Dear ecologists and conservationists -- This past week we learned that the Bush Administration's Secretary of the Interior signed an agreement with the Governor of Idaho to turn management of gray wolves over to the State, despite Federal ESA listing. A predicted effect of this action was to ensure "local control" by ranchers and sportsmen who feared "ecologically effective densities" of wolves in Idaho. The local anti-wolf coalition promised to work hard to ensure that numeric recovery goals for the endangered species would be the maximum target for species proliferation in the state for these megapredators, thus ensuring that the ability of wolves to proliferate and make their ecological contributions to the habitats of the state would be minimal and stymied if at all possible. This is in contrast to ecological findings from recent studies in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem which have demonstrated that functionally operative, ecologically effective densities of wolves in that area benefited the ecosystem in ways subtle as well as dramatic. Songbirds have benefited from aspen generation after wolf presence and predation changed herding habits of elk. Coyotes changed habits due to predation of wolves, and scavengers benefited from carcasses of large ungulates provided by wolves, and the trophic cascade of ecosystem benefits has been real and much appreciated by those who cherish the prospect of fully or nearly fully functional ecosytems.
This calls to mind a paper from a few years ago from Conservation Biology, in which the authors (Soule et al.) called for management of such organisms and species with the goal of producing ecologically effective densities, and not mere numeric recovery goals for the sake of numbers and quotas. Below is the citation and abstract. I wish we could get the governor of Idaho to read this paper and think seriously about it. Does anyone out there have a contact for the governor and the ability to get the word out to him that wolves offer real benefits to Idaho and do not need to be shot on sight by two-legged predators. Conservation Biology Volume 17 Page 1238 - October 2003 doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01599.x Volume 17 Issue 5 Ecological Effectiveness: Conservation Goals for Interactive Species Michael E. Soulé *, James A. Estes , Joel Berger and Carlos Martinez Del Rio§ Abstract: The rarity or absence of highly interactive species leaves a functional void that can trigger linked changes leading to degraded or simplified ecosystems. A preliminary analysis indicates a relatively high frequency of such interactive species among endangered mammals. Rapid environmental change is likely to increase the interactivity of some species and reduce that of others over relatively short intervals. The current implementation of environmental policies and laws, such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act, generally ignores interspecific effects; recovery goals are autecological, short term, and numerically and spatially minimalistic. Moreover, by failing to account for interspecific interactions, recovery objectives are becoming indefensible in light of increasing knowledge from community ecology. Using the sea otter ( Enhydra lutris ) and wolf ( Canis lupus ) as examples, we argue that conservation plans should call for recovery or repatriation of such interactive species at ecologically effective densities in as many places as are currently realistic. It will be prudent and beneficial to estimate ecologically effective densities where there is disagreement among experts and interested parties about the desirability of restoring an interactive species to a particular region and to a particular density. Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
