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

https://www.livescience.com/animals/land-mammals/return-of-wolves-to-yellowstone-has-led-to-a-surge-in-aspen-trees-unseen-for-80-years

by geox • 12 months ago

410 220 12 months ago

livescience.com

Paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037811272...

incomingpain• 12 months ago

They only moved few dozen wolves, over 1000km from their homes, which is not going to have any significant consequences. Even today there's only about 100 wolves in the park?

2,200,000 acres, with 100 wolves.

Then they've made the claim that those 100 wolves in 2.2million acres has resulted in plants and fish returning? As opposed to their efforts doing nothing at all?

rustyconover2• 12 months ago

I'm not a biologist, but I grew up in West Yellowstone around the time wolves were reintroduced. Their return—and its impact—has been extensively studied by experts far more qualified than me.

That said, I believe wolves had a profound effect on the Yellowstone ecosystem, particularly on elk and deer populations. Before their reintroduction, those species had few natural predators beyond hunters, vehicles, bears, and the occasional mountain lion. The imbalance led to overgrazing and the spread of diseases like Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in elk.

asacrowflies3• 12 months ago

The science is pretty clear on this Im not sure what you exactly are criticizing other than you don't like the vibes or vaguely incredulous? It doesn't take many wolves to change the behavior of nearly every herbivore they prey upon. Which then changes the river bank erosion. Which causes hundreds of more species to change behavior.... Trophic Cascades are not really up for debate .

ForOldHack4• 12 months ago

No one here used apex predictor, but many described it. The science is clear that we need to study this more, much more. We only know a brief glimpse on terms of geologic time.

The effect on quaking aspens in Pardo is also something we need to study long term. Are the two related?

laughingcurve• 12 months ago

“I do not like the results!” Or “The result does not make sense to me!” are not valid criticisms of science. They are arguments made from emotion. And in your case, based on your account history, it’s clearly something political for you. I would encourage you to write that kind of commentary in a more appropriate venue. Like the bathroom stall of your local truck stop. Just not here.

mousethatroared2• 12 months ago

But it's perfectly valid to question results that don't make sense, and the role of the supposed expert is to explain why it does.

After all, off in a democracy an expert expects to be paid by taxpayers to make decisions that affect the taxpayer the expert should be, at the very least, be able to explain himself in an intelligible manner.

Thats the bare minimum of expectations. I also expect the taxpayer funded expert to provided full access to his data, notes and analysis software.

Im considered an expert in thermodynamics, materials science and E&M. The people that pay me routinely don't understand what I'm working on, but they expect me to explain myself.

scott_w2• 12 months ago

While I didn’t like the tone of OP I do understand where they’re coming from. Assuming what they’re saying is correct, it’s a valid question where explaining the mechanism is a solid response.

I’ll say that I’ve not read the article so if it’s in the article then I would rather you just point to that, rather than make this response.

williamdclt• 12 months ago

Then they've made the claim that those 100 wolves in 2.2million acres has resulted in plants and fish returning? As opposed to their efforts doing nothing at all?

They've studied it and came to these conclusions, yes. Have you studied it and come to different conclusions?

littlestymaar2• 12 months ago

You're responding to someone who believe that omnivorous animals don't exist[1], so you can assume that they will disregard whatever biologists say and trust their feelings rather than reality.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44674445

plemer• 12 months ago

While I find your counter argument vague, it did prompt me to dig in and find that human hunting is arguably still the bigger suppressor of elk population. However, that’s been going on since the ‘40s.

The reintroduction of wolves is associated with an immediate, steady, and durable decline in elk - i.e. pushed the ecosystem past an inflection point into a new equilibrium.

bhaak2• 12 months ago

It’s also possible that wolves hunt in a different way than humans, or different types (regarding age, gender, or health maybe) of elks.

It’s an interesting question and this could be empirically tested if human hunting would be slowly reduced.

Retric• 12 months ago

The simple answer for how is the elk population in that 2,200,000 acres dropped from ~18,000 to ~2,000 or 1 elk per 2 square miles.

16,000 elk do quiet a lot, especially as they aren’t spending nearly as much time along river banks. Which changes what plants are in and around steams and thus what’s happening in and around those streams.

quesera2• 12 months ago

100 wolves in 2.2million acres

Without engaging with the rest of your comment, and even assuming that wolves are distributed evenly (of course they are not, and some parts of the park are not suitable for wolves):

This equates to 1 wolf per chunk of land measuring about 6 miles square, so about 15% smaller than the city of San Francisco (which is a small city).

