In 1995, 14 wolves were released in Yellowstone National Park.
No one expected the miracle that the wolves would bring.
It started with the wolves hunting the deer, this led to a rapid decrease in the deer population. The wolves' presence also made the deer avoid parts in the park where they were and easy prey.
Thanks to the deer's absence, those parts started to regenerate. Forests of aspen and willow trees started to flourish.
That's when things really started to happen. With trees and bushes came more berries and bugs. As soon as that happened, various bird species started moving in.
With the increasing tree population, also another species was attracted. The beaver, previously extinct in the region, moved back. And the dams they built provided habitats for otters, muskrats and reptiles.
The wolves also killed coyotes, which meant more hawks, red foxes, badgers and weasels in the park. Even the population of bald eagles and ravens rose.
But here's where it gets really interesting. The wolves changed the behavior of the rivers. With more balance between predator and prey came the possibility for other species to thrive. There was less erosion because of increased vegetation. And the river banks were stabilized, the channels narrowed, more pools formed, and the rivers stayed more fixed in their courses.
So the wolves did not only transform the great ecosystem of Yellowstone, they also changed the park's physical geography.
@reticuleena @smiddi @dkloke Seems both sides don't really care a lot about sources and research papers ;) AFAICS the research actually DOES support big parts of the narrative. https://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=yellowstone+wolves+research&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart shows there is a lot of real research on this.
@jwildeboer @reticuleena @smiddi @dkloke I think that the problem arises from time frames and the finite size of Yellowstone. The initially reintroduced wolves can get fat and happy on wildlife like deer that are plentiful and unused to their presence. So they have lots of pups. Which eventually leave to travel
downhill to discover other food sources like rancher's livestock. Expandng range is a natural thing to do. Pre-settlement, the river valleys below Yellowstone were lush ecosystems inhabited by large wildlife like bison, grizzly bears and wolves. And there was no "wild" devoid of people. Native Americans were there.
Also, especially if the Yellowstone ecosystem is not grazed by herbivores, wildfire will increase, taking out at least the under story plants and the wildlife utilizing them. But the forests are predominately lodgepole pine, which depend on fire. Nothing is static.
@Gaythia @jwildeboer @reticuleena @smiddi @dkloke .Theres been very effective re indtroductions of birds like the red kite ,but Wolves would be a nightmare .Rewilders sit in cafes in cities and see empty space and assume its suitable and big enough for apex predators without realising the space they need .Lynx here would be fine but the plan to introduce wolves is very bad for wildlife esp the wildcat which is already on the edge of extinction and livestock will be killed and people affected
@Gaythia @jwildeboer @reticuleena @smiddi @dkloke We get this attitude that "wild " places exist that some how are just blank canvases waiting for rewilding ,when in fact they are usually the places with the best biodiversity and where native animals would suffer and they have human populations who live as part of the land caring for and respecting it ,they often have small numbers of livestock which are kept and looked after traditionally living free ranging so are vulnerable to predation ,