Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees

livescience.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 238 posts

Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees

#11

Post by plemer »

incomingpain wrote: post #2

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?

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.

Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees

#12

Post by mousethatroared »

laughingcurve wrote: post #7
incomingpain wrote: post #2

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?

“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.

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.

Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees

#13

Post by littlestymaar »

williamdclt wrote: post #8
incomingpain wrote: post #2

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?

> 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?

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

Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees

#14

Post by [deleted] »

asacrowflies wrote: post #4
incomingpain wrote: post #2

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?

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]

Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees

#16

Post by bhaak »

plemer wrote: post #11
incomingpain wrote: post #2

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?

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.

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.

Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees

#18

Post by rustyconover »

bhaak wrote: post #16
plemer wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Yellowstone is a national park, you can’t hunt anything inside the park’s boundaries. Wolves can.

Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees

#19

Post by scott_w »

laughingcurve wrote: post #7
incomingpain wrote: post #2

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?

“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.

Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees

#20

Post by sarchertech »

mousethatroared wrote: post #12
laughingcurve wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

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 exper…

>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.

Post reply on HN