Wolves are territorial and they move through forest quite well. A ~35 square mile territory wouldn't be out of the question.

Edit: Notes from elsewhere:

Wolf packs in Minnesota, for example, can have territories that range from 7.5 mi2 to >214 mi2 — a 28 fold difference in territory size
Average territory size in northwestern Montana was 220 square kilometers (185 square miles) but was highly variable (USFWS et al. 2002). Average territory size for Yellowstone Gray Wolves was larger, averaging 891 square kilometers (344 square miles) (USFWS et al. 2002).
Pack size is highly variable due to the birth of pups, but is typically between 4 to 8 wolves. Territory sizes range from 25 to 150 square miles; neighboring packs can share common borders, but territories rarely overlap by more than a mile.

cwmoore3• 12 months ago

This is a great point. 2.2M acres was posited to sound so vast.

Territory sizes range from 25 to 150 square miles

That is 15,000 to 100,000 acres per half-dozen wolves in the GP's units.

owenthejumper• 12 months ago

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

hagbard_c2• 12 months ago

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.

ysavir2• 12 months ago

Downvoted as this comment feels like it's trying to be witty/upshowing the parent comment without actually engaging with it or offering anything of substance. If the comment was along the lines of "yes, but we've also done a lot of good, let's reflect on both", great. But that's not what it was. Instead it feels like a statement that's trying to argue with the parent comment despite the parent comment never saying we haven't done any good.

mc32• 12 months ago

It’s is! Just in medicine alone. And then economically, as well as justice. From 98% of the people living in abject poverty, no pairs of shoes, two changes of clothes, selling off relatives for money, dying from simple infections… to where we are today. It’s like the glory days of Rome but much better.

rgreek42• 12 months ago

Surely this is the best of all possible worlds, Dr. Pangloss.

jebarker4• 12 months ago

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 nuanced topic and deserves that kind of debate.

quickthrowman• 12 months ago

Are you really promoting the philosophy of Leibnizian Optimism in 2025?

I suggest reading Candide by Voltaire, first published 266 years as a critique to the philosophy you are currently espousing.

mykowebhn3• 12 months ago

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

throw83944i888• 12 months ago

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!

Incipient• 12 months ago

For clarification, I wouldn't say stopping regulation. It should be "updating regulation" - either increasing hunt quotas, or having an 'open season' time.

michaelhoney• 12 months ago

It really wouldn't. Hunters aren't very effective for deer control: they are interested in shooting impressive bucks, which doesn't make a substantial dent on populations.

cadamsdotcom• 12 months ago

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?

__MatrixMan__3• 12 months ago

A recent biology teacher of mine claims that military bases often contain ecosystems that are:

- intact enough to have quick bounce back behavior upon species reintroduction and

- small enough for you to have a good idea about which species are present

- come with a built-in control variable: the civilian space on the other side of the border represents what would have happened if we had let economics have its way with the land

Maybe you don't need quite that level of protection to see such effects, but generally you do need some. Throwing some wolves at a once-forest that's now half way to being a desert will not always save that forest.

kergonath• 12 months ago

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.

trgn2• 12 months ago

Ardennes too, according to our guide at least, reintroduction of wolves changed ecosystem

atentaten• 12 months ago

How does returning wolves to ecosystem effect the mountain lion population? Can we balance things out or are we shuffling problems around?

jebarker4• 12 months ago

Im speculating, but mountain lions were probably doing fine before the early 1800s too so they likely just balance each other out naturally if there’s competition over the same prey. I doubt humans need to do anything.

djoldman• 12 months ago

The subtitle explains:

"Gray wolves were reintroduced ... to help control the numbers of elk that were eating young trees"

flkenosad• 12 months ago

They should try it in nfld

mkw5053• 12 months ago

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 wetlands.

- With healthier riparian zones came deeper pools, colder water, and a surge in native trout and song-bird nests.

[1] https://phys.org/news/2025-02-predators-ecosystems-yellowsto...

sushibowl• 12 months ago

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 bias in trophic cascade research in Yellowstone National Park

https://academic.oup.com/book/26688/chapter-abstract/1954809...

