“Many people hoped that introduction of wolves into Yellowstone would bring down elk populations and allow ecosystem restoration,” the Antiplanner noted last week. “While the wolves have changed park dynamics (to the detriment of coyotes but in favor of foxes), they haven’t made much of a dent in elk numbers.”
On the prowl in Yellowstone.
Flickr photo by TBanneck.
While this isn’t entirely wrong, it turns out I am behind on the latest science. Oregon State University ecologist Robert Beschta has shown that, while wolves haven’t greatly reduced elk numbers, they have greatly changed elk behavior. Specifically, by forcing the elk out of meadows and into forests, the wolves have promoted the recovery of willows. That, in turn, is leading to the reestablishment of beaver colonies, which are creating wetlands and promoting habitat for other species.
Don’t have alongside online cialis the accompanying * Grape fruit and all the grapes products should be avoided. Who needs cialis australia online when we can take acai… 7. cialis in On the other hand, Kamagra is a general ED drug and it is available at reduced price. If the sphincter of Oddi is not working correctly, so many diseases and disorders can manifest, which can make it difficult for blood to reach the male sex viagra professional price http://www.devensec.com/rules-regs/decregs111.html organ.
Video of wolves in Oregon taken December 30, 2010.
WIth wolves now entering Oregon and Washington, we can expect to see more ecological changes. Thanks to Andy Stahl for this information.
We had a wolf come thru our camp in the Pasayten near the CDN border two years ago. Too bad they don’t eat Mountain Pine Beetle, they’d havce a banquet.
DS
The Antiplanner wrote:
Specifically, by forcing the elk out of meadows and into forests, the wolves have promoted the recovery of willows. That, in turn, is leading to the reestablishment of beaver colonies, which are creating wetlands and promoting habitat for other species.
This is something I know next-to-nothing about, and I thank and commend you for sharing this knowledge.
Hey Danny Boy. That wasn’t a wolf that ran through your Winnebago camp. It was a poodle that was, like the rest of us, tired of you pissing on other people’s sites.
Substantively, so we can choose high in-migration with many people with money, tons of amenities, lack of buildable land, relatively stable market, high ownership culture…or we can blame it on our wild wolf-poodles.
Many of you planner types probably think that wolves never attack people. That is as false as the rest of your planning education.
Andy posted:
Many of you planner types probably think that wolves never attack people. That is as false as the rest of your planning education.
I have been in areas where wolves are known to roam wild, but have never personally encountered them outside of a zoo.
My understanding is that wolves in the wild don’t want to waste time or energy hunting humans, as there is more “profitable” prey in the form of deer, elk and even moose (depending on geographic location, of course) available to them.
I would be interested in your perspective on this.
This sounds like a fairly good thing. After many years of trying, but failing, to manage our national parks, we seem to be getting a few things right. Ecology is hard and correctly predicting the impacts of change is something that we don’t know enough about to get right (just like economics and urban planning…).
Today’s post is a great example of how biodiversity extends far beyond just the protection of a species for the sake of protecting a species.
RE: “to the detriment of coyotes,” I recently watched an interesting documentary about the coyote. They were hunted in the same manner as wolves and bears back in the day (with the purpose of eradication) but managed to survive much better. The scientist in the film stated that the coyote more effectively adapted and most importantly, evolved (increased birthing cycles), to human interaction than other predators.
The attempted eradication of wolves and bears in the lower 48 was artificially beneficial to the coyote and it’s no wonder that the reintroduction of wolves has added competition.
CP,
I spent 4 months in Denali a few years back and encountered wild wolf packs, grizzly and lynx a handful of times. Your observation is correct as these predators have learned to stay away from humans. Since Denali has been a National Park no human has been mauled by a bear nor attacked by wolves. Several injuries have been recorded due to moose encounters. Wild moose, not the tame ones in Anchorage, can be very aggressive.
Andy’s comment was a preemptive shot across Dan’s bow. Don’t mistake it as a substantive contribution to the conversation.
This is great news! Defenders of Wildlife is a good example of how NGOs effectively protect wildlife populations. According to the WA article, this non-profit has “extended its compensation program for losses due to wolf predation to include Washington state.” If we want to reintroduce locally extirpated species, the most effective action is for those who want the animals returned to the ecosystem to pay for property damage caused by those animals.
