In addition, the reintroduction of wolves has become a form of natural selection as the wolves prey upon the weaker more feeble in a herd. I.e. they would attack the weakest of the group hence allowing the stronger animals to reproduce which therefore results in a stronger population as a whole as the stronger animals pass on their stronger genes. [2] Without the wolves present this form of natural selection will not be present. Yellowstone biologist Doug Smith says, “We’ve got a leaner, meaner elk herd.” [7]
As said, the absence of the wolves has resulted on their large prey feasting on the newly growing vegetation and trees. The reintroduction of wolves will therefore result in benefits for the landscape as it will give the young newly growing trees a chance to grow to full height. This is especially important for the tree aspen. Ecologists William Ripple and Robert Beschta of Oregon State University has researched into this via an in-situ experimental study and found the possible reason was that the favoured prey of the grey wolves (the elk) liked eating aspen seedlings. And so, a new population was unable to grow. They found this out by looking at the tree rings of annual growth of the trees, allowing them to age the trees. They found that new aspen trees had stopped being produce during the first half of the 20th century. They, after some more research, had reached the above conclusion. [8]
Also, another affected plant was willows and the reintroduction of wolves had been a betterment to the willows which resulted in more food for beavers. Also, they use the willows for the building of their dams and lodges which may be the reason for the increase of beaver population in Yellowstone. [8] This is gone into extensively in the documentary In The Valley of The Wolves, Reintroduction of the Wolves by PBS.
The benefits of using an in-situ experiment in biological terms is very clear and simple. There may be factors in place affecting a species in a specific area that is not affecting the same species in another area, therefore by doing an in-situ experiment this make your conclusions more likely to be accurate. In addition, in this circumstance it is a necessity to do an in-situ experiment and an ex-situ experiment will be completely inappropriate and will make the conclusions almost definitely inaccurate.
Overall, it is clear that wolves are a benefit to the ecosystem at Yellowstone National Park as they only better and increase the biodiversity in the area and do not lead to an extinction in the area. Also, this was the natural ecosystem in Yellowstone and it was by the interference of humans that this natural balance was shifted and so the reintroduction is in essence, humans undoing their original mistake.
Effects on Society/Economic Factors
The ranch owners in Wyoming, the home of Yellowstone, were firmly against the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone. This was because they felt they were viscous creatures that only killed their cattle and were seen as a major threat to their business. This statistically has been found to be in accurate. It was due to this strong opposition, which is now even going on in other area of the world were wolf reintroduction is being tried, like New Mexico, that the wolf reintroduction programme look long to happen. [8]
In 1987 Defenders of Wildlife introduced the “wolf compensation fund” that eased ranch owners and lifted some of the burden cause by wolves to be eased. They used donations to pay ranch owners the amount of money their cattle would sell for based on average cost of the animal in that year. A final reintroduction plan came together in 1994, after two decades of dispute (the original wolf reintroduction team was put together by the government in 1974).
In Montana 2003, wolves killed 500 sheep whilst coyotes killed 11,800. [8] This suggests that the greatest threat for cattle is NOT wolves and they were in actual fact just been made a scape goat once more.
Effects on Yellowstone Park
The reintroduction of wolves, as priory mentioned, has benefitted the ecosystem at Yellowstone. The effects on vegetation means that new trees are growing, resulting in better landscaping. And the increase in populations in certain animals means there is a greater amount of biodiversity. Yellowstone business has boomed. The wolves are an attraction for the park and as they are a betterment to the ecosystem there and there return had resulted in the return of other organisms this has increased business for Yellowstone. “In Yellowstone National Park, recreational visitation has grown by more than 25% in the last 14 years” [6]
14 years ago was roughly around the time the wolves were reintroduced, this suggests that the reintroduction of the wolves has increased business for Yellowstone. This may however be indirect as the article from the above quote, had talked about how bison are a huge attraction in Yellowstone as well as its natural wonders, like geysers.
