Yellowstone Wolves
I have spent a majority of my life around dogs and I find wolves very interesting. There is something thrilling about learning about the roots of man’s best friend. In modern day America wolves are seldom seen. Not only are they quick and witty in their habitat, man has hunted them off the land to protect livestock. To me it is sad that there is no surviving population in the Northeast section of the United States. Someday I hope to see live wolves. Nonetheless, there have been some successful reintroductions in other parts of the country. Yellowstone National Park is such a place. A recent article in Science Daily, “Why Wolves are not Dispersing as Fast as Expected in Yellowstone," explains why the wolf population didn’t expand the way they were predicted to after two initial reintroductions in following years.
Wolves were hunted to extinction in America by the 1970’s in order to protect cattle. Unknown at the time was the fact that wolves were a keystone species and removing them would mess up the ecosystem. In order to help halt the increasing number of elk and cougar, experts agreed reintroduction of the wolf would help regain balance. Adding wolves would slow the the growth of the cougar population by giving cougars competition for prey. Wolves of course would hunt elk and slow their population growth down as well. However, years after the initial populations were introduced biologists became baffled as to why the population of wolves was not expanding as fast as wolf populations in other areas. Prior studies determined that wolf population can disperse from an initial location at a rate of one hundred kilometers a year. The Yellowstone wolves were only dispersing ten kilometers. Mark Lewis, from the University of Alberta, and his team of researchers discovered why dispersal distances were short. They hypothesized that wolves traveling away from the original population had a hard time finding a mate. The wolves at Yellowstone remained closer to each other to keep track of each other. This meant a much slower dispersal rate to maintain higher reproduction rates.
Domesticated canines that I have spent a lot of time around have a much easier time surviving then their wild counterparts. Humans can easily arrange for two dogs to breed. They can then sell them, in turn dispersing their genealogy. Other wild canines, such as the coyote, have an easier time surviving in American forests as well. Theoretical and contributing factors for this would take up another blog, but the answer in short probably has to do with the size of the animals. So the wolf was nearly eradicated from America, but the article says from the original 32 wolves reintroduced from Canada to Yellowstone about a thousand offspring have descended.
Posted by Paul (1)
14 Comments:
This is a very interesting topic to discuss. I like the way you integrated the article from Science Daily and real life situations. I do have suggestion that I would personally add to the blog, that being: What is the difference between wolves and cyotes around here and how have their behaviors set the wolves so far back in population numbers. Recently I saw a documentary with a researcher who took a few wolves onto an Indian reservation, and studied their behavior and patterns for more than ten years. It was very interesting to see how the group developed, the dynamics and how ultimately the alpha dog passed on and the group dynamics shifted, making that group continue. I think that this blog is informative and interesting. Keep up the good work!
I find this blog post very interesting. I actually read an article about the wolves of Yellowstone National Park in high school. I was amazed at how removing one keystone species (the wolves) from the environment completely disrupted the entire ecosystem in that area. Many different species of plants and animals were effected in a domino effect. Since there were no wolves to keep moose numbers down, there was a huge decrease in the numbers of the trees they ate, which effected birds in the area, etc. I think this should be a lesson to people about the importance of wildlife conservation.
Sarah Benjamin
This blog post was inspiring in the fact that there was quick affirmative action to see that the wolves would become less endangered. To achieve a thousand offspring from an original 32 is amazing. The article post fully explained how the researchers planned this reintroduction of wolves by taking into account behavioral and pack habits. But I was also wondering about inbreeding: if the wolves could actually find other mates, or if the wolves are so endangered it is almost impossible? I am also wondering if the researchers had tried to set up a plan for any mating like we do with our domesticated dogs. I understand that the main point of the blog was to explain the way that the wolves are reintroduced, but I think that more description of the pack behavior would fully emphasis it. I really enjoyed this post, thank you.
Danielle Bushey
I think the overall lesson of the human impact on delicate ecosystems and the importance of keystone species is very important and should be kept in mind. However I am a little worried at the suggestion of reintroducing wolves into the wild in the Northeast.