ChuckMcM2• 12 months ago

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 magnitude of the system elements influence and the time where it it changes. Thus making "simple" conclusions like 'wolves did this' often insufficient to explain system behavior and sometimes outright incorrect.

However, the introduction of wolves did, incontrovertibly, add a system element that had not been present before. Exactly what that element was, and how it expressed is up for interpretation :-)

bitexploder• 12 months ago

https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecm.... CSU study

ricardobeat• 12 months ago

That looks like a quite biased interpretation of these studies. Direct quotes:

The average height of willows in fenced and dammed plots 20 years after the initiation of the experiment exceeded 350 cm, while the height in controls averaged less than 180 cm
This suggests that well watered plants could tolerate relatively heavy browsing. It also shows that the absence of engineering by beavers suppressed willow growth to a similar extent as did browsing

They posit that the growth in control groups not matching the fenced areas is evidence of wolves reintroduction not having the effects they are said to have. It is a pretty unconvincing argument since there are so many other variables involved. They also prove that IF the wolves have indirectly lead to either the return of beaver dams, or reduced elk browsing, there is undoubtedly an impact in tree growth, which is a positive result regardless.

Their theory that things will never return to their original state, and instead will settle into a new alternate equilibrium is probably correct, but does not seem like the definitive blow to the wolf theory that it’s made out to be.

GlibMonkeyDeath• 12 months ago

And this one from the National Park Service web site, funded by NSF:

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/ys-24-1-the-challenge-of-unde...

TL;DR - the observed reduction of the elk herd correlated with wolf introduction, but also with an increase in cougars, grizzly bears, and even bison, all of which either reduce or compete with elk. Human hunting also added pressure, but that has been limited as the herd size reduced. It is complicated.

sghiassy2• 12 months ago

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.

quotemstr• 12 months ago

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.

FergusArgyll• 12 months ago

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

xhkkffbf• 12 months ago

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.

subscribed2• 12 months ago

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/

sdenton44• 12 months ago

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.

zomiaen2• 12 months ago

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.

doctorpangloss• 12 months ago

we’re shaping nature to fit human values

Biodiversity is a good measure of ecosystem health, no? Is it really a human value?

BurningFrog2• 12 months ago

One point I rarely see made:

When you "destroy" an ecosystem, a new one will take its place. The remaining animals and plants will converge on a new balanced state.

The ecosystems we admire today are often that new balance after humans destroyed the natural one.

Misdicorl• 12 months ago

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

tracerbulletx• 12 months ago

If only we had a whole group of experts who study this as their life work to make these choices instead of thinking our random speculations are the best we can do.

dev_l1x_be• 12 months ago

Using restoring less of IT term (like restoring from a backup) and more of a way of improving compared to current state is the key here.

johnnienaked2• 12 months ago

There is a "correct" state of nature: one without modern humans.

sitkack• 12 months ago

If "restoring" is tricky, does that mean going in the non-restoring direction is less so?

celticninja• 12 months ago

Agree but more species is definitely better than less species. We are not aiming to get dinosaurs back, but pre industrial era levels of wildlife is not a bad thing.

JumpCrisscross• 12 months ago

When we say that reintroducing wolves led to ecological improvements, what’s our reference point?

Ecological diversity and utility to humans.

The GYE is more diverse thanks to having wolves check grazing populations. And the physical structure of the riparian environment is more stable, which means better (and cheaper) infrastructure and water management.

427728272• 12 months ago

I’ve always found the idea of “restoring” ecosystems a bit philosophically tricky.

..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.

owenversteeg• 12 months ago

[flagged]

tdb7893• 12 months ago

I think this is a misunderstanding of what the goals are, it's not just to go back to some arbitrary time in the past. Often reintroduction of keystone species like wolves lead to increased biodiversity and resilience of the ecosystem, which is useful especially since we are currently going through a mass extinction.

lo_zamoyski• 12 months ago

I’ve also had this feeling when conservation of particular species comes up. Species come and go. Why conserve this particular species?

So, inevitably, the answer must be that people want to conserve them either because of sentimental reasons or because a given ecosystem suits human flourishing, or because it maximizes some metric like species diversity.

we’re really measuring against a value-laden idea of what we think nature should look like, not some neutral truth.

I will remark, that “value-laden” is not opposed to “neutral truth”. All knowledge is value-laden. Value itself is part of reality. The fact-value dichotomy is a fiction.

titzer• 12 months ago

Biodiversity, biomass, and ecosystem robustness are all objective measures.

