6 ms·
Wolf reintroductions to Yellowstone, for instance, totally changed the ecosystem for the better. Animals evolved to keep each other in check. If you remove one
by maria2 4y ago
Wolf reintroductions to Yellowstone, for instance, totally changed the ecosystem for the better.
Animals evolved to keep each other in check. If you remove one animal, but not its prey, then the prey can cause an even greater loss of biodiversity by excessive proliferation. In the case of Yellowstone’s wolves, their absence allowed elk to proliferate. Elk then ate too much vegetarian, which prevented forests from developing. The lack of forest lead to a decline in song bird and beaver populations. The decline in beavers lead to a decline in dams, which removed key habitats for other animals.
To flip your question on its head: the reintroduction of wolves was clearly beneficial for Yellowstone. What is the argument against reintroducing the wolf, or reintroductions in general?
- smm11 4y agoHaving been very, very close to this issue when wolves were re-introduced to Yellowstone, the vocal opposition to this was that a handful of ranchers near Yellowstone who are very much Welfare Queens didn't want to loose cows to wolves that were on the other side of the fence.
- ticviking 4y agoNot sure its fair to call them "welfare queens" but no one likes to see their livelihood threatened.
- pvaldes 4y agoIf I remember correctly wolves returning to Yellowstone generated 5 million dollars each year to the area only by the increase in tourists. Plus environmental benefits
- edgyquant 4y agoThis has nothing to do with the livelihood of the farmers
- pvaldes 4y agoImagine that you are that farmer. To start, you can buy a lot of cows with five millions of dollars Or your city could provide you with better services now that they have five extra millions each year. Better roads would allow you to move your cattle faster or to export your products better. So you lose some, but win some also. Or maybe you will not need it, now that the new local restaurants opened want to buy your meat to feed the tourists. More competence and lower expenses to put your product in the market will allow you to sell your meat at a better price. Tourists will want to buy souvenirs also. Maybe in stores owned by members of your family. Your city will attract researchers. Science has a curious proven effect; each single researcher position creates tens of auxiliary jobs around to sustain their research. In resume, the young adults in your city will have a range of new opportunities to settle, work and start a live project in their own city if they would desire so. Or you can forget all of this and keep your cow Be honest, do you really liked so much that stupid cow?
- sweettea 4y agoYes. The farmer chose to live way out there far from people, and would appreciate the dang tourists going away.
- pvaldes 4y agoIn a society everybody must sacrifice something if is for mutual benefit. Wolves had proven again and again that produce more money that they remove. Had proven also that can save human lives reducing car collisions and that they positively protect agriculture and fixate water sources in the area. Why should a few farmers (I agree that I should be more precise and use ranchers instead) force their will over the whole population and block the development of a local area?. Isn't this a democracy?. Who are this people to decide that their village can't receive tourism and that everybody in the area must be a rancher or migrate? Environmental services aren't free. Some resources will need to be sacrificed to keep the machine working, and in any case cattle owners can reduce their losses to an acceptable level by several traditional and well tested ways.
- sheusndudn 4y ago
- toiletfuneral 4y ago
- micro_cam 4y agoWelfare ranchers are ranchers who rely on cheap/subsidized grazing leases on federal land. It includes a shocking number of billionaires making big money off public land.
- panick21_ 4y agoYes and it happened when a guy simply decided to stop waiting for people to fight and simply gathered the money and bought the rights to the ranchers land.
- swalling 4y agoThis is a good example in particular because state and federal agencies have been extremely judicious when it comes to doing reintroductions since then. In the rest of the West (CA, OR, WA, ID, MT) there have been basically zero wolf reintroductions recently. Wolf packs are spreading naturally back to their historical range, and agencies are instead focused on tracking populations and working with local communities to regulate hunting, protect the livelihoods of ranchers, etc.
- micro_cam 4y agoIt's much more than that even. Without the wolves the elk and deer graze along creeks destroying willows that shade the water leading to warmer water temps and fewer fish, more erosion and less water retention / flood control. This even impacts downstream farmers who take water out for irrigation. Also the wolves keep mountain lions, coyotes and other predators in check (through competition and even predation) and wary. I suspect mountain lion encounters in California will go way down if the wolves ever come back.