This increase in business for Yellowstone is of huge benefit also to the people of Wyoming as it means an increase in business for local businesses. In addition, it means that the running of Yellowstone is more likely to continue, not that it was ever likely to close. Also, money is made by the government through tourism as Yellowstone is bringing in tourists from different countries. The wolves therefore are in actual fact an indirect benefit to the society and area of Wyoming and are of little detriment in comparison to other predators to ranch owners.
Hunting Seasons
Hunting is without doubt the greatest threat to wolves, past and present. It was due to the consistent killing of wolves that the wolves became extinct in Yellowstone in the first place. The below table was tallied by Adolph Murie, a wildlife biologist, in his report Fauna Series No. 4—Fauna of the National Parks of the United States-Ecology of the Coyote in the Yellowstone National Park.
The above table therefore poses a question that must be addressed: was it worth bringing the wolves back? The wolves had without a doubt added great value to Yellowstone in many way however, if they are to be hunted to the realm of extinction again then this voids the entire point of the reintroduction and the fact of the matter is, though hunting is prohibited within the park, wolves are still being hunted in Wyoming. For example, an alpha she-wolf was found to be shot dead. In addition eight wolves that were fitted with GPS collars were all found dead. [5]
On a side note, GPS collars are a very useful tool in monitoring the behaviour of a species as it allows scientists to track were they go and therefore learn about the behaviour. In addition to this, it allows scientists to keep tabs on a specific animal to see how certain factors in the wild may affect it, this is particularly useful for animals that had been held in captivity throughout their lives.
Due to hunting, primarily, it is clear that there is now a negative correlation of the number of packs and total number of wolves in Yellowstone. However as the number of pups that are able to survive is ever fluctuating this suggests that the wolves can still survive. In addition, the fact that wolves can not be shot inside the park means that the packs that are within the park will still flourish and so the land within the park would have the strongest of packs as these lands would be the lands that the wolves would want most. This means, that the wolf species within the National Park itself will, in a worst case scenario, still be able to survive and not only will they survive but they will be the strongest of the wolves in the area whilst the wolves outside the park will die out. However, this still allows the benefits to the ecosystem within Yellowstone to benefit. Overall, this therefore suggests that the wolves were without doubt a viable investment by the government and the reintroduction was of benefit.
Conclusion
To conclude, the wolves of Yellowstone were without doubt worth it and their reintroduction had resulted into a host of benefits. Benefits like the stronger wider ecosystem at Yellowstone, the increase in visitors to Yellowstone to name a few. It is without doubt that the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park is a very good thing and it was most certainly worth it.
References:
[1] Author: National Park Service
Name: Yellowstone Elk
Source:
No date given
(2) Authors: Mech L.D., D.W. Smith, K. M. Murphy, and D. R. MacNulty.
Name: Winter severity and wolf predation on a formerly wolf-free elk herd
Source: Journal of Wildlife Management, 65:998-1003.
Date: 2001
(3) Authors: Berger, K.M. and E.M. Gese.
Title: Does interference competition with wolves limit the distribution and abundance
of coyotes?
Source: Journal of Animal Ecology 76:1075-1085.
Date: 2007
(4) Authors: Ripple, W.J. and R.L. Bestcha.
Title: Linking wolves to willows via risk-sensitive foraging by ungulates in the northern
Yellowstone ecosystem
Source: Forest ecology and management 230(1-3):96-106.
Date: 2006.
[5] Authors: Matt Williams
Title: Yellowstone's popular alpha female wolf shot dead by hunters outside park
Source: The Guardian
Date: Sunday 9 December 2012
Link to Web Version:
Communication
[6] Author: National Park Service
Name: Impacts on Recreation
Source:
No date given
[7] Author: YellowstonePark.com
Name: ELK POPULATION DECREASING
Source:
Date: MARCH 28, 2012
[8] Author: Barton Melissa (Journal of Young Investigators)
Name: Restoration or Destruction: The Controversy over Wolf Reintroduction
Source:
Date: September, 2005
[9] Author National Park Service
Name: Yellowstone Wolf Project Annual Reports
Title:
Date: Varying Years (1996 – 2011) at December
TOTAL MARKS- 24/40
by
samadahmed96gmailcom (student)
