone the only one?
Can other ecosystems do this? Or is Yellowstone the only one?
A recent biology teacher of mine claims that military bases often contain ecosystems that are:
- intact enough to have quick bounce back behavior upon species reintroduction and
- small enough for you to have a good idea about which species are present
- come with a built-in control variable: the civilian space on the other side of the border represents what would have happened if we had let economics have its way with the land
Maybe you don't need quite that level of protection to see such effects, but generally you do need some. Throwing some wolves at a once-forest that's now half way to being a desert will not always save that forest.
- intact enough to have quick bounce back behavior upon species reintroduction and
- small enough for you to have a good idea about which species are present
- come with a built-in control variable: the civilian space on the other side of the border represents what would have happened if we had let economics have its way with the land
Maybe you don't need quite that level of protection to see such effects, but generally you do need some. Throwing some wolves at a once-forest that's now half way to being a desert will not always save that forest.
It is one of the better studied ones. What makes you think this sort of things does not happen elsewhere? Yellowstone has the advantage of being in the US, where there are a lot of people studying these things.
Ardennes too, according to our guide at least, reintroduction of wolves changed ecosystem
This is great news! Why doesn't fish and game just increase the number of elk tags they sell? There are multiple ways to reduce the elk population.
Based on another commenter it appears that it is not merely about the number of elk, but likely also how they act.
But is see This has a human imperialist reaction: why don't we just micro manage everything!
But is see This has a human imperialist reaction: why don't we just micro manage everything!
There are other studies that show that reintroduction of wolves also appeared to lead to a decrease in coyotes and changed the populations and behaviors of other prey animals, in turn changing other plant populations. This particular headline does not indicate all the apparent changes. These second and third order effects are not things a state fish and game body would particularly care about until it was forced to by other arms of government.
Humans hunt very differently than wolves. The impacts on elk behavior are thus potentially very different.
Because that's what people want. And if people want it, it can't be good?
It's like a real-life case study of a trophic cascade, and it kind of underlines just how interconnected everything is. You pull one species out, and decades later entire ecosystems are still feeling it
Lucas Miller teaches this to kids via song. Wonderful!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p-nBUqz2hG0
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p-nBUqz2hG0
How does returning wolves to ecosystem effect the mountain lion population? Can we balance things out or are we shuffling problems around?
Im speculating, but mountain lions were probably doing fine before the early 1800s too so they likely just balance each other out naturally if there’s competition over the same prey. I doubt humans need to do anything.
If I could pick 10 stories to follow every day on a HN dashboard, this would be first. It's really four or five stories in one.
[deleted]
Made possible by 1 grant from the Oregon State University Foundation.
For readers who are not local perhaps worth noting that Wolf reintroduction is a very emotional subject in this area. The wolves were brought back just before I moved here 25 years ago and I remember wondering if anyone ever wrote a letter to the editor at the Bozeman paper that wasn't about wolves. It's a kind of pre-Trump anti-science, anti-intellectual issue, the echoes of which you'll see in the comments on the article.
It's one of the things featured in that TV show with Kevin Costner that's actually accurate.
They should try it in nfld
Now report back in ten years about Lyme disease cases.
> Be Elk
> Browsing, grazing, loitering in an ideal environment
> Suddenly, mid life, an unidentified powerful beast appears that stalks and kills your kind
> Never know why, the source, or that a third species engineered this outcome because they were too lazy to kill you all themselves and just wanted an automated way of doing so
> Browsing, grazing, loitering in an ideal environment
> Suddenly, mid life, an unidentified powerful beast appears that stalks and kills your kind
> Never know why, the source, or that a third species engineered this outcome because they were too lazy to kill you all themselves and just wanted an automated way of doing so
A response worthy of 4chan.
Worthy of HN? Not so much.
It's not about "automating" the killing of elk. It's about sustainable ecosystems. Human hunting is not the same thing.
Worthy of HN? Not so much.
It's not about "automating" the killing of elk. It's about sustainable ecosystems. Human hunting is not the same thing.
