Wolves restore balance to eco-system...

[kalm]

Anyone who's fished a stream where cattle have access to some areas but not to others can tell you the detrimental affect to riparian habitat, stream side erosion, water clarity, and the overall ecosystem that they have. And that's without munching on the aspens. This isn't exactly complicated.

Like I said...wolves are happy, ranchers get paid, weak elk are culled, hunters get to shoot wolves. Win, win, win, win.

[Chizzang]

Anyone who's fished a stream where cattle have access to some areas but not to others can tell you the detrimental affect to riparian habitat, stream side erosion, water clarity, and the overall ecosystem that they have. And that's without munching on the aspens. This isn't exactly complicated.

Like I said...wolves are happy, ranchers get paid, weak elk are culled, hunters get to shoot wolves. Win, win, win, win.

I like how serious everybody is taking this...
You'll notice I don't call out Wolves change river (because that might be a stretch)
I say: Wolves restore balance to ecosystem

As John points out its plausible but not proven
The rest of the critical points are simply a matter of basic research (no stretch required)

[kalm]

Anyone who's fished a stream where cattle have access to some areas but not to others can tell you the detrimental affect to riparian habitat, stream side erosion, water clarity, and the overall ecosystem that they have. And that's without munching on the aspens. This isn't exactly complicated.

Like I said...wolves are happy, ranchers get paid, weak elk are culled, hunters get to shoot wolves. Win, win, win, win.

I like how serious everybody is taking this...
You'll notice I don't call out Wolves change river (because that might be a stretch)
I say: Wolves restore balance to ecosystem

As John points out its plausible but not proven
The rest of the critical points are simply a matter of basic research (no stretch required)

Beavers can literally change a stream.

[Gil Dobie]

Anyone who's fished a stream where cattle have access to some areas but not to others can tell you the detrimental affect to riparian habitat, stream side erosion, water clarity, and the overall ecosystem that they have. And that's without munching on the aspens. This isn't exactly complicated.

Like I said...wolves are happy, ranchers get paid, weak elk are culled, hunters get to shoot wolves. Win, win, win, win.

I don't think there is much difference between cattle having access to a river than pre-euro settlers era with millions of Bison roaming thru the rivers. Bison didn't treat the river any different than cattle, and yes they affected the streams as did Beaver. Wolves can be managed, aka Minnesota.

PS: River clarity is not an issue in the plains, where they flow thru mud, example Old Muddy = Mississippi.

Estimates are 60,000,000 Bison existed in 1492
Current US cattle population is a little over 87,000,000

[biobengal]

As John points out its plausible but not proven

Quite plausible, IMO. Ecological data can be fickle and I would expect some null results simply based on chance alone. In fact, there are armies of scientists wasting taxpayer money studying this issue.

Seriously, guys, the number of studies on this issue is quite large; a search of "Trophic cascade" AND yellowstone AND wolves AND elk on Google Scholar returned 829 hits (a bit fewer on Web of Science); here's a small sampling:



Wolves influence elk movements: Behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park Fortin, D; Beyer, HL; Boyce, MS; Smith, DW; Duchesne, T; Mao, JS ECOLOGY MAY 2005

Elk alter habitat selection as an antipredator response to wolves Creel, S; Winnie, J; Maxwell, B; Hamlin, K; Creel, M ECOLOGY DEC 2005

Human activity mediates a trophic cascade caused by wolves Hebblewhite, M; White, CA; Nietvelt, CG; McKenzie, JA; Hurd, TE; Fryxell, JM; Bayley, SE; Paquet, PC ECOLOGY AUG 2005

Restoring Yellowstone's aspen with wolves Ripple, William J.; Beschta, Robert L. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION SEP 2007

Wolves, elk, willows, and trophic cascades in the upper Gallatin Range of Southwestern Montana, USA Ripple, WJ; Beschta, RL FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT OCT 25 2004

Multiscale wolf predation risk for elk: does migration reduce risk? Hebblewhite, Mark; Merrill, Evelyn H. OECOLOGIA MAY 2007

Willow on yellowstone's northern range: Evidence for a trophic cascade? Beyer, Hawthorne L.; Merrill, Evelyn H.; Varley, Nathan; Boyce, Mark S. ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS SEP 2007

Are wolves saving Yellowstone's aspen? A landscape-level test of a behaviorally mediated trophic cascade Kauffman, Matthew J.; Brodie, Jedediah F.; Jules, Erik S. ECOLOGY SEP 2010

Prey risk allocation in a grazing ecosystem Gude, JA; Garrott, RA; Borkowski, JJ; King, F ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS FEB 2006

Time and space in general models of antipredator response: tests with wolves and elk Creel, Scott; Winnie, John A., Jr.; Christianson, David; Liley, Stewart ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR OCT 2008

[biobengal]

I don't think there is much difference between cattle having access to a river than pre-euro settlers era with millions of Bison roaming thru the rivers. Bison didn't treat the river any different than cattle, and yes they affected the streams as did Beaver.

