Hello friends, it's the Environment Show and welcome in Yellowstone, they're crying wolf.
And for good reason, they're back.
Gray wolves are feeding and breeding successfully in Yellowstone, having been reintroduced from
Canada and update and some thoughts on lessons learned.
He's a Republican but Congressman Sherwood Bollard is disagreeing with party leadership
in today's commentary, a proposal for inter-party cooperation.
But creating a 21st century style wildlife refuge, in order to protect sacred ground,
it is necessary, first to identify common ground.
There are really common interests and common goals between economic development and environmental
protection.
These stories this time on the Environment Show, a national production made possible by
Heming's Motor News, the monthly Bible of the Old Car Hobby, 1-800-CAR-H-E-R-E.
This is Bruce Robertson.
Oh, give me a home with a buffalo room and the deer and the antelope play and the wolves,
too.
It's called Restoration Ecology.
After years of being studied, a wolf reintroduction project is well underway in Yellowstone National
Park.
Once populated by hundreds of wolves, the region was cleared by hunters and ranchers seeking
to protect their herds at the turn of the century.
Today, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service is monitoring a program aimed at bringing
gray wolves from Canada to try living in their original habitat.
Bob Crabtree is executive director of Yellowstone Ecosystem Studies.
The nonprofit organization is based in Boseman, Montana.
During closely the habits of the newly transplanted wolves, Crabtree says so far, everything
is going very, very well.
Two of the packs produce pups, surprisingly, and they're not even their first year out
here in Yellowstone, which is shocked everyone.
I think a lot of biologists were, a lot of folks were expecting a good chunk of the
wolves to leave, try to go back to Canada and disperse out of the ecosystem, but they've
all pretty much stayed fairly close to where they were released.
So it's a big, big success story for acclimation pins and what's called the quote soft release,
which is where wolves are not just released upon their arrival to the land like an Idaho,
but they're held in acclimation pins large exclosures where they're fed carcasses and they
were held for two months and then released.
That's allowed wolves to get used to their surroundings, get used to smells and sights
and prey.
And then when they leave, they feel like it's a little bit of their home and they don't
have as much a tendency to leave.
Well, it seems like it worked beautifully.
A head of the release of the wolves, opposition was mounted by cattle and sheep ranchers who
feared the wolves would prey again on their domestic stock.
Crabtree says it is easy to count the number of attacks so far.
Zero.
In the Yellowstone ecosystem?
Nothing.
No.
There's a lot of land here about livestock and even if they are in and around livestock,
you know, looking at areas, past studies where there's been reintroduced or recently colonized
wolves, the agencies seem to be in mediating the situation very well.
Not only do wolves not take that many domestic livestock, but the cases they do, the farmers
and ranchers are compensated.
And I'm sure that's what will happen.
If that does happen, it inevitably will.
There's no question once the wolf population comes back and they're producing pups that
there's going to be some take of livestock.
But, you know, I don't think there are even wolves or even come close to the number of sheep
killed by coyotes, which is a much more numerous animal.
Crabtree says it just might happen that wolves, which cover a much larger territory than
do coyotes, wolves just might attack and act to reduce the coyote population and thus reduce
the number of attacks by coyotes on cattle and sheep.
In citing another example, Crabtree says, without the wolf, the elk population has grown
out of proportion to its sustainable habitat.
Crabtree says, overall, the range is a habitat out of balance.
Restoring the balance then is the real purpose of the reintroduction plan.
It's called restoration ecology.
And there are many examples.
Wolves may have an easy time killing the most numerous prey animal in the park at his
elk in and around riparian and stream areas.
And that may very well shift elk, herbivory and browsing pressures on willow and other stream
vegetation away into other habitats like up in the hills and the grasslands and may cause
the stream system to be much more healthy.
The story is probably not going to be as nice for the coyote.
As our research has shown, the coyote is probably tripled or quadrupled its numbers since
the bigger competitor the wolf is removed.
Well, and people are worried about all the big decreases in coyote numbers that probably
are going to happen.
And we've already seen some initial encounters.
And everything's all that's too bad.
But you know, I think it's clearly a case where bringing in a predator like the wolf
is going to better the balance.
Coyote numbers should decline back to their normal or natural levels.
And a lot of the species that are preyed upon by coyotes, for example, mice and squirrels
should become more abundant.
They won't be preyed on as much by wolves.
And they'll be a lot more food for things like gold neagles and hawks and badgers and
things like that.
So.
If the gray wolf had died off or otherwise naturally moved away from the Yellowstone region,
then it would be unnatural human intervention to try bringing the wolf back.
But the gray wolf was effectively removed by ranchers at the turn of the century who hunted
them down, trying to protect domestic herds.
