Wolves change rivers?

[TheTone]

Wolves preying on beavers in Minnesota reshape wetlands

When a lone beaver dies, its dam soon collapses. Scientists studying gray wolves in Minnesota’s Voyageurs National Park have traced how wolves preying on beavers affect the ecosystem by impeding the ability of beavers to build and maintain new dams that create wetlands.

www.mprnews.org

Kind puts a different spin on the articles claiming wolves doing so many good things for rivers, etc

 

[TOGIE]

if i could trap beavers in Voyageurs National Park i bet i could reshape wetlands too

 

[BrentD]

Wolves preying on beavers in Minnesota reshape wetlands

When a lone beaver dies, its dam soon collapses. Scientists studying gray wolves in Minnesota’s Voyageurs National Park have traced how wolves preying on beavers affect the ecosystem by impeding the ability of beavers to build and maintain new dams that create wetlands.

www.mprnews.org

Kind puts a different spin on the articles claiming wolves doing so many good things for rivers, etc

Not really. It's all part of the system that worked for a few thousands of years.

 

[88man]

Not really. It's all part of the system that worked for a few thousands of years.

yeah when there were 330 million humans those few thousand years

 

[shrapnel]

Here is another ridiculous conclusion on low elk numbers in Yellowstone Park due to loss of cutthroat trout...

https://phys.org/pdf287779404.pdf

 

[BrentD]

Not possible, eh?

And your data proving otherwise?

 

[TOGIE]

Here is another ridiculous conclusion on low elk numbers in Yellowstone Park due to loss of cutthroat trout...

https://phys.org/pdf287779404.pdf

i doubt it's a ridiculous conclusion

but of course i will question it to some degree.

it says in the abstract they synthesized 20 study's data of bear diet and elk number to reach their conclusion. i assume these researchers are smart enough to know the correlation/causation blunder, but i would like to see the actual research paper to see where they correct and discuss for other factors, such as wolves, potential moth issues, drought, migration problems, disease, land use outside the park, etc etc etc.

at face value it looks problematic to suggest wolf management should be revisited, as they do, because of cutthroat populations. and further at face value it seems problematic to suggest that low elk numbers are solely to blame on cutthorats, or lack thereof rather. i doubt that's what the authors solely suggest

all that said, i just realized that actually looks like a news release summary from phys.org, not an abstract from the authors, which i will give the benefit of the doubt are much more careful with their statistics and conclusions than may be implied by that link

 

[Hem]

Scientists in Yellowstone rather quickly determined more wolves=less moose=more willows on creeks, and on and on.
Maybe more willows=more beaver?
Sorry didn't bother to read the link.

 

[shrapnel]

i doubt it's a ridiculous conclusion

but of course i will question it to some degree.

it says in the abstract they synthesized 20 study's data of bear diet and elk number to reach their conclusion. i assume these researchers are smart enough to know the correlation/causation blunder, but i would like to see the actual research paper to see where they correct and discuss for other factors, such as wolves, potential moth issues, drought, migration problems, disease, land use outside the park, etc etc etc.

at face value it looks problematic to suggest wolf management should be revisited, as they do, because of cutthroat populations. and further at face value it seems problematic to suggest that low elk numbers are solely to blame on cutthorats, or lack thereof rather. i doubt that's what the authors solely suggest

all that said, i just realized that actually looks like a news release summary from phys.org, not an abstract from the authors, which i will give the benefit of the doubt are much more careful with their statistics and conclusions than may be implied by that link

To affect the elk population by impacting the elk population in Yellowstone to drop from nearly 20,000 to around 6,000 and blame that on the grizzly bear and his diet of cutthroat trout is a bit fishy. There aren’t that many grizzlies in Yellowstone and the diet shift from cutthroat trout to elk would represent an enormous consumption of cutthroat trout that would be hard to swallow...

 

[TOGIE]

To affect the elk population by impacting the elk population in Yellowstone to drop from nearly 20,000 to around 6,000 and blame that on the grizzly bear and his diet of cutthroat trout is a bit fishy. There aren’t that many grizzlies in Yellowstone and the diet shift from cutthroat trout to elk would represent an enormous consumption of cutthroat trout that would be hard to swallow...

maybe re read my post

i think we would need to see the actual research paper and a discussion from the authors of the paper to see if that's what they are actually suggesting

phys.org is a news site... so i won't take their word for it on if the authors are blaming every elk problem on cutthroats

 

[Panda Bear]

Not really. It's all part of the system that worked for a few thousands of years.