Human settlement has a tendency to reduce all of them. The story here isn't that reintroducing wolves established some kind of human-centric value system, it's the surprisingly complex and far-reaching effects of just one change in the ecosystem, particularly the re-introduction of a top predator.

Note also that absent extinction altogether, without humans actively killing wolves, their numbers most likely would have recovered eventually, probably with similar effects. In essence, we just accelerated a type of healing process that would naturally take place when our enormous ecological footprint is removed.

gdubs• 12 months ago

This is a great question. We've restored over 20 acres of native ecosystems at our farm in the PNW, and one thing that's clear is that some conservationists are attempting to essentially create a painting of a particular moment in time. Others are more pragmatic and flexible — not seeing all non-native elements as "bad".

I think where I come down is trying to remove elements that threaten to take over and destroy the balance. Or restore elements that will help re-establish balance. And it doesn't have to all be "native".

And there are some natives like poison oak that I'll get rid of because they're obnoxious and will ruin people's experience of nature. And people's experience with nature matters because that's a big part of how you win people over and get them to support nature restoration work.

potato3732842• 12 months ago

I’ve always found the idea of “restoring” ecosystems a bit philosophically tricky.

It's not even "tricky". It's purely a subjective political football if you live anywhere that was formerly glaciated because humans were there from day 1 and so it's basically a subjective question of which time period you want to restore.

DHRicoF• 12 months ago

Ecosystems are dynamic by nature, so "make them like where 222.22 years ago" is a little meaningless.

But biodiversity is a good target and as unbiased as you can get. More biodiversity means more adaptability and resilience of the system.

antisthenes• 12 months ago

I’ve always found the idea of “restoring” ecosystems a bit philosophically tricky.

I think you're confusing "arbitrarily meddling in wilderness" and "restoring ecosystems". The latter would be something like demolishing a Walmart and its parking lot and putting soil and trees in its place.

Basically giving back human development spaces back to nature and letting nature take care of itself. This involves things like cleaning up waterways.

gerdesj• 12 months ago

"I’ve always found the idea of “restoring” ecosystems a bit philosophically tricky."

Me too, however I think that making an ecosystem functional, rather than dysfunctional is the goal, rather than actual restoration to a nominal "correct".

The thing is that diversity, fecundity and like measures are really important when it comes to ecology, not historical accuracy - that's for aircraft museums.

CapsAdmin• 12 months ago

When I wanted to get into aquariums, I stumbled upon some old man calling himself "father fish"

Basically his take on the whole hobby is that we should stop measuring, changing water and generally stressing about keeping the system as is.

Instead you create a good substrate, add lots of plants and just watch how life will evolve. Fish and plants might die, but that's ok because it's part of the natural process.

kreyenborgi• 12 months ago

It doesn't have to be exact, but pre-anthropocene is typically a good reference point, considering we are an extinction event.

mlinhares• 12 months ago

It’s hard to wrap your head around how complex the earth is and how we fucked it up. It’s great to see news like this, it shows we can and should undo the harms we’ve caused.

KurSix5• 12 months ago

It sounds like something out of a fable, but it's literally just ecology doing its thing once balance is restored

thom• 12 months ago

Not sure where opinion ended up on this, are there dissenting voices still?

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/scientists-debun...

rr8082• 12 months ago

"It is a classic example of how saying something many times with enthusiasm can make it true, regardless of what the science says," Hobbs said.

Welcome to the age of social media.

patall• 12 months ago

Because data it is inconclusive. I.e this publication that says that the impact of wolves is beyond their population pressure, reducing traffic accidents by making deer more wary:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2023251118

ForOldHack4• 12 months ago

If I could pick 10 stories to follow every day on a HN dashboard, this would be first. It's really four or five stories in one.

declan_roberts• 12 months ago

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.

tossandthrow• 12 months ago

Based on another commenter it appears that it is not merely about the number of elk, but likely also how they act.