Gil, I think you are quite wrong here:

Bison exhibit a stronger preference for the perennial grasses that form the prairie matrix, and they are strongly attracted to open landscapes during the growing season. Cattle include more forbs in their diet, and they use wooded areas and riparian zones more intensively. At similar annual stocking rates, the amount of grass remaining at the start of the dormant season is higher under year-long bison grazing compared to growing season cattle grazing.

Further, other studies have shown that bison tended to move quickly across upland areas; cows tend to congregate in productive areas (river bottoms).

COMPARATIVE ECOLOGY OF BISON AND CATTLE ON MIXED-GRASS PRAIRIE
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewc ... nsresearch

[kalm]

Enough science mumbo jumbo. What I'm trying to say is fishing is good where cows are restricted.

[JohnStOnge]

Enough science mumbo jumbo. What I'm trying to say is fishing is good where cows are restricted.

You know I've been looking at this under the influence of alcohol. And I've been thinking about how problematic life is.

The scientific method includes a step where you do controlled experiments to support your hypothesis. That's pretty tough in situations like this.

I guess I'm being arrogant but I think the general public is pretty ignorant with respect to that reality. They see what's referred to as "science" and don't know whether to ask whether or not any cause and effect statement involved is supported by controlled experimentation as required by the scientific method.

Climate change comes to mind.

Time to go get another drink.

[Gil Dobie]

I don't think there is much difference between cattle having access to a river than pre-euro settlers era with millions of Bison roaming thru the rivers. Bison didn't treat the river any different than cattle, and yes they affected the streams as did Beaver.

Gil, I think you are quite wrong here:

Bison exhibit a stronger preference for the perennial grasses that form the prairie matrix, and they are strongly attracted to open landscapes during the growing season. Cattle include more forbs in their diet, and they use wooded areas and riparian zones more intensively. At similar annual stocking rates, the amount of grass remaining at the start of the dormant season is higher under year-long bison grazing compared to growing season cattle grazing.

Further, other studies have shown that bison tended to move quickly across upland areas; cows tend to congregate in productive areas (river bottoms).

COMPARATIVE ECOLOGY OF BISON AND CATTLE ON MIXED-GRASS PRAIRIE
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewc ... nsresearch

It's obvious the managed herds act different on the prairie. I guess I was imagining 60 million bison migrating in North America in 1492 vs managed herds that were studied in this article. Then comparing their affect on rivers vs the managed cattle of today. I have read historical accounts of early explorers waiting a day for a herd of bison to cross a river. Is the managed herd of bison acting in the same way a herd from 200 years ago would act? Would these bison be in Nebraska, Wyoming, or Indiana during that time of the year?

From the link provided

This contrast between bison and cattle does not persist in the mountainous west, where dense rhizomatous forages dominate riparian zones and relatively sparse bunch grass communities
dominate the uplands. Bison appear to select riparian areas similarly to cattle in the intermountain West.

I assume if the bison are in Nebraska at that time of the year, they were eating what the study found, and did have a different affect on the river in Nebraska, but as the study also revealed, the bison in the intermountain West has a similar affect to cattle.

[FCS PATRIOTS]

So we're to believe that the REAL evil resident in Yellowstone is the DEER.

Hey, ASShole - there are NO "evil residents" in Yellowstone, except one:

Man, the ORIGINAL **** of balance.



Think before you post, Heston......

Then kill yourself. SERIOUSLY. If you liberal dweebs hate humanity so much, end it. Kill yourself, your wife and your kids because if you are consuming something then obviously you're hurting the planet. Do it now and stand by your convictions if you have the pair to do it.

[houndawg]

Hey, ASShole - there are NO "evil residents" in Yellowstone, except one:

Man, the ORIGINAL **** of balance.



Think before you post, Heston......

