MPR article on the IR wolf issue

[johnhens]

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/displa ... ale-wolves

[MikeT]

Thanks for posting. I believe it is a good synopsis in a short story. I am glad to hear David Mech's opinion as I believe he offers more of an outside perspective than Rolf and John. Nothing against either as I have the highest regard for both, but they maybe too close to the subject. I go back and forth myself and I consider myself fairly knowledgeable on the subject having read many books pertaining to wolf research. However, I am quite sure of one thing, the population will not be "seeded" naturally and believe reintroduction is inevitable. My opinion.

When we met Candy Peterson this spring, she said this topic was going to be coming to the forefront. I mentioned the "forums" and she said they encourage debate on the subject as it is an important decision.

[Tom]

I just returned from the discussion; it's always relieving to watch scientists, vs politicians, have a discussion/debate. Very unemotional, fact based topics, and that translated to the audience, as well.

There were four panelists, each with different perspectives. I'll provide a personal synopsis of their points:
Kevin Proescholdt, conservation director for Wilderness Watch, argued for the position that we shouldn't mettle in wilderness areas. The perspective of "Being guardians, not gardeners" was the direction. A pretty "humans don't touch" concept.

Dr. Dave Mech advocated to wait and see, indicating he didn't think the book was closed just yet on wolves. He cited compelling evidence that a lack of pups could be an entirely age related scenario, and that the genetic spinal issue is only occurring at a slightly higher rate than mainland wolves in the Upper Great Lakes region, and it's been happening to IR wolves for a long time, so it might not be as big of issue as others think it might be.

Dr. Rolf Peterson was perhaps the lone panelist urging introducing a small genetic sample (perhaps only two male wolves, for instance) to revitalize the pack(s). He noted how M93 (the male that crossed in 93) had his genetic fingerprint work rapidly through the wolves of IR, revitalizing them in a time of need. His argument transcended just wolves, and concern of overbrowsing of moose left unpredated would eliminate certain tree species.

Perhaps the most interesting perspective (to me, at least) was from Dr. Tim Cochrane, who is now the Supt of Grand Portage Natl Monument, and has worked on Isle Royale, as well as authoring several books on it's history. He noted that every small island ecosystem often has species, especially larger mammals, 'wink out' over time, and others come in, on and on, and that this is just what we should expect and island like this to do, and it's not surprising in the least that wolves may soon be extirpated. He noted that moose/wolf is, historically, a very recent addition to IR, and that if we wanted the longest species pair it probably would be Caribou/Lynx, and so we need to keep that in consideration if we're going to reintroduce anything - The 'why this, why now, why not that' question.

Overall, it was just intended to start to help inform the public of what a complex decision this can be, and what some of the many variables are. I'd guessing around 100 folks where in attendance. Supt Green did indicate that the NPS system is also looking at the bigger science picture, somewhat with climate change, and as to the policy they should take. If any decision is moved toward, they would have a public comment period, and I'm sure more listening/informational sessions.

[johnhens]

Tom,
Thanks for going last night and sharing your insights. I have a feeling the issue of wolves ,their status and what to do now will have far reaching effects beyond IR in the Science world.
I think it is good to debate the issue here and elsewhere. This is an important turning point that will have greater impact on IR than we may know.

Did Dr. Cochrane share insight as to whether IR could support lynx and caribou? I thought I had read that the moss or lichens caribou like are not as prevalent on IR now.

Thanks again Tom!!

[Tom]

Dr Cochrane was pretty clear that he was a historian, and not a biologist. He referenced that wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone (a precedent mentioned at the forum a couple times) because it was because of man that they were originally eliminated (by hunting/trapping), and that we were righting a wrong. In this case, human involvement is a little less clear, but he wanted to note that if we followed precedent, we would be thinking of other species, as well. (Concern of the siscowet was also noted.)
Supt Green mentioned that with current changes to the ecosystem, there are also some newer residents to Isle Royale that have recently appeared, most likely naturally. ("If you can swim, fly, or walk on ice, you can get there.") A type of bat, tree frog, and perhaps one other species were noted.
Like you note, John, if it ever got 'serious' about reintroducing other species, they would need to look at what the ecosystem is now like. It's not the home they left; if you follow the work of Dr. Jeff Corney at the Cedar Creek Science Reserve, he presents great evidence that even in the past 60 years, our biomes have shifted a fair amount. It's possible that within a hundred years or so, Isle Royale won't support the boreal/tiaga forest it does now, and moose/wolves might not be the best fit, either, and will naturally extirpate.
As Dr Mech addressed in his opening comments (I'm paraphrasing), "we need to have a discussion where we're disagreeing about this, because then we'll ultimately come to the best decision. History is fully of science making bad decisions when everyone was in agreement, so nobody considered the other possibilites."
There is a strong NPS interest in this, as the wolves of Isle Royale aren't the only NPS park species that has a similar concern, just a very visible one. However, the decision here will help direct future decisions elsewhere, as to what hand humans take.

[jrwiesz]

Thanks for the summary Tom.

Appears to me, 3 out of 4 in favor of, "let it be".

I would have to agree with the "hands off" approach myself.