Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by FergusArgyll » Sun, Jul 27, 2025, 2:59 PM UTC

sghiassy wrote: post #67

mkw5053 wrote: 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…

I think one approach would be; restoring it to a known stable equilibrium. Meaning, if without wolves things continue to deteriorate and clearly hasn't reached a stable equilibrium but you know that with them things were stable over some long term period then you should reintroduce them

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

#72

Post by ChrisMarshallNY » Sun, Jul 27, 2025, 3:05 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #68

sghiassy wrote: post #67

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.

I remember when it was announced that smallpox was eradicated (Yeah, I'm old enough to have a smallpox vaccination scar).

I remember someone moaning about how we had driven a species to extinction.

We're a funny lot, really. I've learned not to take us too seriously; especially the folks that take themselves very seriously.

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

#73

Post by kergonath » Sun, Jul 27, 2025, 3:07 PM UTC

cadamsdotcom wrote: post #6

Yellowstone seems like one of the most resilient ecosystems we do science on, seems it can reorganize to respond to changes in species. Can other ecosystems do this? Or is Yellowstone the only one?

It is one of the better studied ones. What makes you think this sort of things does not happen elsewhere? Yellowstone has the advantage of being in the US, where there are a lot of people studying these things.

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

#74

Post by perlgeek » Sun, Jul 27, 2025, 3:08 PM UTC

rr808 wrote: 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?

Losing stock to wolves and bears was why we used to have shepherds, shepherd dogs, fences etc, at least in Europe.

Eradicating predators created a very convenient, intermittent period where this was less of a necessity, but it also had quite negative externalities.

So the question isn't "is the greater good more important than the people who live there?", but more "is the greater good more important than the convenience of some people who live there?"

This is a question we have to ask ourselves a lot; nobody wants to live near a landfill, a prison, a sewage treatment plant etc, and yet we want them for the greater good.

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

#75

Post by xhkkffbf » Sun, Jul 27, 2025, 3:10 PM UTC

sghiassy wrote: post #67

mkw5053 wrote: 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…

I've got to agree. I like Aspen trees, but I like Elk better.

It sure sounds like we're just choosing the species we like. It's like a big walled garden.

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

#76

Post by carlosjobim » Sun, Jul 27, 2025, 3:13 PM UTC

rr808 wrote: 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?

I think it's very obvious that it is more important what people like me who sit on the other side of the world thinks about wolves in Yellowstone, than what the people living there think.

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

#77

Post by subscribed » Sun, Jul 27, 2025, 3:16 PM UTC

sghiassy wrote: post #67

mkw5053 wrote: 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…

I often hear this argument, "oh, but how far can we possibly go??! But deer are pretty?!", especially from farmers and grouse shooting estates here in the UK.

It's wild, because it's so easy to measure and asses: an ecological desert, dying ecosystem, rich in single overgrazing specie is unequivocally bad.

Rich, lush ecosystems sustaining great biodiversity and ecologically unique features (eg chalk streams or temperate rainforests in the UK) are good. Killing everything for the sake of one specie: Bad.

More on that if your position is honest: https://www.monbiot.com/2025/05/12/the-commoner-kings/

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

#78

Post by sdenton4 » Sun, Jul 27, 2025, 3:21 PM UTC

sghiassy wrote: post #67

mkw5053 wrote: 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…

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 prey species would evolve out of the overpopulation problem eventually. However, species that evolve with a predator tend to reproduce more quickly, which helps avoid being completely wiped out by the predator - when the population constraint impose by the predator is removed, the prey population explodes, leading to particularly pronounced problems.

(Perhaps if we had to contend with some homo-vampirus, we wouldn't have global climate change...)

Overall, humans already interfered in the shape of the ecosystem by removing wolves. You're correct that there's no objective 'correct' state for an ecosystem. But it is worthwhile to help balance ecosystems, especially when they have been unbalanced by our own interventions. Without restoration work, we're headed to a world with humans, livestock, and the few species that manage to live on our margins.

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

#79

Post by zomiaen » Sun, Jul 27, 2025, 3:21 PM UTC

sghiassy wrote: post #67

mkw5053 wrote: 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…

I wouldn't say pre-human settlement, since Natives were in these areas for many years, but they didn't have the desire to mass hunt wolves (and culturally, would not do so). So pre-US colonialism, perhaps.

Philosophically though you're correct- humans very easily see themselves as "apart" from the environment, when really we're just another mammal doing our thing. We are nature as much as we are in it, even for all of our tools and manufacturing.

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

#80

Post by zomiaen » Sun, Jul 27, 2025, 3:24 PM UTC

xhkkffbf wrote: post #75

sghiassy wrote: post #67

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…

I've got to agree. I like Aspen trees, but I like Elk better. It sure sounds like we're just choosing the species we like. It's like a big walled garden.

The Aspen trees provide ecosystem benefits to animals other than Elk-- birds, etc. Shorter grasses allow smaller animals to live and hide.

It's not choosing species we like as much as that there was previously an equilibrium all ecosystems trend towards, and our influence (killing the wolves) lead to significant ecosystem imbalances that hurt more than just wolves.