I consider myself to be a staunch environmentalist and am almost always in favor or projects to help stop the extinction of different speices. I have had first-hand experiences with projects involving wolves reintroduced into the wild and must say I do not think it is a strategy that can be applied everywhere.
Wolves have been reintroduced (much in the same way as Yellowstone) in parts of the upper peninsula of Michigan and both the human and wolf populations are now experiencing many problems due to changes in the ecosystem. Areas are more populated than they were 20, 30, 40 years ago. The entire ecosystem of both vegetation and animals is different in its makeup - and climate change has had a large impact on seasonal hunting for wolves.
The idea of reintroducing a species that was on the brink of extinction is commendable, but we must remember that these are wolves, not birds or rabbits but rather strong, wild, carniverous, pack-hunters whose reintroduction into areas that are now populated can be very dangerous.
There have been several attacks on livestock and a few on humans. These are wild animals who hunt for their food in order to survive. While the idea of seeing one in the wild may be nice, we must remember that we are not putting these animals back into the exact same habitat in which they were found 40 years ago.
We have forever changed the ecosystem around these animals and while Yellowstone's project is commendable in its ideals, I think that we must be aware that such projects are geographically dependent and trying a program in an area in the Northeast and even less populated areas like the U.P. of Michigan can have very dangerous unforseen consequences.
- Maija Cheung
I appreciate this blog because I have strong opinions about endangered animals due to human encraochment and hunting. After reading this blog I came up with a few questions. How many animals were reintroduced and what was the female to male ratio? I was thinking that it was be best to reintroduce more females than males. Increaseing birthing rates and the chance of the males finding mates. (But I am not aware if male wolves are monogamous or not) Also is there any genetic problems due to in-breading with the wolves of Yellowstone? That is usually one of the biggest problems with trying to repopulate a species. I think this was a great blog and excellent topic choice.
What intrigued me about this article was that it was stated that wolves are an important part of the ecosystem. These animals pray on elk and cougar, although it's hard for me to believe that wolves do pray on cougars. However, elk are game aniamls and also can be hunted much like the wolf and never have I heard of an elk population to be so large that it becomes a problem. However this is besides the point of the original blog. The answer to it's original question of why isn't the population spreading more rapidly, does make perfect sense. Everyday the saying "like a pack of wolves," is used. It is true that wolves do travel in packs and since there really isn't any other wolf population why would they stray away from the original group. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if they were to small some groups of wolves periodically over a larger area.
jason bassett
I can relate to this article because I am getting into the outdoors and really appreciating what nature has to offer. However, I do not appreciate how destuctive Americans are. I am trying to get involved in enviornmental groups to help make a change. It is good to know that others are doing the same. Yellowstone is such a famous park and I know that thousands of people visit each year. It is one of the bussiest national parks in the country. Maybe that is what is keeping the wolves so contained and preventing them from spreading out. All the people and comotion. Why havent they or have they tried to introduce wolves into an area less prone to visitors? Do they still allow snowmobiles into the national park? There are alot of factors which I am sure have been taken into consideration when reintroducing the wolves. Exactly how many wolves were originally introduced? Are the wolves thriving in Canada or struggling to survive as well? Do the people running this program call it a success? or was that your own thoughts? Do they plan on introducing wolves into other areas of the US? It is terrible that we Americans live in fear and then destroy something becuase we do not want it. We must learn to live in harmony. People need to think about the future when they make decisions not just to killing animals but in all actions we take in life. It is terrible that it took extinction of the animal to realize that we need it for the ecosystem to run properly. I hope people start to not just think about their actions of the future but do something to make the future better for gernerations to come.
edannenb7
18863732
I also have spent the majority of my life around dogs, and when you bring wolves into the picture they are interesting. Although you had only a couple grammatical errors throughout your post, you seem to be very interested in the subject. I think you did a good job introducing the topic; it was clear and is something many people can relate to (owning pets). After reading your post, I realized how much I just learned about the wolf population. I never knew that they were in low numbers, but it really makes you appreciate them when you see one. I am glad that your post ended with good news about the wolf population. Overall, it was a good read with interesting information that I was glad to have read.
