Sanctifying The Wolf
Before the 1960's, wolves were considered treacherous, despicable, and beasts of waste and desolation. When wolves were added to the endangered species list in 1967, they made the transitioned from villain to saint in the public eye as an symbol of endangered species. Wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park, and permitted to thrive in the upper Midwest. The increase in population of wolves has been credited by scientists and media for the propagation of other species. In Is Science in Danger of Sanctifying the Wolf?, L. David Mech writes that sweeping, definitive claims about wolf effects on ecosystems are premature whether made by the public or by scientists. Mech believes those definitive claims are premature because he considers the accuracy of studies regarding the impact of wolves is questionable, and the hypotheses not as rigorously tested as they need to be. The effects of wolves on an ecosystem fall into three categories: direct effect on coyotes, benefits to scavengers, and cascading effect of wolf interactions with prey to other species in the wolf food chain. The first, reduction of coyotes is unclear. Packs
…show more content…
In Is the Wolf a Real American Hero?, Middleton writes that wolves didn't fix Yellowstone, and the trophic cascade believed to have been caused by wolves is false. Studies conducted in the 1990's showed that aspens and willows were regrowing, but follow-up studies showed that despite the 60 percent elk reduction, trees hadn't regrown. A Colorado State University study, focused on willows, determined that too much damage had been done for wolves to undo. Without wolves, elk increased, elk reduced willows, without willows, beavers declined, without beavers, rivers deepened and the water tables dropped below the root level of willows. Focusing on wolves as the savior of Yellowstone detracts from other
In Is the Wolf a Real American Hero?, Middleton writes that wolves didn't fix Yellowstone, and the trophic cascade believed to have been caused by wolves is false. Studies conducted in the 1990's showed that aspens and willows were regrowing, but follow-up studies showed that despite the 60 percent elk reduction, trees hadn't regrown. A Colorado State University study, focused on willows, determined that too much damage had been done for wolves to undo. Without wolves, elk increased, elk reduced willows, without willows, beavers declined, without beavers, rivers deepened and the water tables dropped below the root level of willows. Focusing on wolves as the savior of Yellowstone detracts from other