I think it fits because it is substantive and has capability of providing introspection
The article and study doesn't address its disposable nature of the elk in favor of "look at the trees"
When there are animals suffering, which to most actual people is a matter to highlight. This entire discussion about wolves in Yellowstone has always contorted itself to spare the reader's thoughts on the gruesome reality of what's actually happening.
The article and study doesn't address its disposable nature of the elk in favor of "look at the trees"
When there are animals suffering, which to most actual people is a matter to highlight. This entire discussion about wolves in Yellowstone has always contorted itself to spare the reader's thoughts on the gruesome reality of what's actually happening.
Has no one considered the possibility that the aspen trees are eating the wolves to grow strong? I mean, we know that the decline of pirates causes global warming.
https://doctorspaghetti.org/pastafarians-pirates-and-climate...
We also know that dog predation of frisbees is a real problem for healthy disc populations.
https://doctorspaghetti.org/pastafarians-pirates-and-climate...
We also know that dog predation of frisbees is a real problem for healthy disc populations.
Also collapsed the elk population from 18,000 to 2,000 and they’re worried the bison will eat the trees… I understand nature is incredibly complex and intelligent, and I’m curious what the end effect will be. But from an anthropocentric perspective, this is silly. When will the first human death occur?
Why would a single human death, or even a few deaths a year matter to the policy? Dogs kill people, bees kill people, lots of things kill people and plenty of those things don't even serve as much of a purpose as wild wolves. If there are benefits to be had as a result of this policy, the question isn't some artificial zero-tolerance policy towards human death and injury, it's the usual balance of pros and cons.
Fair point. Except for “don’t even serve as much of a purpose as wild wolves.” I’d argue dogs, bees, and let’s say cars, all serve an enormous purpose to humanity. The pros/cons of replenishing an ecosystem is a good framework to analyze this through. I am selfishly an advocate for humanity, and safer forests with more wild game for hunting seems like a bigger pro to me. Of course, I could be disastrously wrong. But we don’t know yet.
If you’re going to exterminate every species that kills humans, there’s gonna be a lot of very angry dog owners on your doorstep.
No steaks either. Cows kill nearly as many humans as dogs (~20/year vs ~40/year)
That’s not my argument. I’m saying wolves are dangerous, and as a human, I don’t want to have to worry about wolves when I’m hiking Yellowstone. Call me selfish but I’d rather be alive than feel good that the forest is back to its natural state.
Yup that is pretty selfish.
Have you considered that you might trip and fall when hiking Yellowstone? Perhaps we should pave it.
> When will the first human death occur?
what?
what?
You can usually understand this kind of phrase as having the qualifier "in a way relevant to the current discussion", meaning in this case "first human death caused by re-introduced wolves".
Right? The first human death happened millions of years ago.
From my perspective this is a doomed ideological project, to restore a ecological "balance" that is already historic- as the climate this "balance" adapted to will vanish and the luxury of ecological preservation projects will evaporate with the funds available for such luxuries.
In my eyes, ecological historicism is just another sin, wasting precious finite resources on keeping up a facade. It would be much wiser, to take specimen from the developing bulb-belt and transplant them up the lattitude to near similar developing bioms, trying to breed them to survive the winter that now befalls there "migrated" biom.
Let the wulves fight for their own survival in this mess and remove protection status. The ground is moving, no sense in building cabins and planting trees on it. Cosplaying nature while sacrificing saveable species seems absurd to me.
In my eyes, ecological historicism is just another sin, wasting precious finite resources on keeping up a facade. It would be much wiser, to take specimen from the developing bulb-belt and transplant them up the lattitude to near similar developing bioms, trying to breed them to survive the winter that now befalls there "migrated" biom.
Let the wulves fight for their own survival in this mess and remove protection status. The ground is moving, no sense in building cabins and planting trees on it. Cosplaying nature while sacrificing saveable species seems absurd to me.
> Let the wulves fight for their own survival in this mess and remove protection status.
So, let wolves fight for survival against humans?
That's tantamount to saying "let's make wolves extinct."
So, let wolves fight for survival against humans?
That's tantamount to saying "let's make wolves extinct."
