Rolf Petersen and genetic rescue of IR wolves

Questions regarding the Flora and Fauna on the island.

Moderator: johnhens

Post Reply
johnhens
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1993
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:10 pm
Isle Royale Visits: 34
Location: Big Rock, IL
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 112 times

Rolf Petersen and genetic rescue of IR wolves

Post by johnhens »

Rolf's thoughts on genetic rescue of IR Wolves:

25 September 2013

Following is Rolf Peterson’s input to the National Park Service (NPS) email address devoted to public input on wolf management decisions in Isle Royale National Park (citations available on request from ropeters@mtu.edu).

The comments offered here were based on the premise that the wolf population in Isle Royale National Park (ISRO) will probably go extinct without substantial recovery from its present historic low level. This is the consensus of the expert genetics panel consulted by the NPS in January 2013.

The National Park Service is considering three options, corresponding to the following:
1) No action;
2) Conservation of wolves – maintain the present wolf population (genetic rescue);
3) Restoration of wolves - introduce a new wolf population after extinction.

Following are discrete (sometimes overlapping) reasons for attempting a genetic rescue to conserve the present wolf population and restore functional predation as soon as possible. This is Peterson’s recommendation to the NPS. For a small number of the following concerns, Option #3 (restore after extinction) might also suffice.

Restoration of functional wolf predation is essential for constraining growth in the island’s moose population, an important element in maintaining the ecological integrity of the island.
It is important to restore functional predation in a timely fashion in order to allow balsam fir on the western two-thirds of the island to escape moose herbivory and grow to seed-bearing height. Approximately 20 million formerly stunted fir “saplings” are now poised for rapid height growth, for the first time in a century, but continued growth in the moose population will likely prevent fir recovery.
Conservation of the current wolf population will limit degradation of aquatic habitats through foraging of a generalist herbivore.
Conservation of the current wolf population will limit degradation of terrestrial habitats from direct moose herbivory and “apparent” interspecific competition mediated by foraging of a generalist herbivore (cf. Linnell et al. 2006).
Conservation of the current wolf population will avoid reduction in biodiversity caused by a hyperabundant ungulate, like that caused by moose in Gros Morne National Park (Parks Canada).
Genetic rescue provides the greatest scientific return, as conservationists have only Florida panther recovery as a real-world example of genetic rescue to learn from. Isle Royale provides a “low-risk” opportunity to better understand this important conservation approach.
Conservation of the present wolf population through genetic rescue provides the most cost-effective management option. The No Action option might well cost the National Park Service (in reality, the taxpaying citizens of the U.S.) millions of dollars, based on previous similar cases of hyperabundant ungulates in Gros Morne National Park (moose) and Rocky Mountains National Park (elk). Waiting for extinction (Restore Wolves option) may take many years, allowing the moose population to escape from limitation by predation and possibly committing the NPS to large expenditures similar to the No action option.
Restoration following extinction may not provide effective limits on moose because of inherent delay – moose may escape control by wolves.
Attempting genetic rescue is consistent with the mandate to prioritize ecological integrity recommended by the Revisiting Leopold report (2012), and it is superior in this context to the other options being considered (No Action and Restore Wolves options).
Attempting genetic rescue will provide a tangible example of the priority of the NPS to “keeping all the parts”, a common-sense interpretation of what it means to maintain ecological integrity.
Attempting genetic rescue will provide an important precedent for how some climate change challenges can be mitigated in a cost-effective manner, in national parks and elsewhere.
Attempting genetic rescue will honor the research findings of the longest science effort in any National Park in the U.S., and the longest-running ecological study ever supported by the National Science Foundation.
Attempting genetic rescue will highlight a public commitment to conduct and use sound science to maintain ecological integrity in national parks of the U.S.
Attempting genetic rescue will maximize, over the longest period of time, the potential for collaborative research and contributions of external research funding. This assertion is based on the previous history of research at ISRO and is consistent with the report of Schlesinger et al. (2010) on science at ISRO.