Ha ha ha. You might want to stay out of the crossfire, Mr. Bennett.
Denali National Park is just an Alaska Disneyland. Even then Dan’s wet dream about national parks can’t make enough money from the blue and grey hair cruise ship crowd to pay for Dan’s pornography habit.
If you believe all the environmental propaganda about wolves having ethical barriers to killing humans, you might want to talk to Candice Berner. Dan can make up an interview, but the rest of you will have a hard time talking to her because she is dead and was eaten by wolves last year.
The environmentalist lies never end. The noble Red Man, the Noble Wolf, the Noble Al Gore, and the barely tolerable Asshole Dan.
I’m going to step into the steaming pile here to state that cars kill far more people on the way to national parks and other natural areas than the wolves that live in these areas ever have or could. Cars also lack ethical barriers to killing humans as evidenced by the ~400,000 lives they claimed in America over the last decade.
Fear of wolves is unfounded:
“The risks of being attacked a wolf…are clearly so low that they are virtually impossible to quantify, especially when compared to the other background risks associated with living.”
bennett wrote:
Wild moose, not the tame ones in Anchorage, can be very aggressive.
As you might have noticed from previous posts, I have relatives in Finland and Sweden, and both nations have plenty of moose, even in relatively well-developed areas. Moose hunting is a big deal there during the fall (and the moose season starts as early as 1 September in some regions).
But I have been told that moose can be dangerous, and a wounded moose can pose an extreme hazard to any human that encounters one. So the hunting rules are pretty strict, and there is significant emphasis on assuring that if a hunter shoots a moose, that the shot be fatal.
Wow, here everyone’s going for Dan without even the slightest provocation on my way part. That being said, can Dan now answer the following questions (which he failed to answer in the past, despite using these claims as part of his ideological war-chest):
1. Proof that central banking is required for advanced/prosperous economies to flourish?
2. The reasoning behind why a gold standard is somehow a “reality-refuted†solution?
3. How eliminating the Federal Reserve will somehow instantly cause the entire country to slide into the ocean?
Of course Dan can answer those questions as he has ability to run to The Antiplanner for personal protection if his ego gets bruised. But here is what I think he thinks:
1. Central banking is obviously required, without need of any citation, because every central business districts have banks. The wicked suburbs have banks, but those are only “branches” of the central banks. Most people don’t realize this, but those “ATMs” in suburban malls and grocery stores are really there because of connections to the central banks. If there is not massive subsidies to commuter rail, the workers couldn’t get to central banks, and thus no one to fill up the ATMs in the suburbs.
2. Gold is just a heavy piece of rock. Planners like Dan need to paid in cash or in electronic money. Thus gold does not get the approval of planners and is “reality-refuted”. What happens next if planners aren’t satiated is in #3….
3. Eliminating the Federal Reserve will totally destroy 2-3 classes at the Planner Department in many Universities. Thus there will be a shortage of government planners, and without government planners the country will just slide into the ocean. How can geologic plates survive if planners don’t decide where they should go?
This is something I know next-to-nothing about, and I thank and commend you for sharing this knowledge.
Indeed, I’m glad to see Randal finally has this knowledge, as IIRC we’ve discussed it several times here – a textbook example of top-down control.
DS
Oh God.
May there be a subject that Dan doesn’t assert he is an expert about.
May those humble commentors who have more degrees than Dan, went to better schools than Dan, and yet don’t brag as much as Dan, may these humble people not give up. May they keep mocking Dan day in, and day out, so that the truly intelligent people for and against the Antiplanner can have an intelligent conversation.
May the rest of us just have lots of fun mocking Dan. Let Dan (or is he actually the Antiplanner?) continue to demonstrate just how unprofessional this state employment job category can be.
The contrarian in me almost wants to take Dan’s side here because he is outnumbered.
But…I also feel a bit like Larry David at a stand-up performance many years ago when he famously walked onstage, surveyed the faces in the crowd and had second thoughts. “Nah, I don’t think so,” he muttered before walking off the stage.
I guess I’ve argued with enough ideological opponents recently (re: Obamacare, union thuggery) to know that if I “compromise” or show a willingness to meet them halfway, such conciliatory gestures are viewed as weaknesses, as capitulation. The end result is that they respect me even less.
So to hell with it.
