One of the local news websites in my home state of Utah posted an AP article about a recent study that was done involving wolves and vegetation in Yellowstone Park. The study alleges that because the wolf pack has helped to reduce the different grazing herds, particularly elk, vegetation such as grass and tree stands are becoming healthier. Ungulates (deer, elk, moose, and bison) tend to eat the fresh shoots of saplings because they are high in nutrients. With high populations of grazing animals in its midst, woodland areas struggle to provide a new generation of trees which helps to keep the forest healthy. Also, large populations tend to cause overgrazing of the grasslands - continual foraging of grasses in an area, so that the grass has no opportunity to regenerate with new shoots - which can lead to erosion, a change in the micro-ecosystem, as well as threatening the very same ungulates with starvation.
Wolves used to be a part of the food web in the West and throughout the nation. They were seen as a threat by ranchers and settlers and were subsequently exterminated. The result was yet another lost predator to help naturally maintain the grazing mammals. The wolves were gone from the ecosystem for nearly 80 years, leaving humans as the sole maintainers of burgeoning elk and deer populations. In 1995, the gray wolf was reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and it has been largely successful. Their numbers have exploded, and while ungulate populations have declined, the overall health of the population is considered to have improved. This latest study shows the link that predators even have to vegetative health within the ecosystem, which helps to make the case that an ecosystem is made up of many different parts, which have evolved together over time. When you remove any portion, it causes an upset within the ecosystem, but returning something helps bring the ecosystem back into a healthy "balance".
The reintroduction of the wolf is not without controversy, however. Ranchers feel the threat on a day to day basis of lost livestock as wolves occasionally kill domestic farm animals. Hunters seem to resent the smaller populations of grazing animals, namely deer and elk, since that means less for them to hunt. Just take a look at the comments section of the news article and you will see that more than 3/4 of the commenters are opposed to wolves, many of them would like to see the wolf gone altogether. These groups of people feel alienated by the wolf and they see only competition and death in its creature.
Because of this, there is much discord between conservationists and ranchers/hunters over the future of the wolf. While education has been ongoing since the reintroduction, many of the wolf's human opponents remain vehemently unconvinced as to its purpose and place in the ecosystem. These groups have succeeded in getting the wolf removed from the Endangered Species list, and putting management back into state hands, instead of the federal government. One such state, Idaho, has called for a wolf hunt that would eliminate 80% of the population. Other states, such as Utah, have sought to make it "illegal" for wolves to be within state lines. This is surely going to cause more outrage from the pro-wolf groups.
I have a bias for the wolf. I think they are amazing creatures. They are terrible. They are beautiful. They are intelligent, and they are ravishing. It is true, wolves are both majestic and murderous. They kill, because that is how they eat. They play a part in the ecosystem and within the food web and have done so for thousands of years. This fight between wolves and men is the result of humans massively interfering with an ecosystem, without regard to its effects. This fight between two viewpoints would be much less intense if wolves had not been brought to near extinction in the lower 48. We need to see the lesson in this. Our actions have many consequences which can manifest themselves immediately as well as decades, or centuries, later. There is no easy answer to this puzzle. This struggle will continue indefinitely as we pay for the choices our great grandfathers made.
Wolves used to be a part of the food web in the West and throughout the nation. They were seen as a threat by ranchers and settlers and were subsequently exterminated. The result was yet another lost predator to help naturally maintain the grazing mammals. The wolves were gone from the ecosystem for nearly 80 years, leaving humans as the sole maintainers of burgeoning elk and deer populations. In 1995, the gray wolf was reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and it has been largely successful. Their numbers have exploded, and while ungulate populations have declined, the overall health of the population is considered to have improved. This latest study shows the link that predators even have to vegetative health within the ecosystem, which helps to make the case that an ecosystem is made up of many different parts, which have evolved together over time. When you remove any portion, it causes an upset within the ecosystem, but returning something helps bring the ecosystem back into a healthy "balance".
The reintroduction of the wolf is not without controversy, however. Ranchers feel the threat on a day to day basis of lost livestock as wolves occasionally kill domestic farm animals. Hunters seem to resent the smaller populations of grazing animals, namely deer and elk, since that means less for them to hunt. Just take a look at the comments section of the news article and you will see that more than 3/4 of the commenters are opposed to wolves, many of them would like to see the wolf gone altogether. These groups of people feel alienated by the wolf and they see only competition and death in its creature.
Because of this, there is much discord between conservationists and ranchers/hunters over the future of the wolf. While education has been ongoing since the reintroduction, many of the wolf's human opponents remain vehemently unconvinced as to its purpose and place in the ecosystem. These groups have succeeded in getting the wolf removed from the Endangered Species list, and putting management back into state hands, instead of the federal government. One such state, Idaho, has called for a wolf hunt that would eliminate 80% of the population. Other states, such as Utah, have sought to make it "illegal" for wolves to be within state lines. This is surely going to cause more outrage from the pro-wolf groups.
I have a bias for the wolf. I think they are amazing creatures. They are terrible. They are beautiful. They are intelligent, and they are ravishing. It is true, wolves are both majestic and murderous. They kill, because that is how they eat. They play a part in the ecosystem and within the food web and have done so for thousands of years. This fight between wolves and men is the result of humans massively interfering with an ecosystem, without regard to its effects. This fight between two viewpoints would be much less intense if wolves had not been brought to near extinction in the lower 48. We need to see the lesson in this. Our actions have many consequences which can manifest themselves immediately as well as decades, or centuries, later. There is no easy answer to this puzzle. This struggle will continue indefinitely as we pay for the choices our great grandfathers made.
No comments:
Post a Comment