141–150 of 238 posts
Not sure where opinion ended up on this, are there dissenting voices still? https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/scientists-debun...
Welcome to the age of social media.
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?
> When will the first human death occur? what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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 chai…
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.
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?
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 wetla…
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…
..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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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?
Well if they liked it, their anscestors wouldn't have killed the wolves in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
There is a "correct" state of nature: one without modern humans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 chai…
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…
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.
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 wetla…
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…