Isle Royale Forums

Article explaining adding wolves to IR.
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/201 ... d_for.html

I think this is the singularly most divisive issue for members on the Facebook group.

Personally, I don't see how people can oppose reintroduction. Knowing the population was hit hard by human action (bringing a canine to the island and introducing parvo), and that climate change is leading to fewer and shorter-lasting ice bridges (even though there is disagreement on whether man contributes to climate change), it seems like a no-brainer to me that human intervention is needed.

The number of people afraid of wolf attacks on humans on that FB group is astounding to me. The number of people who would rather have people take firearms on the island and hunt moose even more so.

Tortuga, I have noticed the same thing.

It would be interesting to know how many FB "anti wolf" posters have been to the island.

This forum seems to be made up of folks who have been to the island or are very serious about going to the island (and therefore see the wolves as part of the fabric of the island).

My thought process is that there isn't a more perfect place for the wolves than IR. It's isolated, very little human impact for much of the year, and a very large population of moose that need to be controlled (a semi annual moose starve off doesn't appeal to me much).

I know it is a controversial subject, here in Montana people either love them or hate them. But much of the fight in Montana involves ranchers who are trying to protect their livelihood (which is protected thru federal and state funds in the case of cattle killed by wolves).

I'm excited to see what happens with the re-introduction of wolves to the island -- I am also interested to read the long term studies that Rolf Peterson & his team will publish down the road.

I don't know if you noticed the suggestion that ISRO might be closed as early as this fall to allow the unmolested introduction of the new wolves. I, for one, would gladly forgo a fall trip to make the reintroduction more manageable. Might be hard to stop people that don't take the commercial vessels, though.

Nick wrote: Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:02 pm I don't know if you noticed the suggestion that ISRO might be closed as early as this fall to allow the unmolested introduction of the new wolves. I, for one, would gladly forgo a fall trip to make the reintroduction more manageable. Might be hard to stop people that don't take the commercial vessels, though.

I did see that! I do have plans to go in the last half of September to cover the Fedltman/Hugginin loop, but would happily spend time on the SHT instead if needed.

I think the facebook group's comments resemble the comments on the news articles. Many times you'll see someone say something to the point of "Just open a moose hunting season". It's hard to take someone seriously when they don't understand the dynamics of the island and the limitations that come with the biosphere designation. I saw one comment on wasting tax dollars claiming that the island couldn't support 20 wolves and they'd kill each other off.

hooky wrote: Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:42 amI saw one comment on wasting tax dollars claiming that the island couldn't support 20 wolves and they'd kill each other off.

There is actually some inadvertent truth in that statement (although not in the crude manner the author probably suggested). The Island once had as many as 50 wolves and ultimately it could not (or did not) support the population. While there have been multiple factors leading to their demise such as human introduced disease, accidental deaths and the low occurrence of ice bridges, which might have introduced some new genetic diversity, the eventual extirpation of the population almost certainly would be due to inbreeding. Granted, it took several decades but most likely this will repeat in another 50 years or so. I'm in favor of managing the population as things seem to be progressing, but realistically, it is what it is.

Midwest Ed wrote: Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:36 pm

hooky wrote: Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:42 amI saw one comment on wasting tax dollars claiming that the island couldn't support 20 wolves and they'd kill each other off.

There is actually some inadvertent truth in that statement (although not in the crude manner the author probably suggested). The Island once had as many as 50 wolves and ultimately it could not (or did not) support the population. While there have been multiple factors leading to their demise such as human introduced disease, accidental deaths and the low occurrence of ice bridges, which might have introduced some new genetic diversity, the eventual extirpation of the population almost certainly would be due to inbreeding. Granted, it took several decades but most likely this will repeat in another 50 years or so. I'm in favor of managing the population as things seem to be progressing, but realistically, it is what it is.

In another 50 years we might have privatized all our parkland anyway and it might not matter

Midwest Ed wrote: Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:36 pm

hooky wrote: Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:42 amI saw one comment on wasting tax dollars claiming that the island couldn't support 20 wolves and they'd kill each other off.

There is actually some inadvertent truth in that statement (although not in the crude manner the author probably suggested). The Island once had as many as 50 wolves and ultimately it could not (or did not) support the population. While there have been multiple factors leading to their demise such as human introduced disease, accidental deaths and the low occurrence of ice bridges, which might have introduced some new genetic diversity, the eventual extirpation of the population almost certainly would be due to inbreeding. Granted, it took several decades but most likely this will repeat in another 50 years or so. I'm in favor of managing the population as things seem to be progressing, but realistically, it is what it is.

The context of the comment was that they would literally tear each other apart within a few years fighting over territory, not due to disease or inbreeding over time. The idea that the poster didn't know that at one point there we over 50 wolves in multiple packs before Parvo started doing it's thing is typical of the anti-wolf crowd. They just don't know what they don't know, but that doesn't stop them from claiming to know.

The author of the original comment referenced was indeed ignorant while I characterized it as crude. But he still inadvertently predicted the same result that the newly introduced 20 wolves and their offspring will also, almost certainly, become extirpated once again by the isolation of the Island itself. It would happen much more slowly than the absurdly ignorant thought of them killing one another but the end result would be the same.

I was just using his comment to bring up the elephant in the room that the survival of wolves on the Island will almost certainly require intervention from time to time.

Midwest Ed wrote: Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:17 pm The author of the original comment referenced was indeed ignorant while I characterized it as crude. But he still inadvertently predicted the same result that the newly introduced 20 wolves and their offspring will also, almost certainly, become extirpated once again by the isolation of the Island itself. It would happen much more slowly than the absurdly ignorant thought of them killing one another but the end result would be the same.

I was just using his comment to bring up the elephant in the room that the survival of wolves on the Island will almost certainly require intervention from time to time.

I agree with that, but I have a really hard time crediting anyone with something that they blindly fall into.

Midwest Ed wrote: Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:17 pm the elephant in the room that the survival of wolves on the Island will almost certainly require intervention from time to time.

When I picked up my permit at the Mineral King ranger station in Sequoia National Park last August, the ranger on duty delivered a riff on the 1964 Wilderness Act, which describes "Wilderness" as follows:

“an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

She, the Ranger, explained that etymologically, to trammel meant to hobble, to fetter--as one does to a horse to keep it from wandering off to pursue equine aims of its own. She remarked both the beauty of the description and its weirdness. By her lights, part of the beauty was the idea of untrammeled nature and the commitment to its value. Part of the weirdness was the idea that humans somehow operate outside earth and its community of life. Is it trammeling IR to intervene periodically in the interest of maintaining a viable wolf population? Is it trammeling IR to establish portage routes and dig copper pits?

I have no idea. But I'm rooting for the wolves to regain their pawholds on the Island, and I'm very, very glad that this isn't a facebook group.