Then kill yourself. SERIOUSLY. If you liberal dweebs hate humanity so much, end it. Kill yourself, your wife and your kids because if you are consuming something then obviously you're hurting the planet. Do it now and stand by your convictions if you have the pair to do it.

Shut up bitch.

[FCS PATRIOTS]

Then kill yourself. SERIOUSLY. If you liberal dweebs hate humanity so much, end it. Kill yourself, your wife and your kids because if you are consuming something then obviously you're hurting the planet. Do it now and stand by your convictions if you have the pair to do it.

Shut up bitch.

that's what I tell your wife nightly.

[houndawg]

Shut up bitch.

that's what I tell your wife nightly.

Ah, you must be "shorty".

[Chizzang]

Hey, ASShole - there are NO "evil residents" in Yellowstone, except one:

Man, the ORIGINAL **** of balance.



Think before you post, Heston......

Then kill yourself. SERIOUSLY. If you liberal dweebs hate humanity so much, end it. Kill yourself, your wife and your kids because if you are consuming something then obviously you're hurting the planet. Do it now and stand by your convictions if you have the pair to do it.

I'm not sure you're capturing the essence of Cats meaning
What it seems like he's suggesting is:
More care and forethought should be taken when we humans - the brains of the planet - decide to make a sweeping change in environments and ecosystems

After all - we are the brains - and that's not sarcasm
So we need to start using them in matters such as these

[CID1990]

that's what I tell your wife nightly.

Ah, you must be "shorty".

lol well done

[AZGrizFan]

Ah, you must be "shorty".

lol well done

I must admit, I chucked at that one as well...

[JohnStOnge]

ey, ASShole - there are NO "evil residents" in Yellowstone, except one:

Man, the ORIGINAL **** of balance.

One thing I've always disagreed with is that there is some static "balance" to any ecosystem. I think everything is in a constant state of change. Sometimes things change slowly. Sometimes they change rapidly. But they are always changing.

An ecosystem changes because of the impact of a species. Is that "bad?" I don't think so.

Some species are able to cope with us. Some aren't. That's the way it goes. Natural selection.

And, yes, it is "natural" selection. We are just as "natural" as anything that has been spawned by this planet. Our activity is "natural." Some species can cope with us and some can't. Norway rats and coyotes seem to be doing pretty well.

Things are different than they would be if we were not here. So what? That's the way life works.

I never have understood this thing about thinking that there is some "moral" imperative to preserve a particular ecosystem in the form it would be in if we weren't here.

[Chizzang]

ey, ASShole - there are NO "evil residents" in Yellowstone, except one:

Man, the ORIGINAL **** of balance.

One thing I've always disagreed with is that there is some static "balance" to any ecosystem. I think everything is in a constant state of change. Sometimes things change slowly. Sometimes they change rapidly. But they are always changing.

An ecosystem changes because of the impact of a species. Is that "bad?" I don't think so.

Some species are able to cope with us. Some aren't. That's the way it goes. Natural selection.

And, yes, it is "natural" selection. We are just as "natural" as anything that has been spawned by this planet. Our activity is "natural." Some species can cope with us and some can't. Norway rats and coyotes seem to be doing pretty well.

Things are different than they would be if we were not here. So what? That's the way life works.

I never have understood this thing about thinking that there is some "moral" imperative to preserve a particular ecosystem in the form it would be in if we weren't here.

Ah yes... planet of weeds (a great read by the way)



I have seen the end
And it came dressed as Jesus
Wrapped in the flag riding a bulldozer through yellowstone park with a flame thrower and a machine gun

[houndawg]

ey, ASShole - there are NO "evil residents" in Yellowstone, except one:

Man, the ORIGINAL **** of balance.

One thing I've always disagreed with is that there is some static "balance" to any ecosystem. I think everything is in a constant state of change. Sometimes things change slowly. Sometimes they change rapidly. But they are always changing.

An ecosystem changes because of the impact of a species. Is that "bad?" I don't think so.

Some species are able to cope with us. Some aren't. That's the way it goes. Natural selection.

And, yes, it is "natural" selection. We are just as "natural" as anything that has been spawned by this planet. Our activity is "natural." Some species can cope with us and some can't. Norway rats and coyotes seem to be doing pretty well.

Things are different than they would be if we were not here. So what? That's the way life works.

I never have understood this thing about thinking that there is some "moral" imperative to preserve a particular ecosystem in the form it would be in if we weren't here.

And they'll be different when we're gone.

