2081 Clipper Park Road Baltimore MD 21211

‘Managed’ wolf reintroduction in parks…hmmm

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/
02/02/wolves.ecosystem.control.climate/
index.html?eref=rss_latest

Reintroduce packs of wolves that can grow and sustain themselves as a species into the Southern Rocky Mountains, Adirondacks and Cascades and allow them to influence and improve biodiversity naturally, let the system work itself out. But releasing non-sustaining populations solely for the purpose of controlling ungulates is idiotic. How is their proposal beneficial to our overall biodiversity?

Brian McAveney
Landscape Architect
Biohabitats, Inc.

4 comments

  1. Vince Sortman, Biohabitats says:

    I agree. It seems to me we should allow nature to determine the number of wolves rather than "us". However, I wonder if we have altered the system or limited the area to such a degree that the natural balances can no longer be achieved.

  2. Kevin Heatley says:

    This is an example of cultural carrying capacity vs. ecological carrying capacity. You could have wolves in lots of places in North America but fear and intolerance get in the way.

    The inverse happens with white-tailed deer in PA.; the cultural carrying capacity exceeds the ecological carrying capacity. Generations of hunters have been raised on an artificially elevated population of white-tails and resist efforts to reduce the herd to levels that will not impair forest regeneration. Right now if you walk into the woods over most of PA you witness an understory that is devastated. The DCNR routinely puts up expensive deer exclusion fencing around harvest sites in order to generate acceptable tree reproduction. Cultural carrying capacity vs. ecological carrying capacity.

    Ideal solution would be to reintroduce wolves into the region. Unfortunately that would conflict with the long-term landscape industrialization plans of the natural gas industry.

  3. Brian Creek says:

    NPS and USFWS managers have been beaten up over wolf reintroduction that they are not really excited to use the "R" word. Wolves are an animal that, unfortunately and unfairly, have a serious image problem.

    However, if wolves could be sent out on a few targeted seek-and-destroy missions that have wide public support, and the wolves are not part of a restoration plan and therefore not technically covered by, or perhaps specifically excluded from, ESA protection, opposition would be greatly reduced.

    Once local residents and regional politicians started seeing how "their" wolves were not carrying away babies but were instead reducing over-populated herbivores and allowing the wildflowers to re-establish and other vegetation to re-colonize the area, calls for reintroduction may well come from unexpected stakeholders.

    I think this is a brilliant proposal.

    Brian Creek

  4. Anonymous says:

    The ecological impact of Green settlement is unacceptable and must be reduced. The Greens believe that human settlements must be designed and built to minimise environmental harm and maximise social well-being. They must incorporate environmental, social and intergenerational measures. New urban developments must be environmentally sound, public transport friendly and must facilitate community interaction.

    We believe that future urban planning needs must minimise urban sprawl, promote growth in rural and regional areas and that equitable economic and social outcomes for regional and rural areas must be sought.

Leave a Reply