I've actually been interested in the re-introduction of wolves to Yellowstone for a while now. I remember that one of the reasons they re-introduced them to the park was largely due to fact that tree growth had diminished. A major provider of nutrients for trees was obtained from elk carcasses. When the wolves were hunted to such an extreme, less elk were killed, and less nutrients were provided for tree development. This resulted in substantially smaller trees in Yellowstone. But to get back to the subject at hand, it's not so surprising that the wolves have not spread as far a distance as predicted. I could see how groups of wolves introduced to an environment would rather stay in more concentrated areas, instead of travelling to areas that are unknown to them. This would be more effective in not only finding a mate but also establishing territory. I really liked you article!
-David Cox
I have to admit that even though I’m not usually into all that scientific stuff I still found the article very interesting. I didn’t know that the wolf population was wiped out in the Northeast. I feel that the writer added a lot of good info that most wouldn't know. It was clear to see that the article was alerting people about the scarcity of the wolf population and informing readers about what has been done to help reintroduce them.
ADEOSOS6
It is really important to note the problems that occurred when wolves were wiped out in the 1970's. Many do not realize how closely linked everything is in an ecosystem. Killing off one species will hurt more that just their predator or prey, it back tracks through different species and harms more than most people realize; the entire ecosystem is disrupted.
The problem with reintroducing wolves into other parts of the U.S. is that their natural environment has changed so much. If wolves were reintroduced into the Northeastern areas of the U.S. they would have a hard time adjusting to a new environment, one that is very different from their natural one. The Northeast is very populated with people and I believe the wolves would become a problem for people in the more rural areas and the people would be a problem for the wolves.
I grew up in Southeast Alaska which still has a very large wolf population. I live in a very rural area with forest surrounding my house and during the winter we would find wolf tracks right behind our house. People who lived in the woods around us often found that lone, hungary wolves in the winter would come up to their houses and eat their small dogs or cats. The animals were too domesticated to try to get away before it was too late. If this is happening in Alaska where the wolves have thousands or acres to live and hunt in then I do not doubt it would be a very large problem in someplace as populated as the Northeast.
The reason that the reintroduced wolves in Yellowstone National Park have not spread out as much as expect seems accurate. It makes sense that they would stay close to other wolves to build up their population. As their population increases I predict they will start to spread out more and take over more territory.
I found the blog an inspiring topic most importantly because I spent time following articles on wolves brought from Canada to assimilate in one of the major national parks of America (I cannot remember which one.) These wolves were believed to have been placed in an environment which would accomodate a growing population, but through surveying the adaptation of the wolves, month after month, the number decreased. At first, this puzzled the team of scientists and environmentalists responsible for the experiment. The news stations followed the wolves adaptation closely. In short, the public and the experts were baffled at the difficulties faced in initiating the growth of a population of a species in transferring a species from one region to another.
I found the blog an inspiring topic most importantly because I spent time following articles on wolves brought from Canada to assimilate in one of the major national parks of America (I cannot remember which one.) These wolves were believed to have been placed in an environment which would accomodate a growing population, but through surveying the adaptation of the wolves, month after month, the number decreased. At first, this puzzled the team of scientists and environmentalists responsible for the experiment. The news stations followed the wolves adaptation closely. In short, the public and the experts were baffled at the difficulties faced in initiating the growth of a population of a species in transferring a species from one region to another.
This was the blog that jump out to me.I am not from U.S.A or Canda,so this topic realy brought light and was very interesting to read.I enjoyed reading the science Daily that was integrated into your blog.The information was well put forward, i never knew that wolves in the usa was a problem,i thought they continue to live in their natural enviromnent as normal.This allowed me to have a better understanding.The information about wolves been a keystone species and the importants of their role in th eecosystem was well place in the article.IT helped me have a understanding of how species in the states have a similar problem back home.Conservation of the enviroment i think should be a lesson to many about the importance of wildlife on any part of the world.
Post a Comment
<< Home