[Gil Dobie]

In this case a long-term scientific study trumps a short-term scientific study on the moose population in NE Minnesota in relation to Wolf numbers.

Strib Link

In the interview below, Mech expands on a recent study he co-published with John Fieberg of the University of Minnesota that challenges an earlier DNR study that said climate change is contributing to the decline of northeast Minnesota moose.

Two major findings. The first is that studies by the Minnesota DNR in 2009-2010 suggesting that the decline of northeast Minnesota moose was related to some kind of climate change minimized indications that wolves were involved.

The study said wolves likely were not involved in the moose decline to a significant degree, because statewide surveys of wolves seemed to indicate a stable population.

But our studies of wolves for more than 40 years differ from the state’s five-year statewide population estimate, because ours have been done annually in a single area, which overlaps in part the DNR’s moose study area.

Our data indicate that the wolf population in and near the moose study area had grown significantly. I also suspected that statistics from the DNR study were flawed, regarding the effect of climate change on wolves.

I’m not a statistician. So I teamed up with University of Minnesota statistician John Fieberg, and he demonstrated that statistics in the original DNR study did not support a climate effect.

There’s simply no evidence that climate change has contributed to the moose decline in the northeast. Instead, wolves likely were involved in some way.

[JohnStOnge]

In this case a long-term scientific study trumps a short-term scientific study on the moose population in NE Minnesota in relation to Wolf numbers.

Strib Link

In the interview below, Mech expands on a recent study he co-published with John Fieberg of the University of Minnesota that challenges an earlier DNR study that said climate change is contributing to the decline of northeast Minnesota moose.

Two major findings. The first is that studies by the Minnesota DNR in 2009-2010 suggesting that the decline of northeast Minnesota moose was related to some kind of climate change minimized indications that wolves were involved.

The study said wolves likely were not involved in the moose decline to a significant degree, because statewide surveys of wolves seemed to indicate a stable population.

But our studies of wolves for more than 40 years differ from the state’s five-year statewide population estimate, because ours have been done annually in a single area, which overlaps in part the DNR’s moose study area.

Our data indicate that the wolf population in and near the moose study area had grown significantly. I also suspected that statistics from the DNR study were flawed, regarding the effect of climate change on wolves.

I’m not a statistician. So I teamed up with University of Minnesota statistician John Fieberg, and he demonstrated that statistics in the original DNR study did not support a climate effect.

There’s simply no evidence that climate change has contributed to the moose decline in the northeast. Instead, wolves likely were involved in some way.

Nothing described there either way is scientific study. It's observational study. And the back and forth illustrates the problem with observational study.

[JohnStOnge]

But our studies of wolves for more than 40 years differ from the state’s five-year statewide population estimate, because ours have been done annually in a single area,

Here is what a scientific study would be like:

You don't deal with a single area. You identify some number of areas. It would take at least four because you would need at least two for the "treatment" of having wolves around and two for the "control" of not having wolves around. But, really, you'd be better off if you had like 60 so you could have at least 30 in each group.

Then you would randomly assign some of the areas to the "having wolves" treatment group and some to the "no wolves" control group.

Then you'd let things proceed for some time established prior to the start of the experiment. Then you'd record and analyze the results

That's a scientific study. The people claiming to have shown a cause and effect relationship between presence of wolves and whatever effects they're saying that has did not do one.

[Wedgebuster]

Want to restore balance in Yellowstone, reintroduce the Shoshone Tribe back in there, and keep 'em there. No guns and no liquor, just some instruction in remastering the craft of making stone tools, they will have that gross overpopulation of bison under control pronto.

Find it quite ironic that the NPS is so horrified of non native species occupying National Parks lands and water, ie Mountain Goats in Olympic National Park, and Lake Trout in Yellowstone Lake, and spending jillions of tax dollars to remove both. Meanwhile they are all on board for introducing the Canadian Grey Wolf where Rocky Mountain Timber Wolves were native, that strain is now gone for good.

Deer in Yellowstone? Never had an overpopulation problem with deer.

[JohnStOnge]

You know, I'm thinking maybe they can kill two birds with one stone and introduce Siberian Tigers in Yellowstone. Ok so they might eat a few people but what the heck.

Looks like a win/win. They ought to be suited to that environment and ought to love the prey available there. Meanwhile it'd be a chance to increase the number in their species. You think herbivores would be nervous about going where there's cover for predators now? Introduce tigers and THEN watch how concerned they get!

Let's do it! They'd fit right in.