Live data from Hacker News

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

livescience.com

61–70 of 238 posts

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

#61

This is great news! Why doesn't fish and game just increase the number of elk tags they sell? There are multiple ways to reduce the elk population.

There are other studies that show that reintroduction of wolves also appeared to lead to a decrease in coyotes and changed the populations and behaviors of other prey animals, in turn changing other plant populations. This particular headline does not indicate all the apparent changes. These second and third order effects are not things a state fish and game body would particularly care about until it was forced to by other arms of government.

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

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know, the science on this is far from settled. There is no consensus and the evidence in favor of a trophic cascade in Yellowstone came predominantly from two studies done by the same team/person. Later studies failed to replicate findings. Do wolves fix ecosystems? CSU study debunks claims about Yellowstone reintroduction https://eu.coloradoan.com/story/news/2024/02/09/colorado-sta... A good story: Media…

Both links are paywalled so I can't comment on what they say (positive or negative). That said, I did attend an interesting lecture about systems that looks a bit at the Yellowstone as a cautionary tale about extrapolating how a system works from observational data. Basically it came down to there are secondary and tertiary effects from systems variables that express visibly differently depending on both the magnitud…

> Both links are paywalled so I can't comment on what they say (positive or negative).

Fixed!

https://eu.coloradoan.com/story/news/2024/02/09/colorado-sta... | https://archive.is/k0NqZ

https://academic.oup.com/book/26688/chapter-abstract/1954809... | https://annas-archive[.]org/md5/3d5be21998575e23a28fdaa53ff5...

(You will have to replace "[.]" with "." in the above link in case that wasn't obvious.)

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

#64
There’s a raging battle to decimate wolf populations in Montana. I’d encourage any and all to speak up.

https://fwp.mt.gov/aboutfwp/public-comment-opportunities Click on the dropdown for “Fall 2025–Winter 2026 Furbearer and Wolf Trapping and Hunting Seasons and Quotas.”

> Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MTFWP) is proposing new, despicable wolf hunting regulations that could allow up to 500 wolves to be killed. This would increase the number of wolves that can be killed next season by 50 percent, nearly half the state’s entire wolf population. MTFWP is also pushing expanded hunting and trapping rules, including allowing hunters to kill up to 30 wolves per person.

> This proposal comes despite livestock losses remaining near historic lows, with only 35 confirmed cattle deaths in 2024, and a significant drop in the number of wolves killed due to livestock conflicts. It is also worth noting that revenue from wolf hunting licenses is among the lowest ever recorded – which helps explain why these expanded rules are less about science and more about politics, profit, and desperation.

> The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission will vote on this proposal at its next meeting on August 21. In the meantime, public comments are open through August 4, and wolves need your voice. In your comment, consider including the following:

- There is no scientific or ethical reason to kill this many wolves.

- Wolves pose no significant threat to humans.

- Wolves help maintain healthy prey populations by targeting the weak or sick, which may help control the spread of chronic wasting disease in elk and deer.

- Legal hunting can increase poaching.

- Traps and snares are cruel, outdated, and often harm pets and endangered species.

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

#65

It's incredible how much damage we have done to ourselves in the past 250 years, and how much effort do we now need to spend to undo that damage

It's incredible how much good we have done to ourselves in the past 250 years, and how much good we can do in the now and the future.

These replies that simply restate a previous comment by inverting its meaning are really starting to annoy me. They're neither witty nor intelligent. Just lazy and annoying.

Waiting for someone to reply to this doing exactly this

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

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both links are paywalled so I can't comment on what they say (positive or negative). That said, I did attend an interesting lecture about systems that looks a bit at the Yellowstone as a cautionary tale about extrapolating how a system works from observational data. Basically it came down to there are secondary and tertiary effects from systems variables that express visibly differently depending on both the magnitud…

Brilliant observation. Dynamic systems like this are rarely a cut-n-done. Like the study of ozone, with it's seven counter intuitive steps, it is all an evolving study. It also proves the worth of just simple studies over a long period of time. Science used to do a lot of that, and it was very interesting, as many appear on hacker news, but now it seems that cut-n-done grab more popular news. It also bears the questi…

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/paidservices/longitu...

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

#67
post #23

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, not necessarily worse. So when we talk about progress in this context, we’re really measuring against a value-laden idea of what we think nature should look like, not some neutral truth.

That doesn’t mean rewilding is bad—but I do think we should acknowledge that we’re shaping nature to fit human values, not restoring it to some pure, original state.

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

#68
post #23

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…

Another example: mosquitos. We can and should drive them to extinction. The species that feed on humans are nowhere food-web-critical. It's an arbitrary and wrong judgement that we should preserve mosquitos just because they happened to evolve with us. So what if eradicating them would be unnatural? So what if it would technically be a reduction in biodiversity? Not everything natural is good or optimal.

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

#69
post #57

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?

More important than their desire to continue doing business the way they're used to? I'd say so. You phrase it like we're feeding them to the wolves.

It's not just predators vs livestock, there are a bunch of things that we didn't used to understand about ecosystems that we do now. The societal cost of letting people displace or kill wild animals with abandon is quite high.

Zoonotic diseases are the first to come to mind. How many preventable cases of Plague or Lyme disease is that livestock worth to us?

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

#70

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…

Another example: mosquitos. We can and should drive them to extinction. The species that feed on humans are nowhere food-web-critical. It's an arbitrary and wrong judgement that we should preserve mosquitos just because they happened to evolve with us. So what if eradicating them would be unnatural? So what if it would technically be a reduction in biodiversity? Not everything natural is good or optimal.

You seem very well-informed on the matter.
Post reply on HN