by Kevin Proescholdt
Wilderness Watch has strongly urged the National Park Service to refrain from that option, and rather let Nature take her course, even if that means the wolf population might become extirpated at some point in the future. This decision about Isle Royale has national implications for all of the National Parks and all of the National Wilderness Preservation System, so it’s important to get it right at Isle Royale.
I was invited to be one of four panelists at a well-attended forum on this issue held at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis this past June, sponsored by the Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute and the National Parks Conservation Association. The other three panelists were long-time wolf biologist Dr. Dave Mech; Dr. Tim Cochrane, Superintendent of Grand Portage National Monument and an Isle Royale historian; and Dr. Rolf Peterson, the current lead wolf researcher on Isle Royale. Isle Royale Park Superintendent Phyllis Green also participated in the forum, though not as one of the four panelists. Of the four of us on the expert panel, only Rolf supported transplanting more wolves to Isle Royale, and he as the current wolf researcher there has more than a tiny conflict of interest in pushing for that option in order to perpetuate his research.
1. New Wolf Pups Born in 2013. The National Park Service reported earlier this summer that at least two and maybe three new wolf pups were born on Isle Royale in 2013, after none were born in 2012. This breeding success reduces the need for a hasty decision, and eliminates one of the main arguments by transplantation promoters that the wolves are not reproducing. The success with these new pups doesn't necessarily mean that the wolves are guaranteed long-term survival, but I think it does show that the wolf population is more resilient than the transplantation promoters believe.
2. Exaggerated Symbolism of Wolves. I’m an Isle Royale visitor and one who loves wolves. But Isle Royale has immense value and meaning beyond its well-publicized and well-studied wolves. If wolves become extirpated on the island, Isle Royale itself will live on. Isle Royale became a National Park before the wolves arrived, and the park will continue even if the iconic wolves die out. And even if the wolves die out, that dynamic would be part of the evolution of Isle Royale, a likely outcome given what we now know about island biogeography. If wolves “blink out” there, Isle Royale itself will endure.
3. Science Will Continue. I certainly appreciate the extensive information and knowledge that have come from the classic predator-prey study on Isle Royale over the past half-century. As Dave Mech pointed out in the June forum, the validity of that study will end if wolves are transplanted to Isle Royale now. But other ecological studies will continue on Isle Royale to provide new scientific insights, whether the wolves survive or become extirpated. Regardless of the outcome of the wolf population, continuing research can shed new light on questions of genetic variability in the context of island biogeography. If wolves die out, how will the moose population respond? Will genetic variability in moose also flatten over time? Will the moose population revert to the boom-and-bust cycles of the 1920s to 1950, or will something else occur? Will wolves naturally re-colonize Isle Royale on their own, even if the frequency of ice bridges to the Ontario mainland has declined with recent warmer winters?
4. Slippery Slope of Manipulation. If we humans start transplanting wolves to Isle Royale, we start on a slippery slope that may have no end. Additional wolves may be needed on the island after the first installment, to “freshen up” the gene pool yet again and again. With a warming climate, Isle Royale may eventually lose its moose population, too. Will we then import moose to Isle Royale in perpetuity to keep the imported wolves fed? And, as Tim Cochrane pointed out in June, should we reintroduce the caribou and lynx that inhabited the island before the wolves and moose and lived there far longer?
5. Wilderness. Congress has designated about 99% of the 132,018-acre Isle Royale as Wilderness. The language and background of the 1964 Wilderness Act define Wilderness as “untrammeled” or unmanipulated. This means that we allow Nature to call the shots, even if that might lead to extirpation of the wolves, either temporarily or permanently. This is the very essence of Wilderness, that humans must treat Wilderness with humility and restraint and not manipulate Wilderness just because we can or think we know how to do so. The writings of Wilderness Act author Howard Zahniser are full of these deeper values and meanings of Wilderness.
The whole debate really comes down to this basic question:
Do we want a manipulated zoo at Isle Royale or a wild Wilderness?
That’s why we continue to urge the National Park Service to not intervene and manipulate the wolf population at Isle Royale by transplanting wolves from the mainland.