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?
Yes.
Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
91–100 of 238 posts
Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how much effort do we now need to spend to undo that Moving a few wolfs, I would hardly call that effort! Stopping regulations and allowing some hunters in Yellowstone would have similar effects! It is more like morons, who do not understand biology are in goverment! Overprotection allowed elk overpopulation!
For clarification, I wouldn't say stopping regulation. It should be "updating regulation" - either increasing hunt quotas, or having an 'open season' time.
[flagged]
Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
#93I 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 convenie…
Convenience, lifestyle and the ability to hire fewer people (keeping more money). If it doesn’t make money after expenses, get a second or third job like most artisans.
Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
#94I 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?
[deleted]
Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is how much of that power will we use to do good for the rest of the species on the planet? I’ve just finished reading “Not the end of the world” and found it to be an informative and balanced discussion on the topic that recognizes the vast benefits of human development (to humans), the cost to the rest of the planet and the progress we’ve made in the past 50 years in undoing some of the harm. This is a…
Which exact species do you want to help? Ticks, mosquitos and anthrax or more like birds, trees and elk? Where do you draw the line?
What a strange question. As a starter I’d like to see us help trees, coral, other primates and megafauna as much as possible. The former because they support so much other biodiversity and the latter because they’re nice to have in the world. Generally speaking though I favor sustainability where that means continuing to improve the quality of life for humans, especially those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, whilst trying to minimize the number of other species we drive to extinction. Again, nuance is key here - I don’t think my inability to enumerate every species worthy of help means that we should just dismiss the effort to help other species.
Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
#96Earlier 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 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 temper…
Indeed. For the UK in particular you clearly can't have "What it was without people" because that's far too long ago, there aren't records so we'd only be guessing. The New Forest - near me - was built about a thousand years ago, it's not "supposed" to be like that, it was built on purpose and it takes considerable maintenance to keep it that way, felling trees, managing trails, maintaining bridges and so on. Things like "The pigs eat acorns, that way the ponies don't eat the acorns and die†" could not possibly work without humans managing the forest. Left to their own devices the pigs would destroy that forest in a few years, and then the ponies die too, humans allow pigs out for a set period, to eat lots of acorns, then bring them all back by law.
We could try to build what was there before the forest, but it would be extremely disruptive to all the people who live there, and what for? The Forest isn't very useful today, but it's pretty and we know it's stable, and it has some uses, we grow some trees there, we farm some pigs and ponies, tourists come to see it - there are many worse options.
† Acorns are poisonous. Don't eat acorns without proper preparation. Unless you're a pig or a squirrel or something. In which case how are you reading this note?
Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
#97I 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?
Colorado, at least, provides several resources for minimizing and compensating wolf depredation.
https://cpw.widencollective.com/assets/share/asset/pzqhipzb1... (see Funding)
Cursory search shows that not just Colorado does this.
Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
#98It'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…
One way to measure this that isn't moral judgements is the ecological depth of an environment. If one part of the system is destroyed (e.g. a blight on plant A) how devastating to the rest of the system will that be?
One of the hallmarks of human engineered environments is how shallow and fragile they are. Changes, like the reintroduction of wolves, are "good" because they give us deeper and more resilient environments
Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
#99I 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?
Or it's a reflection on is individualism really a thing when everything is actually interconnected?
"The greater good" is a bit abstract, and your framing suggests it's somehow separate from "the people who live there". A different framing of this question is should individuals be able to degrade ecosystem wealth in order to maximize their personal wealth?
This is the climate story in microcosm. We all know burning carbon is against the "greater good", but if we can pretend that our high-energy lifestyle is somehow independent and unconnected to the planetary ecological systems that support us, then of course, why shouldn't I mortgage my descendants' future for some toys today.
Re: Return of wolves to Yellowstone has led to a surge in aspen trees
#100It'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…
[deleted]