Brilliant observation. Dynamic systems like this are rarely a cut-n-done. Like the study of ozone, with it's seven counter intuitive steps, it is all an evolving study.

It also proves the worth of just simple studies over a long period of time. Science used to do a lot of that, and it was very interesting, as many appear on hacker news, but now it seems that cut-n-done grab more popular news.

It also bears the question: what longitudinal studies are popular here besides this one, and retro computing?

> Both links are paywalled so I can't comment on what they say (positive or negative).

Fixed!

https://eu.coloradoan.com/story/news/2024/02/09/colorado-sta... | https://archive.is/k0NqZ

https://academic.oup.com/book/26688/chapter-abstract/1954809... | https://annas-archive[.]org/md5/3d5be21998575e23a28fdaa53ff5...

(You will have to replace "[.]" with "." in the above link in case that wasn't obvious.)

Awesome thanks. Added to my libraary. Interesting that the Coloradan study was asking a slightly different question regarding wolves in Colorado vs the magnitude of the wolf impact in Yellowstone. I felt the experimental setup was also good but might quibble that Elk have more impact than just eating, they can squash saplings just by walking on them. The point that Colorado maintains its Elk population by hunting was relevant as well, any impact of wolf predation would be less than it would be on a previously un-predated population. All in all though, I quite agree that the stories of Yellowstone’s wolves likely overstate the specific impact of wolves and understate the system dynamics that had other mechanisms also affecting them.

I also recognize that ‘popular’ writing is more about persuasion than facts :-) and it was important to persuade people that wolves weren’t “bad/evil” just predators that had lived there before. Telling that story as a rebalancing is certainly more palatable than saying “Yeah, if we had allowed hunting Elk (and perhaps Bison) in Yellowstone it would have similarly improved.” Generally keeping the human role as apex predator out of the headlines :-). Thanks again, great links.

> Thanks again, great links.

It was the least I could do to help the discussion, as I’m not really knowledgeable enough about Yellowstone ecology personally to have a nuanced discussion with you or others in this thread, so I have to find other ways to contribute positively to help us all catch where catch can by enabling debate through proper context.

You’re welcome, and thank you for your response on the points for the benefit of me and the thread, as it was beyond my ken.