Science and Society
The Latest Developments in Science and Technology
Ned Potter is the science correspondent for ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson." He has reported on such topics as space exploration, the human genome and climate change.
RECENT POSTS
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Where the Wolves and the Antelope Play
March 03, 2008 3:22 PM
Removing federal protection for gray wolves in the Rockies would be bad for the wolves...which would be good for coyotes...which would be bad for pronghorn antelope.
That's the thrust of a paper, about to be published in the journal Ecology, by Kim Murray Berger and colleagues. She's in the Department of Wildland Resources at Utah State University, and also works for the Wildlife Conservation Society. She and her husband Joel, along with Eric Gese of Utah State, have been following the populations of large animals in what's called the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the region that surrounds Yellowstone National Park.
“This study shows just how complex relationships between predators and their prey can be,” said Berger. “It’s an important reminder that we often don’t understand ecosystems nearly as well as we think we do, and that our efforts to manipulate them can have unexpected consequences.”
The researchers spent three years putting radio collars on more than 100 pronghorn fawns in Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming -- and conservation groups are interested in getting their work under the public eye now, with the Interior Department's decision last month to "delist" the gray wolf and remove the federal protection it's had under the Endangered Species Act. (We had a previous post, which you can find HERE.)
The Interior Department says the wolves have thrived and that's why federal protection can end. But many conservationists say the wolf population could crash again if they're only protected by the -- presumably weaker -- plans offered by states in the area. Both Wyoming and Idaho say they want to thin the wolves' numbers, largely because ranchers complain the wolves threaten them and their livestock.
According to the WCS, "healthy wolf packs keep coyote numbers in check, while rarely feeding on pronghorn fawns themselves. As a result, fawns have higher survival rates when wolves are present in an ecosystem."
This is very sensitive stuff in the Rockies, where many local people accuse Washington of meddling in their lives, and environmentalists accuse the Bush Administration of allowing open season on nature.
(Image of a pronghorn courtesy WCS.)
March 3, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (10)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Sadly, many of the ranchers have "flywheel" mentalities, that is, they think that a lot of wolves mean a lot of attacks on their herds. The same attitude can be said of the public in general. They refuse to believe that a balance can be achieved over the long run. I believe this was tried on the Upper Peninsula in Michigan with wolves and elk. If things were left alone, a balance was achieved and both populations stabilized, absent any outside influences.
Posted by: Andy | Mar 3, 2008 3:43:13 PM
When will this foolish micromanaging of nature end?
Posted by: cba | Mar 3, 2008 3:53:18 PM
Hmm; I have no problem with wolves in the wild. Don't necessarily want one next door but in their natural habitat, why not?
Ranchers are motivated by fear and greed. I think they have a problem with potentially being displaced by the wolf as the top predator in any given area. Hence the fear and I think that they view everything on their land as theirs and resent any form of competition.
In reality, wolves don't appear to be any more of a threat than Mountain Lions or Bears and Rattlesnakes. Nobody seems to go after the snakes though - can it be that "top predator" thing again?
Posted by: Andy Clark | Mar 3, 2008 8:56:08 PM
Ranchers are not motivated by fear and greed what a crock of self important cabbage. Ranchers are motivated by being able to pay their bills and feed their family's. People who fuss about gas prices being too high are motivated by fear and greed too if that is the point.
Also, in nearly every mainstream media article I see are words like this "Both Wyoming and Idaho say they want to thin the wolves' numbers, largely because ranchers complain the wolves threaten them and their livestock."
Wolves do not threaten livestock, they kill them and once in a while they eat them. Those livestock belong to someone who is trying to pay their bills and keep food on the table for their family and provide a product for the hungry nation. As for the trivial argument on 'balance' first you have to take human needs totally out of the equation, no hunting no people allowed to live in arbitrarily defined wolf territory.
When oh when will this self important wildlife worship anti rural, anti human attitude end?
Posted by: Janice | Mar 3, 2008 9:30:38 PM
Janice? Arbitrarily defined wolf habitat. Honey before humans came along all of this country was naturally already wolf habitat. And yes balance is possible.
Posted by: HB | Mar 3, 2008 9:45:00 PM
Read Aldo Leopold...then pass your judgments.
Sand County Almanac
Posted by: HB | Mar 3, 2008 9:47:50 PM
Janice
About the same time LA is under water.
Posted by: Quietman | Mar 3, 2008 11:52:04 PM
I'm sick of hearing statements about the poor ranchers and their land etc. Lets be totally honest here. What these "poor" ranchers want is to graze their cattle on federally owned land for little or no cost to themselves. If we were honestly talking about "their" land I could feel for them but these ranchers want to have their cake and eat it too. They should keep their cattle on their own land and protect it from intrusion by predators. If they aren't willing to do that then then tough luck to them!!!! Protect the wolves and let the ranchers build fences!!!!!
Posted by: dk | Mar 4, 2008 5:58:50 AM
It's apparent that DK has no practical experience. Hope that they can actually get out into the country and find out what's going on before they try to manage ranching.Bring some gloves. The whole countryside isn't some national park for unproven theories.
Posted by: steve crumbaugh | Mar 4, 2008 7:39:14 AM
I'm all for trying to strike a balance to preserve species like the wolf; however, I have problems with studies which are so obviously flawed... How can this new paper assert that the antelope will be harmed by a decrease in the population of wolves, when it is clear that antelope populations were quite healthy during the period of time when wolf populations were at their lowest, prior to strict protection being imposed? Do our Federal tax dollars go to fund this type of non-sensical research? How do I sign up to get a government grant to perform my own research to support my own agenda?
Posted by: prm | Mar 4, 2008 2:10:32 PM
Post a comment