They only moved few dozen wolves, over 1000km from their homes, which is not going to have any significant consequences. Even today there's only about 100 wolves in the park?
2,200,000 acres, with 100 wolves.
Then they've made the claim that those 100 wolves in 2.2million acres has resulted in plants and fish returning? As opposed to their efforts doing nothing at all?
2,200,000 acres, with 100 wolves.
Then they've made the claim that those 100 wolves in 2.2million acres has resulted in plants and fish returning? As opposed to their efforts doing nothing at all?
I'm not a biologist, but I grew up in West Yellowstone around the time wolves were reintroduced. Their return—and its impact—has been extensively studied by experts far more qualified than me.
That said, I believe wolves had a profound effect on the Yellowstone ecosystem, particularly on elk and deer populations. Before their reintroduction, those species had few natural predators beyond hunters, vehicles, bears, and the occasional mountain lion. The imbalance led to overgrazing and the spread of diseases like Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in elk.
That said, I believe wolves had a profound effect on the Yellowstone ecosystem, particularly on elk and deer populations. Before their reintroduction, those species had few natural predators beyond hunters, vehicles, bears, and the occasional mountain lion. The imbalance led to overgrazing and the spread of diseases like Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in elk.
> Then they've made the claim that those 100 wolves in 2.2million acres has resulted in plants and fish returning? As opposed to their efforts doing nothing at all?
They've studied it and came to these conclusions, yes. Have you studied it and come to different conclusions?
They've studied it and came to these conclusions, yes. Have you studied it and come to different conclusions?
You're responding to someone who believe that omnivorous animals don't exist[1], so you can assume that they will disregard whatever biologists say and trust their feelings rather than reality.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44674445
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44674445
Insane how they spout out nonsense as fact. Cats are obligate carnivores. They eat protein. End of story. Please do not feed your cat vegetables.
They eat catnip.
It's not about food. They take catnip as a psychoactive substance.
Not for its caloric or nutritional value.
> 100 wolves in 2.2million acres
Without engaging with the rest of your comment, and even assuming that wolves are distributed evenly (of course they are not, and some parts of the park are not suitable for wolves):
This equates to 1 wolf per chunk of land measuring about 6 miles square, so about 15% smaller than the city of San Francisco (which is a small city).
Wolves are territorial and they move through forest quite well. A ~35 square mile territory wouldn't be out of the question.
Edit: Notes from elsewhere:
> Wolf packs in Minnesota, for example, can have territories that range from 7.5 mi2 to >214 mi2 — a 28 fold difference in territory size
> Average territory size in northwestern Montana was 220 square kilometers (185 square miles) but was highly variable (USFWS et al. 2002). Average territory size for Yellowstone Gray Wolves was larger, averaging 891 square kilometers (344 square miles) (USFWS et al. 2002).
> Pack size is highly variable due to the birth of pups, but is typically between 4 to 8 wolves. Territory sizes range from 25 to 150 square miles; neighboring packs can share common borders, but territories rarely overlap by more than a mile.
Without engaging with the rest of your comment, and even assuming that wolves are distributed evenly (of course they are not, and some parts of the park are not suitable for wolves):
This equates to 1 wolf per chunk of land measuring about 6 miles square, so about 15% smaller than the city of San Francisco (which is a small city).
Wolves are territorial and they move through forest quite well. A ~35 square mile territory wouldn't be out of the question.
Edit: Notes from elsewhere:
> Wolf packs in Minnesota, for example, can have territories that range from 7.5 mi2 to >214 mi2 — a 28 fold difference in territory size
> Average territory size in northwestern Montana was 220 square kilometers (185 square miles) but was highly variable (USFWS et al. 2002). Average territory size for Yellowstone Gray Wolves was larger, averaging 891 square kilometers (344 square miles) (USFWS et al. 2002).
> Pack size is highly variable due to the birth of pups, but is typically between 4 to 8 wolves. Territory sizes range from 25 to 150 square miles; neighboring packs can share common borders, but territories rarely overlap by more than a mile.
This is a great point. 2.2M acres was posited to sound so vast.
Territory sizes range from 25 to 150 square miles
That is 15,000 to 100,000 acres per half-dozen wolves in the GP's units.
