NPS draft could add 20-20 wolves to Isle Royale over 3 yrs.

Discuss wolf conservation and status.

Moderators: Isela, Koa

Post Reply
User avatar
Koa
WolfQuest Moderator
WolfQuest Moderator
Posts: 13034
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:53 pm
Gender: Female
Location: washington, d.c.
Contact:

NPS draft could add 20-20 wolves to Isle Royale over 3 yrs.

Post by Koa » Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:06 pm

Guess someone cried enough. Forgive my salt.
Isle Royale may add 20-30 wolves due to extinction threat
By Todd Spangler
USATODAY in partnership with DETROIT FREE PRESS, December 16, 2016


WASHINGTON — The National Park Service today put forward a draft plan to release 20 to 30 new wolves on Michigan's Isle Royale over a three-year period as a way to bolster a population on the remote Lake Superior island that has dwindled to just two and is in danger of becoming extinct.

. . . But it could also stir up concerns that the Park Service, in an attempt to address climate change and warmer winters that have in recent years reduced ice bridges to the island – in turn halting natural wolf migration from Canada – is setting a precedent that some environmental groups believe violates the federal Wilderness Act’s requirement that lands remain “untrammeled” by human intervention.
Read the full article here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /95514152/

Want to make a public comment? http://parkplanning.nps.gov/isrowolves
YOU SAY YOU WANT TO GET BETTER AND YOU DON'T KNOW HOW.

User avatar
SolitaryHowl
Skilled Hunter
Skilled Hunter
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 4:13 pm
Gender: Female
Location: Canada

Re: NPS draft could add 20-20 wolves to Isle Royale over 3 y

Post by SolitaryHowl » Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:11 am

Honestly, I believe the whole Isle Royale conservation efforts is a waste of time and resources. Unless we're using to further advance our knowledge of the interactions between animal populations/management, then that's a good cause. But to just keep wolves/moose around for the sake of it - when they aren't even native to the island? Sorry, but my policy is to just let nature take its course, and once all the wolves are gone on the island, to prevent the moose from eating everything, just have an open season on them (year round, females too?) until all the moose are gone as well.

Problem solved.
Former WolfQuest Moderator. 2009 - 2011

Avatar is copyright Koa

User avatar
Koa
WolfQuest Moderator
WolfQuest Moderator
Posts: 13034
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:53 pm
Gender: Female
Location: washington, d.c.
Contact:

Re: NPS draft could add 20-20 wolves to Isle Royale over 3 y

Post by Koa » Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:34 am

SolitaryHowl wrote:Honestly, I believe the whole Isle Royale conservation efforts is a waste of time and resources. Unless we're using to further advance our knowledge of the interactions between animal populations/management, then that's a good cause. But to just keep wolves/moose around for the sake of it - when they aren't even native to the island? Sorry, but my policy is to just let nature take its course, and once all the wolves are gone on the island, to prevent the moose from eating everything, just have an open season on them (year round, females too?) until all the moose are gone as well.

Problem solved.
Yep, it's pretty simple. Lol @ wolf activists wanting to restore wolves "to their natural range" in other situations but when nature wants to run its course against wolves, they suddenly have a problem.
YOU SAY YOU WANT TO GET BETTER AND YOU DON'T KNOW HOW.

User avatar
Kivia
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 5618
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:10 pm
Gender: Female
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Re: NPS draft could add 20-20 wolves to Isle Royale over 3 y

Post by Kivia » Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:19 pm

I think the problem here is that they are just looking at that short term for Isle Royale, rather than the long term. I'm reading the draft plan now and from how I'm reading it, they believe that wolves having been there for 65+ years seems sufficient enough to say that they should remain. 65 years is a minute amount of time from an ecological standpoint, and I think this is ignoring the main problems here. Sure, dump more wolves on the island, but they're just going to succumb to the same problems. Without the ability to naturally leave the island via ice bridges, it's going to be a cycle of humans consistently intervening with this island. I'm sure there are far more useful areas that these wolves could be released.

In the article, it looks like a lot of researchers are interested in keeping the wolves there just to continue to collect data on them. I get it, having an island habitat is far easier to research and get accurate results from. If this annual wolf report delves into untouched topics that would require more time to gather adequate research on, then I'd be interested to see what is proposed. Otherwise though... I just don't see the point.

Luckily it's all in review, so they may go the route of not adding any wolves. But we'll see, I suppose. Personally, I'd go with Solitary's choice.

Post Reply

Return to “Wolf Conservation”