Wolf Reintroduction: Ecotourism In Yellowstone National Park

downloadDownload
  • Words 818
  • Pages 2
Download PDF

One subject, two sides. Nobody knows which side to pick. Everyone has been in some dispute, whether you were a participant or bystander, where you didn’t know which side was necessarily ‘correct’ or ‘faithful’ because there were even pros and cons on each side. So how do you settle this? The Yellowstone National Park recently had a similar situation in which they didn’t know how to handle it. Wolves had been removed from the park in 1995 however in 1996 biologists were concerned with potentially dangerous disruptions in the ecosystem as well as the high raise in elk populations. This idea was then taken to Congress for further examination. This situation was a huge problem because although wolves help maintain ecosystem patterns and boosts ecotourism trends, they also are a threat to farmer’s livestock and cost great values of money to reintroduce.

Biologists that raised this awareness in 1996 were concerned that the absence of wolves had caused disruptions in the ecosystem. The hierarchy of food chains becomes a problem because of one species is cut out from the pyramid, the whole food system is shifted. “Wolf kills, then, provide an important resource for bears in low food years. Aggression toward coyotes initially decreased the number of coyotes inside wolf territories, which benefited other smaller predators, rodents, and birds of prey.” 1 (National Parks Service) Without wolves to assist in the ecosystem, bears food resources would be in danger as well as small rodent species would be in danger. The whole food pattern and ecosystem trend would essentially fall apart.

Click to get a unique essay

Our writers can write you a new plagiarism-free essay on any topic

Another bother was the shift in ecotourism boost. When the Yellowstone National Park help wolves. Reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone National Parks helps to boost ecotourism opportunities by directly attracting more tourism therefore raising the money earned. “Over 150,000 people from around the world come to Yellowstone National Park each year specifically for the wolf population. This activity provides over $35 million in economic benefits to the three states that support the park. Wolf-watching tours add another $5 million in local revenues.” 2 (Regoli) This helps with government funding to help protect other species in the wildlife, add money to local economies, and provide money to preserve endangered species. However not everyone agrees these positive changes the wolves have are influential enough to reintroduce them.

On the contrary, farmers and hunters share a common burden therefore going against the wolf reintroduction. Wolves can be a dangerous threat to farmer’s livestock therefore reducing their annual earnings. In addition to farmers, hunters are worried they won’t having deer and elk to hunt due to wolves killing deer and elk. “People not in favor of this program, particularly livestock raisers and ranchers, say that with the increasing number of wolves, their livelihood will be gravely affected since their livestock will be put in danger. Hunters, on the other hand, express their concerns on not being able to hunt for deer since the wolves prey on deer and elk.” 3 (Lombardo) Farmers and hunters are worried their job earnings may be in peril due to their source being in death threat.

Beyond livestock threat, money becomes a complication. Bringing and reintroducing wolves is not cheap. Some argue that the tons of money taxpayers would have to spend on wolves would be better spent on the homeless, government funding, or the unemployed. “In Yellowstone, cost estimates on wolf recovery are from $200,000 to 1 million per wolf. Furthermore, little, if any, actual benefit is gained from wolves being in the region.” 4 (Mader) This could potentially help solve poverty and homeless issues.

In a relatable issue, asian carp have been considered in being removed from the Great Lakes area. Asian carp can be very dangerous fish as well as essentially taking over this area by dominating and pushing out all the other native species. This poses an issue as well as they have been connected to lowering water-quality. “Carp are also thought to lower water quality, which can kill off sensitive organisms like native freshwater mussels… Silver carp are known to jump out of the water to escape threats. This behavior, by such large fish, can injure boaters, skiers, and damage boats and onboard equipment.” (National Parks Service) As a result of these dangerous behaviors, officials have considered removing asian carps, but are undecided on it. Currently, they are just maintaining the spread of these fish instead of removing them all together.

Throughout major benefits such as ecotourism boost and maintaining the ecosystem as well as the food chain, there still isn’t an obvious answer whether to remove or reintroduce wolves because they also pose a threat the hunting and farming business as well it costs vast amounts of money. Throughout these advantages and disadvantages, we can also solve this problem by relating it to how officials are managing asian carp. But the underlying question is if reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone National Park is really worth it or not.

image

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.