Territory sizes range from 25 to 150 square miles
That is 15,000 to 100,000 acres per half-dozen wolves in the GP's units.
The science is pretty clear on this Im not sure what you exactly are criticizing other than you don't like the vibes or vaguely incredulous? It doesn't take many wolves to change the behavior of nearly every herbivore they prey upon. Which then changes the river bank erosion. Which causes hundreds of more species to change behavior.... Trophic Cascades are not really up for debate .
[deleted]
No one here used apex predictor, but many described it. The science is clear that we need to study this more, much more. We only know a brief glimpse on terms of geologic time.
The effect on quaking aspens in Pardo is also something we need to study long term. Are the two related?
The effect on quaking aspens in Pardo is also something we need to study long term. Are the two related?
Yes we need to study the longer term changes but the short term changes are undeniable. And focusing on geologic timescale for these improvements is inane when you look at the scale of destruction of the industrial revolution in less than a blink of an eye on the geological timescale...
This is like triage, and concern trolling the 40 or 50 year side effects of triage treatment when someone is bleeding out is negligent bordering on criminal and treasonous imo
This is like triage, and concern trolling the 40 or 50 year side effects of triage treatment when someone is bleeding out is negligent bordering on criminal and treasonous imo
“I do not like the results!” Or “The result does not make sense to me!” are not valid criticisms of science. They are arguments made from emotion. And in your case, based on your account history, it’s clearly something political for you. I would encourage you to write that kind of commentary in a more appropriate venue. Like the bathroom stall of your local truck stop. Just not here.
While I didn’t like the tone of OP I do understand where they’re coming from. Assuming what they’re saying is correct, it’s a valid question where explaining the mechanism is a solid response.
I’ll say that I’ve not read the article so if it’s in the article then I would rather you just point to that, rather than make this response.
I’ll say that I’ve not read the article so if it’s in the article then I would rather you just point to that, rather than make this response.
But it's perfectly valid to question results that don't make sense, and the role of the supposed expert is to explain why it does.
After all, off in a democracy an expert expects to be paid by taxpayers to make decisions that affect the taxpayer the expert should be, at the very least, be able to explain himself in an intelligible manner.
Thats the bare minimum of expectations. I also expect the taxpayer funded expert to provided full access to his data, notes and analysis software.
Im considered an expert in thermodynamics, materials science and E&M. The people that pay me routinely don't understand what I'm working on, but they expect me to explain myself.
After all, off in a democracy an expert expects to be paid by taxpayers to make decisions that affect the taxpayer the expert should be, at the very least, be able to explain himself in an intelligible manner.
Thats the bare minimum of expectations. I also expect the taxpayer funded expert to provided full access to his data, notes and analysis software.
Im considered an expert in thermodynamics, materials science and E&M. The people that pay me routinely don't understand what I'm working on, but they expect me to explain myself.
>they expect me to explain themselves
But the experts did explain themselves. They’ve published numerous studies on how small wolf populations impact the larger ecosystem.
It’s not even that hard to understand. Yes Yellowstone is large, but there are a finite number of elk herds and the wolves move to follow and prey upon the elk herds.
Wolf packs can kill 20 elk per year per wolf, there are 120 wolves inside the park and 500 immediately around the park wandering inside it and killing elk that wander outside.
At the peak there were 18k elk in the park and now the numbers are down to 2000. There’s plenty of evidence that the decline is a direct result of the wolves.
Controlling elk population has tons of 2nd and 3rd order effects which have also been well documented.
But the experts did explain themselves. They’ve published numerous studies on how small wolf populations impact the larger ecosystem.
It’s not even that hard to understand. Yes Yellowstone is large, but there are a finite number of elk herds and the wolves move to follow and prey upon the elk herds.
Wolf packs can kill 20 elk per year per wolf, there are 120 wolves inside the park and 500 immediately around the park wandering inside it and killing elk that wander outside.
At the peak there were 18k elk in the park and now the numbers are down to 2000. There’s plenty of evidence that the decline is a direct result of the wolves.