But is see This has a human imperialist reaction: why don't we just micro manage everything!

ceejayoz• 12 months ago

Humans hunt very differently than wolves. The impacts on elk behavior are thus potentially very different.

stevenwoo• 12 months ago

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.

seniortaco• 12 months ago

Because that's what people want. And if people want it, it can't be good?

arnon• 12 months ago

Finally some good news today

trgn2• 12 months ago

All it took is hundreds of elk calves scurrying away in mortal fear each year before getting disembowled alive

cwmoore3• 12 months ago

...and this is why I am not vegan

rr8082• 12 months ago

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?

kingkawn• 12 months ago

Yes

jeffbee• 12 months ago

Welfare ranchers grazing on BLM land? Yes.

mykowebhn3• 12 months ago

Your question rephrased from an Indigenous People's perspective:

"is the greater good more important than the original people who lived there?"

antonvs5• 12 months ago

Most colonists say no

chrisco2552• 12 months ago

The Clovis are indeed important but they no longer exist.

__MatrixMan__3• 12 months ago

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?

perlgeek• 12 months ago

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.

fundad• 12 months ago

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.

carlosjobim• 12 months ago

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.

wpm• 12 months ago

Yes. They should nut up and get over it.

spicyusername• 12 months ago

Yes.

inahga• 12 months ago

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.

floatrock• 12 months ago

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.

antonvs5• 12 months ago

A different framing of this question is should individuals be able to degrade ecosystem wealth in order to maximize their personal wealth?

It's the United States, that's virtually a constitutional right. If your skin color and cultural conformance checks out.

KurSix5• 12 months ago

The logic of short-term gain at the expense of long-term viability is the same, just dressed up in different costumes

Ar-Curunir• 12 months ago

More important their businesses? Yes, very likely. To what extent should their business interests be protected over nature?

tomrod4• 12 months ago

Oof. Bad place for a ranch. Natural ecology needs those apex predators. They should consider relocating if they are deep in the ranching world. If we've learned anything since the industrial revolution, we have learned that sustainability is highly desirable, even more so than marginal ranchland.

__MatrixMan__3• 12 months ago

I guess the subsequent question is whether there are good places for ranches. If the benefits of predators reintroduction/protection become widely known, it will likely be practiced elsewhere in the future.

fillskills• 12 months ago

Spoke with someone on the Yellowstone team a few weeks ago. They mentioned most wolves lose life to ranchers. Avg wolf life in Yellowstone is just 3 years!

bawolff• 12 months ago

I talked to a local who was friends with ranchers who now lose stock to wolves. They hate it.

Well if they liked it, their anscestors wouldn't have killed the wolves in the first place.

stickfigure2• 12 months ago

Their ancestors were killing a lot more than wolves. This isn't a particularly noble point.

pengaru• 12 months ago

yes

chrisco2552• 12 months ago

"Greater good" is a misnomer abused by all sorts of abusive meddlers.

anigbrowl• 12 months ago

Yes, that's why it's called the 'greater' good.

KurSix5• 12 months ago

I think framing it as "locals vs. greater good" oversimplifies things

svieira• 12 months ago

"greater good" is a poor phrasing that doesn't point to the real thing-under-discussion. I prefer the phrase "common good" because it points to the feature that is unique to this good - it can only be held in common. That is, rather than being a "bigger" or a "fuller" good, it is a good that can only be achieved through collective action. No one person can have it of themselves, but together we can all have it. This necessitates collective sacrifice for the sake of this good.

It is also worth noting that not every good that is a "common good" is a necessary good. There are many common goods that can be legitimately given up because there is a hierarchy of goods as well.

pcmaffey2• 12 months ago

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.

tuna74• 12 months ago

Yes! It would be good if people could be more interested in reducing the number of ticks that causes much more human and cattle damage than wolves.

pcmaffey2• 12 months ago

Totally. What spreads ticks - out of control deer populations that lack apex predators.

KurSix5• 12 months ago

The science is pretty clear on the ecological role of wolves, yet here we are debating whether to wipe out half a state's population

searine• 12 months ago

Made possible by 1 grant from the Oregon State University Foundation.

staplung• 12 months ago

Has no one considered the possibility that the aspen trees are eating the wolves to grow strong? I mean, we know that the decline of pirates causes global warming.

https://doctorspaghetti.org/pastafarians-pirates-and-climate...

We also know that dog predation of frisbees is a real problem for healthy disc populations.

joshtbradley3• 12 months ago

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?

jjtheblunt• 12 months ago

When will the first human death occur?

what?

tomrod4• 12 months ago

Right? The first human death happened millions of years ago.

andrewflnr• 12 months ago

You can usually understand this kind of phrase as having the qualifier "in a way relevant to the current discussion", meaning in this case "first human death caused by re-introduced wolves".