I agree, and will add that yes civilization has had some effect, and not just by "numbers" Mining, old growth logging, has also been a part of the problem, which some will say all that was needed because of the increase in population

According to one of your universities in Oregon, if you brought in more wolves, you would have more lynx. Coyotes kill rabbits, lynx eat rabbits---bring in wolfs to kill coyotes, and you will have more rabbits, and then you will have more lynx . Our country shot 500 wolves in a effort to save a Caribou herd, but the land the Caribou live on has had the old growth timber cut and mining is also being conducted in that area, reducing the foliage needed for the Caribou

If there is a problem---bring in the wolves --OR--kill the wolves --one or the other will solve the problem.

 

[BrentD]

I agree, and will add that yes civilization has had some effect, and not just by "numbers" Mining, old growth logging, has also been a part of the problem, which some will say all that was needed because of the increase in population

According to one of your universities in Oregon, if you brought in more wolves, you would have more lynx. Coyotes kill rabbits, lynx eat rabbits---bring in wolfs to kill coyotes, and you will have more rabbits, and then you will have more lynx . Our country shot 500 wolves in a effort to save a Caribou herd, but the land the Caribou live on has had the old growth timber cut and mining is also being conducted in that area, reducing the foliage needed for the Caribou

If there is a problem---bring in the wolves --OR--kill the wolves --one or the other will solve the problem.

We do have some wonderful predictions that can be checked someday in the future.

Meanwhile, wolves give us a wonderful scapegoat for anything you don't like. Not enough wolves, too many wolves, it doesn't matter, it all works.

Don't like the election results - blame it on the wolves. We all know that, somehow, it's all their fault.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Meanwhile, wolves give us a wonderful scapegoat for anything you don't like. Not enough wolves, too many wolves, it doesn't matter, it all works.

Don't like the election results - blame it on the wolves. We all know that, somehow, it's all their fault.

....AND THATS HOW TOBY BRIDGES SAVED 10,000 BEAVERS IN YELLOWSTONE!

 

[BrentD]

I don't know who Toby Bridges is, or why he is relevant to anything.

But if you are interested in indirect effects of wolves in Yellowstone and the general region, you might like this new book, smoking hot off the presses...

Yellowstone Cougars: Ecology Before and During Wolf Restoration
T K Ruth, P C Buotte, and M G Hornocker. 2019. Yellowstone Cougars: Ecology Before and During Wolf Restoration. University of Colorado Press, Louisville, Colorado. ISBN: 987-60732-828-5 (cloth), xii+ 317 pp. $75.00.


A review of the book can be found here

Yellowstone Cougars: Ecology Before and During Wolf Restoration

Leading into this comprehensive ecological investigation, David Mech’s forward should entice many mammalogists and naturalists to delve into this fascinati

academic.oup.com

 

[Elkmagnet]

I don't know who Toby Bridges is, or why he is relevant to anything.

But if you are interested in indirect effects of wolves in Yellowstone and the general region, you might like this new book, smoking hot off the presses...

Yellowstone Cougars: Ecology Before and During Wolf Restoration
T K Ruth, P C Buotte, and M G Hornocker. 2019. Yellowstone Cougars: Ecology Before and During Wolf Restoration. University of Colorado Press, Louisville, Colorado. ISBN: 987-60732-828-5 (cloth), xii+ 317 pp. $75.00.


A review of the book can be found here

Yellowstone Cougars: Ecology Before and During Wolf Restoration

Leading into this comprehensive ecological investigation, David Mech’s forward should entice many mammalogists and naturalists to delve into this fascinati

academic.oup.com

I didn't quote you as an insult just an opportunity to joke.
I personally believe we are just scratching the surface when understanding indirect effects and cascading.
Thanks for the reading material.

 

[BrentD]

You are right, we are just scratching, but it's a lot of fun to scratch that itch. It is what I have done for many years now, but those days are numbered.

 

[appaloosa]

To paraphrase: "Wolves are wolves, they aren't the boogieman and they don't have rainbows shooting out of their ass either"
Kind of summarizes my feelings about wolves and the attempts by both sides to put their own spin on things.

 

[Hem]

I harvested an elk this year.
No problem with wolves.

 

[Bigjay73]

Here is another ridiculous conclusion on low elk numbers in Yellowstone Park due to loss of cutthroat trout...

https://phys.org/pdf287779404.pdf

They lost me at hitherto

 

[RobertD]

To paraphrase: "Wolves are wolves, they aren't the boogieman and they don't have rainbows shooting out of their ass either"
Kind of summarizes my feelings about wolves and the attempts by both sides to put their own spin on things.

Who said this? Was it Jim Heffelfinger? I feel like I have seen that quote before.

But yes, to echo many in here, I'm highly skeptical of any claims that frame wolves as either some fantastic key to returning to a mythical Eden or a great plague of destruction, etc.

Cannot debate ecology when applying our moral beliefs to an animals existence. That map cannot possibly describe the terrain. /rant