Conservation of the current wolf population will help maintain and possibly increase public interest in visiting ISRO. This is based on conservations I’ve had with thousands of visitors to ISRO and the analysis of impacts of wolf introduction in Yellowstone National Park. An ISRO without wolves will probably face a less-interested public that may be less inclinced to visit a less-distinctive national park, as ISRO would then be another park among many with hyperabundant ungulates and a degraded ecosystem.
Conservation of the current wolf population will generate considerable media interest in ISRO.
Conservation of the current wolf population will instill a greater sense of public interest in the management of ISRO, as citizens see an opportunity for input and active consideration of management progress.
Conservation of the current wolf population will reduce the potential for animal (i.e. wolf) suffering from neurological and other physical manifestations of spinal and other genetic-based abnormalities.
Conservation of the current wolf population will maintain the only complete sanctuary for wild wolves in the U.S. (possibly the world), where killing of wolves is not only prohibited but actually absent (see Woodroffe 2000 and Woodroffe and Ginsburg 1998).
Conservation of the current wolf population provides the most effective means of maintaining the health and vigor of the moose population.
Conservation of the current wolf population will maintain, more consistently than other options, the evolutionary process of natural selection by large carnivores.
Conservation of the current wolf population will modulate the release of methylmercury from the flooding activities of a beaver population growing unlimited by predation.
Conservation of the current wolf population will reduce public cynicism about resource management and conduct of science in U.S. national parks, which was fueled by management of elk in Yellowstone National Park in the absence of natural predation (cf. Wagner 2006).
Conservation of the current wolf population will provide a low-elevation refugium for a healthy and vigorous moose population, one which may in time be the only one at low latitudes (<50 degrees N lat) in North America.
Conservation of the current wolf population will provide a firewall against the colonization of ISRO by white-tailed deer, which have become the dominant ungulate on the adjacent mainland (Sibley Peninsula) because of climate change.
Conservation of the current wolf population will provide a place where humans and wolves can live in harmony, where “wolves are wanted” (G. Lawless, ISRO Artist in Residence 1997).
Conservation of the current wolf population will maximize the educational opportunities based on field experience in a location with all trophic levels represented.
Conservation of the current wolf population will mitigate for human-induced reduction in genetic health resulting from additive mortality brought about by canine parvovirus in the 1980s.
Conservation of the current wolf population will mitigate for human-induced reduction in genetic health resulting from additive mortality brought about by a natural landscape compromised by the presence of historic mine shafts (agents of mortality for three wolves in 2011, which preceded reproductive failure in the affected pack in 2012 and 2013).
Conservation of the current wolf population will mitigate directly for reduction in wolf access over the ice caused by anthropogenic climate change.
Conservation of the current wolf population will provide an impetus for a public discussion on the meaning of wilderness in the 21st century.
Without wolves there is virtually no opportunity for compelling foundational science involving the large mammal community at ISRO, based on comparison with other predator-free islands in the Great Lakes that support hyperabundant ungulates (e.g., Slate Island, Michipicoten Island).
Conservation of the current wolf population provides an opportunity for humans to reintegrate with the rest of “nature” in a creative and positive manner, as an antidote to despair over the negative effects of humanity on other species.
Conservation of the current wolf population will maintain wolves as emblematic of wilderness values at ISRO (as described by the NPS interpretive signs at Rock Harbor and Windigo entry points).
Conservation of the current wolf population will maintain opportunities for artists-in-residence to experience and interpret a complete ecosystem (replete with top carnivores).
Conservation of the current wolf population will allow integration, in a national park, of “soul” and “science” in the public psyche, in the manner described by Peterson (2007).
While the No Action option would provide a public demonstration of how island fauna can blink (or wink) on and off, and other arcane aspects of island biogeography, it will also commit NPS to defending a level of degradation in the plant community that has, to date, not been long-tolerated in any U.S. national park.
Conservation of the current wolf population would be an application of the precautionary principle, recognizing the possibility of positively-adapted genetic alleles in the present island wolf genome.