“…if I “compromise†or show a willingness to meet them halfway, such conciliatory gestures are viewed as weaknesses, as capitulation. The end result is that they respect me even less.”
Nothing could be farther from the truth. That’s how things work on the hill, but here, even the biggest nitwits appreciate compromise.
Once the wolves were gone the elk began to take over. Over the next few years conditions of Yellowstone National Park declined drastically. A team of scientists visiting Yellowstone in 1929 and 1933 reported, “The range was in deplorable conditions when we first saw it, and its deterioration has been progressing steadily since then.†By this time many biologists were worried about eroding land and plants dying off. The elk were multiplying inside the park and deciduous, woody species such as aspen and cottonwood suffered from overgrazing. The park service started trapping and moving the elk and, when that was not effective, killing them. This killing continued for more than 30 years. This method helped the land quality from worsening, but didn’t improve the conditions. At times, people would mention bringing wolves back to Yellowstone to help control the elk population. The Yellowstone managers were not eager to bring back wolves, especially after having so successfully ridding the park of them, so they continued killing elk. In the late 1960s, local hunters began to complain to their congressmen that there were too few elk, and the congressmen threatened to stop funding Yellowstone. Killing elk was given up as a response, and then the population of the elk increased exponentially. With the rapid increase in the number of elk, the condition of the land again went quickly downhill. The destruction of the landscape affected many other animals. With the wolves gone, the population of coyotes increased dramatically, which led to an extreme decrease in the number of pronghorn antelope. The reintroduction program has only been around for a decade or so. Let it run it’s course for little while longer.
Anyway I’ve also posted stuff onto this article:
http://inhabitat.com/godaddy-ceo-hunts-elephants-for-sport/
As for the elk, we could curb their numbers a little. Better yet, it’s time to get old painless out of bag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR37Z5DzsTg
The contrarian in me almost wants to take Dan’s side here because he is outnumbered.
That’s a nice gesture, but I have the facts on my side. Even the media know about these basics. For years now. Its a top-down control. Of course the ranchers and their private property “rights” are sad, which may explain some agnotology.
DS
The good old Dan we know and love. Arrogant. All-knowing. All-aware.
All are aware the low-quality sockpuppets arise from the same bottle.
Of course the ranchers and their private property “rights†are sad about the wolves, which may explain some agnotology and disinformation campaigns.
DS
Can you please post proof that I am some “sockpuppet” and not just another poster, thanks. Typical liberal tactic to call opponents “sockpuppets”, “trolls”, etc.
Speaking of top-down control basics, and an interesting point in a previous thread about man’s imprint on ecosystems planet-wide, the phenomenal Carl Zimmer has an excellent post* on two topics that have arisen on this blog lately: top-down control and man’s influence on ecosystems. For those so inclined and/or with curiosity, an outstanding read.
DS
* http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2011/03/31/the-human-lake/#more-4272
Frank; This is great news! Defenders of Wildlife is a good example of how NGOs effectively protect wildlife populations. According to the WA article, this non-profit has “extended its compensation program for losses due to wolf predation to include Washington state.†If we want to reintroduce locally extirpated species, the most effective action is for those who want the animals returned to the ecosystem to pay for property damage caused by those animals.
THWM: Though why don’t farmers take better security of their live stock instead in the first place?
Though why don’t farmers take better security of their live stock instead in the first place?
And in addition, we can have the ranchers pay for the damage caused by their livestock.
That is: we can retire livestock on marginal land, pay the ranchers to stop eroding marginal land, and then we can have larger areas of land that are not impacted by livestock.
DS
“And in addition, we can have the ranchers pay for the damage caused by their livestock.”
Agreed. Why is it far cheaper on national forest land to graze one cow for one month than for a family to camp for one night? The impact of the cow is many orders of magnitude higher than the campers. This subsidization of the ranching industry must stop.
Andy writes:
Even then Dan’s wet dream about national parks
Mr. O’Toole … really???? Really???? Is this the level of discourse you want promoted on your blog?
Dan writes:
low-quality sockpuppets
Mr. O’Toole … still looking for civility on your blog …
Looks like I HAVE found common ground with Dan because I also like Carl Zimmer (honestly).
I especially like his piece on the duck penis:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/12/22/kinkiness-beyond-kinky/
Oh Andrew, poor baby, are your feelings hurt? There, there, need a Kleenex?