Controlling elk population has tons of 2nd and 3rd order effects which have also been well documented.
Well there you are! Good for you for writing that, and not the self-righteous snark I was replying to.
The beauty of HN is that when someone doesnt know, or is wrong, we don't assume bad intent, but explain with good intentions at heart.
It's literally in the rules
The beauty of HN is that when someone doesnt know, or is wrong, we don't assume bad intent, but explain with good intentions at heart.
It's literally in the rules
Here on HN we are looking at the effects and beliefs of the people reading the studies? What effect does this have on us?
Many downvoted comments etc. ( and much thanks for explaining the population numbers!)
Many downvoted comments etc. ( and much thanks for explaining the population numbers!)
[deleted]
While I find your counter argument vague, it did prompt me to dig in and find that human hunting is arguably still the bigger suppressor of elk population. However, that’s been going on since the ‘40s.
The reintroduction of wolves is associated with an immediate, steady, and durable decline in elk - i.e. pushed the ecosystem past an inflection point into a new equilibrium.
The reintroduction of wolves is associated with an immediate, steady, and durable decline in elk - i.e. pushed the ecosystem past an inflection point into a new equilibrium.
It’s also possible that wolves hunt in a different way than humans, or different types (regarding age, gender, or health maybe) of elks.
It’s an interesting question and this could be empirically tested if human hunting would be slowly reduced.
It’s an interesting question and this could be empirically tested if human hunting would be slowly reduced.
IIRC:
Without risk of harm, elk and deer linger near water. This tramples the shoreline. And they love eating noshing on (aspen) saplings. Over time, the shorelines become barren.
With the reintroduction of wolves, shorelines are no longer safe havens. Aspens have returned. With aspens, song birds have returned. Trees shade the water (eg streams), so fish are happier. Trees stabilize the top soil, reducing erosion, allows other plants to become reestablished.
I dimly recall beavers returned too.
--
Aha. I was mostly right (or hallucinating). Here's perplexity link for "impact of return of wolves to yellowstone".
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/impact-of-return-of-wolves-...
I learned about the birds returning because of the wolves while volunteering at Audubon. That linked summary doesn't go into those details.
--
Update: I should've read the OC first. My bad. TIL: (too many) bison also negatively impact riverbanks. I had thought (misremembered) that overall impact of bison was positive. Does Yellowstone need more cougars?
Without risk of harm, elk and deer linger near water. This tramples the shoreline. And they love eating noshing on (aspen) saplings. Over time, the shorelines become barren.
With the reintroduction of wolves, shorelines are no longer safe havens. Aspens have returned. With aspens, song birds have returned. Trees shade the water (eg streams), so fish are happier. Trees stabilize the top soil, reducing erosion, allows other plants to become reestablished.
I dimly recall beavers returned too.
--
Aha. I was mostly right (or hallucinating). Here's perplexity link for "impact of return of wolves to yellowstone".
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/impact-of-return-of-wolves-...
I learned about the birds returning because of the wolves while volunteering at Audubon. That linked summary doesn't go into those details.
--
Update: I should've read the OC first. My bad. TIL: (too many) bison also negatively impact riverbanks. I had thought (misremembered) that overall impact of bison was positive. Does Yellowstone need more cougars?
That’s a good point: hunters probably prefer strong elk but wolves prefer weak elk. I recall going to a walking with wolves experience in the Lake District where she explained that predators strengthen their prey by removing sick and those with genetic issues from the gene pool.
Yellowstone is a national park, you can’t hunt anything inside the park’s boundaries. Wolves can.
Yellowstone park has a policy of natural regulation (since the 70s IIRC). The surrounding areas not necessarily.
The simple answer for how is the elk population in that 2,200,000 acres dropped from ~18,000 to ~2,000 or 1 elk per 2 square miles.
16,000 elk do quiet a lot, especially as they aren’t spending nearly as much time along river banks. Which changes what plants are in and around steams and thus what’s happening in and around those streams.
16,000 elk do quiet a lot, especially as they aren’t spending nearly as much time along river banks. Which changes what plants are in and around steams and thus what’s happening in and around those streams.