Conservation of the current wolf population through attempting genetic rescue puts mainland genes in direct competition with Isle Royale genes, allowing positively-adapted alleles to predominate (whether from Isle Royale or the mainland). These genetic details are now accessible through modern genetic techniques.
The analysis and report of Schlesinger et al. (2010) highlights the scientific impact of studying wolves and moose for over 50 years, an activity that will be maximized by conservation of the current wolf population.
ISRO will lose some of its market share of regional tourism if it fails to maintain a resident wolf population.
Conservation of the current wolf population will preserve the chance for a park visitor to see and otherwise experience a wild wolf.
Conservation of the current wolf population will preserve the chance for the American public that is interested in National Parks to have a positive proactive interaction with nature.
Conservation of the current wolf population will underscore the position that humans, as a naturally occurring species, can have a positive ecological role to play in management of National Parks.
The current Isle Royale wolves provide a unique opportunity to understand an explicit congenital pathology (vertebral anomalies) with modern genetic tools.
There is steady progress in scientific methods for detecting and understanding genetic variation (e.g., recent discovery of genetic mosaicism, whereby different body organs have different genomes – Science 26 July 2013 341:358-359, or the possible role of epigenetics in evolution – Science 6 September 2013 341:1055). The current Isle Royale wolf population provides a valuable 60-year evolutionary experiment with strong natural selection. This population should be conserved for science, which can best be done with genetic rescue to ensure viability of individuals.
Conservation of the current wolf population provides the public a chance to identify with a place where a top carnivore is in control, not the human predator or the human “manager”.
Science will be best served by (i.e., we will learn the most from) genetic rescue and conservation of the current wolf population. The Revisiting Leopold report (2012) recommended that “…given the dynamic and complex nature of this (climate) change, the manager and decision maker (NPS) must rely on science for guidance in understanding novel conditions, threats, and risks to parks now and in the future.”
The Revisiting Leopold report (2012) recommended that maintaining “ecological integrity” be a priority goal within National Parks, meaning maintaining the full complement of native species and natural processes…”such as predation.” Restoring functional predation on Isle Royale should be a priority goal of this National Park – this is most readily accomplished through genetic rescue of the current wolf population.
The Revisiting Leopold report (2012) recommended that National Parks “provide visitors with transformative experiences, distinctive experiences that “both educate and inspire.” Of the alternatives being considered for Isle Royale wolves, this recommendation will be accomplished best by conservation of the current population through genetic rescue.
The Revisiting Leopold report (2012) recommends that National Parks “form the core of a national conservation land- and seascape.” Genetic rescue of wolves on Isle Royale recognizes the significance of a dispersal corridor that has been degraded by human action.
NPS needs to act in a timely fashion (Roemer, G. Science 341(456) 2 August 2013) to ward off the insidious effects of rapid inbreeding at the current historic low population size, when inbreeding is accelerated. Conservation of the current wolf population required intervention prior to extinction, which is the most timely approach.
NPS needs prominent and compelling narratives in time for the 2016 NPS Centennial. Conserving the present wolf population at Isle Royale is the quickest way to restore functional predation and provide a case study in a careful and informed effort to preserve natural resources in an “unimpaired” state. Otherwise, the public narrative for Isle Royale during the NPS Centennial is likely to involve some form of habitat degradation by a run-away moose population.
Conservation of the current wolf population at Isle Royale provides the alternative (of the three under consideration by NPS) with the lowest likelihood of unintended consequences, i.e., the highest benefit:risk ratio. The “no action” option is associated with the highest probably of irreversible negative effects on ecological integrity.
Conservation of the current wolf population at Isle Royale is comparable in many ways to previous, ongoing, and possible future management actions by NPS at Isle Royale, such as those involving prescribed natural fire management, conservation of coaster brook trout, allowing live-trapping and radio-collaring of wolves, attempted restoration of peregrine falcon, and possible introduction of lynx.
Post Reply