EA-3167• 12 months ago

Why would a single human death, or even a few deaths a year matter to the policy? Dogs kill people, bees kill people, lots of things kill people and plenty of those things don't even serve as much of a purpose as wild wolves. If there are benefits to be had as a result of this policy, the question isn't some artificial zero-tolerance policy towards human death and injury, it's the usual balance of pros and cons.

joshtbradley3• 12 months ago

Fair point. Except for “don’t even serve as much of a purpose as wild wolves.” I’d argue dogs, bees, and let’s say cars, all serve an enormous purpose to humanity. The pros/cons of replenishing an ecosystem is a good framework to analyze this through. I am selfishly an advocate for humanity, and safer forests with more wild game for hunting seems like a bigger pro to me. Of course, I could be disastrously wrong. But we don’t know yet.

TimorousBestie• 12 months ago

If you’re going to exterminate every species that kills humans, there’s gonna be a lot of very angry dog owners on your doorstep.

joshtbradley3• 12 months ago

That’s not my argument. I’m saying wolves are dangerous, and as a human, I don’t want to have to worry about wolves when I’m hiking Yellowstone. Call me selfish but I’d rather be alive than feel good that the forest is back to its natural state.

triceratops• 12 months ago

No steaks either. Cows kill nearly as many humans as dogs (~20/year vs ~40/year)

tomrod4• 12 months ago

Lucas Miller teaches this to kids via song. Wonderful!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p-nBUqz2hG0

thangalin• 12 months ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W88Sact1kws

"Embark on a journey to Yellowstone, where a few wolves did not just roam, but rewrote the rules of an entire ecosystem. Discover how these majestic predators triggered a cascade of life, transforming not only the park's wildlife but its very rivers and landscapes. It's a story of how nature's architects can reshape our world in ways we never imagined."

hinkley• 12 months ago

Now report back in ten years about Lyme disease cases.

PicassoCTs• 12 months ago

From my perspective this is a doomed ideological project, to restore a ecological "balance" that is already historic- as the climate this "balance" adapted to will vanish and the luxury of ecological preservation projects will evaporate with the funds available for such luxuries.

In my eyes, ecological historicism is just another sin, wasting precious finite resources on keeping up a facade. It would be much wiser, to take specimen from the developing bulb-belt and transplant them up the lattitude to near similar developing bioms, trying to breed them to survive the winter that now befalls there "migrated" biom.

Let the wulves fight for their own survival in this mess and remove protection status. The ground is moving, no sense in building cabins and planting trees on it. Cosplaying nature while sacrificing saveable species seems absurd to me.

antonvs5• 12 months ago

Let the wulves fight for their own survival in this mess and remove protection status.

So, let wolves fight for survival against humans?

That's tantamount to saying "let's make wolves extinct."

yieldcrv2• 12 months ago

Be Elk
Browsing, grazing, loitering in an ideal environment
Suddenly, mid life, an unidentified powerful beast appears that stalks and kills your kind
Never know why, the source, or that a third species engineered this outcome because they were too lazy to kill you all themselves and just wanted an automated way of doing so

antonvs5• 12 months ago

A response worthy of 4chan.

Worthy of HN? Not so much.

It's not about "automating" the killing of elk. It's about sustainable ecosystems. Human hunting is not the same thing.

yieldcrv2• 12 months ago

I think it fits because it is substantive and has capability of providing introspection

The article and study doesn't address its disposable nature of the elk in favor of "look at the trees"

When there are animals suffering, which to most actual people is a matter to highlight. This entire discussion about wolves in Yellowstone has always contorted itself to spare the reader's thoughts on the gruesome reality of what's actually happening.

dboreham3• 12 months ago

For readers who are not local perhaps worth noting that Wolf reintroduction is a very emotional subject in this area. The wolves were brought back just before I moved here 25 years ago and I remember wondering if anyone ever wrote a letter to the editor at the Bozeman paper that wasn't about wolves. It's a kind of pre-Trump anti-science, anti-intellectual issue, the echoes of which you'll see in the comments on the article. It's one of the things featured in that TV show with Kevin Costner that's actually accurate.

KurSix5• 12 months ago

It's like a real-life case study of a trophic cascade, and it kind of underlines just how interconnected everything is. You pull one species out, and decades later entire ecosystems are still feeling it

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

Related Stories