Finding that out.

I have have business with McNulty and some of the staff in the park. I provided some of the funding for some of his research for his doctorate. I was glad he went to work in the park after he graduated.

I'll have to do some reading on this. I used to cite many of the studies in my O&E presentations so finding out about updated info is important to me.

but science is rarely finished.
The butterfly effect is often lost in the minutiae.

I attended a conference about the benefits of the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone
by some of the people who did that work or studied the results and the benefits of having
wolves are facts.

Example:
Elk prior to the return of the wolves used to eat the clones of Aspen trees along the
waterways and were like big cows but once the wolves came back the elk stopped
hanging out and eating the young Aspens and so they grew up and shaded the creeks
and river which cooled the water temperatures and dropped insects into the waters
which helped the native Cutthroat Trout which the bears liked to eat and there were
fewer bear vs human problems. Also the meadows grew up which helped in biodiversity
and in turn helped all kinds of critters such as pollinators, small mammals, foxes,
and birds of prey too.

being refined.

Numerous studies have shown this. Heavy browsing destroys bird habitat and also allows invasive plant species to move in. This in turn reduces native insect populations which the songbirds depend on for food.

Scientific consensus is that the Earth is warming rapidly and it's due to human behavior. But it's the nature of scientists to squabble over details and debate and argue. That's the strength of science. There isn't a round solid perfect answer. There are nuances and details and surprises. Those refinements and ongoing discoveries strengthen the conclusions.

But it's very easy to exploit that strength into a propaganda built around seeming gotcha moments. "It was all a lie" is bullshit. "It's a little more complicated than we thought" is usually true.

I know I'm preaching to the choir as you know all this - just wanted to vent.

Of course wolves are essential to the Yellowstone ecosystem. Of course it's not as simple as a fairy tale. We already knew that.

Are many that I made in my presentations as a lobbyist and as a park ranger in YNP.

I knew most of the people who actually carried out the reintroduction to both YNP and the Frank Church Wilderness River of No Return. In fact, I know the last living person responsible for the Frank Church WRNR. I also was in contact with many of those who conducted much of the past research, for many years and cited their research in my work.

I know that things change but I wonder how they assess the human factor in these more recent studies. I also wonder Whether parameters have been placed in or on these studies by the anti-science crowd who have taken over our government. Methodology components of these studies will be interesting to read about.

And on top of all that, I lived right outside and around the park for 35 years and frequently observed these thing first hand.

Will be looking to find out about this.

about 30 years ago. What worries me is that “they” might be trying to change the
narrative in order to make it easier to kill wolves. After being gone from Ohio for
about 100 years the bobcat is coming back and our mouth breathers wanted to know
when they can hunt them. Btw I am a hunter too. Deer.

Btw I had a friend who was an expert and had 3 wolf/husky hybrids… 80% to 20% and
if the big male liked you he would just lean on you but he did not like to be patted.

I have heard wolves in Ontario and seen 2 in the wild. Beautiful creatures!

Seems to undermine over forty years of research. Some of us, who have been engaged in and conducted a lot of it are interested in a finding that seems to be an outlier that appears to contradict what many researchers have found.

Reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone, where they used to be plentiful is certainly the correct thing to do. But to expect major changes in a year, decade, or several decades is short sighted. They are not modifying a machine, nature takes time to do its job.