Grabbery says the reintroduction is based on an emerging ethic.
You just kind of have to believe that conditions under which the system evolved are still
mostly intact and it essentially requires the wolf as an integral player in that system.
So basically, in that show, they were here once and let's get them back and let's let
them do their job.
We're learning over all about all of this.
Well, we're beginning to see that Bruce, I think that it's a double-edged sword.
On one hand, like the argument I just made, they were once here, they need to come back
and then perform their role to help balance the system and keep everything in check.
On the other hand, it may be a bit naive for us to think that there's this vacant niche
that's been waiting for 60 years for the wolf to return and we can just drop it back
in that niche.
Well, things have changed.
The system, human impacts, recreational uses, and a variety of natural causes probably
climate change.
The wolf hasn't been around for 60 years to adapt to that change and all of a sudden we
plop them back in large packs.
So I'm a little concerned that it'll take a little while for things to shift and sort
themselves out, but luckily predators are pretty good at adapting and being flexible.
So I think we're just beginning to learn that it's not that easy to restore a species
just by dropping it, dropping it in.
In other words, it's probably easy to get the species back, but to have it perform its
function, the ecosystem, is probably going to be the biggest challenge that the new discipline
of cold restoration ecology is going to have to face.
How do you get it back in the system since it's been gone?
In fact, I think we're beginning to see evidence that even the fact that we've removed
the wolves from the Yellowstone ecosystem has been a problem in bringing the wolf back.
That set in place a lot of changes that could be a detriment for the wolves in the long
term.
But we'll see.
It's nice to have a very nearly intact, healthy, pristine ecosystem like Yellowstone to
perform this in.
I don't think the results would be as positive if this was done in the Olympic Pendants
or Colorado.
Bob Grabdry is executive director of Yellowstone ecosystem studies, a nonprofit research organization
based in Boseman, Montana.
The organization seeks to conduct baseline studies on ecosystems in order to create a scientific
basis for policy decisions.
He says the problem with most studies is that they only last three or four years, not
nearly long enough to gather sufficient data.
He says real ecosystem studies must be conducted from nature's point of view in cycles that
last at least 50 years.
Though it is still too early, he says so far, the Wolf reintroduction project seems to be
going as planned.
For a more complete report, he says, check back in 2045.
This is Bruce Robertson.
You're listening to the Environment Show, a weekly program about the environment, the
air, water, soil, wildlife, and people of our common habitat.
Coming up, a new thinking on land use planning, vision mapping along the county refuge
on the Connecticut River.
If you like a cassette copy of today's program, call 1-800-747-7444, ask for the Environment
Show, program number 296.
That's 1-800-747-7444, the Environment Show, program number 296.
There is a moderate voice.
On Capitol Hill, amid the clamor of debate over environmental issues, at least one voice
is calling on colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in both chambers, to listen to reason.
Republican Congressman Sherwood Bollard says extremes of any issue are counterproductive.
In today's commentary, Bollard offers a simple three-point plan, he says, will give us what
we want, a clean environment, and a healthy economy.
But in the year, Congress is expected to rewrite the Clean Water Act, Superfund, the Endangered
Species Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act, and portions of the Clean Air Act.
In short, it may reconsider the entire framework of environmental protection that has been
crafted over the past 25 years.
Bollard's need to be redrafted to reduce bureaucracy and to reflect the findings of the
latest scientific and economic research.
Unfortunately, Congress seems poised to leap far beyond such level-headed revision and
reverse two decades of environmental progress.
Several House votes this year, one to dilute the Clean Water Act and one to restrict the
EPA's ability to enforce health and safety standards, demonstrated what an uphill battle
it is to put together a coalition for a sensible environmental reform.
But the vote also indicated that moderates may still carry the day as the debate over environmental
protection moves forward.
Part of the problem is that the terms of debate are being set by those at the ends of the
spectrum, on one end our environmental absolute is purest with a zero tolerance level.
On the other end is an equally radical ultra conservative Vanguard, which believes that
extremism in the defense of libertarianism is justifiable.
No government is good government, they argue.
Both sides grossly misread the desires of an electric that is growing suspicious of
federal regulations, yet still expects the government to guarantee them a cleaner environment.
What's to be done?
Congress can satisfy the voters, protect the environment, and maintain the nation's ability
to compete in the world economy if its environmental policy is guided by three common sense principles.
First repeal is not reform.
Environmental law can be reformed through innovative thinking and cooperation, without eliminating
the provisions that have made it so effective.
And states have essential role in environmental protection.
Centralizing all decision making in Washington as the absolutist desire is a recipe for anti-regulatory
backlash.
Giving the states a greater role in environmental policy ensures that regulators understand
local conditions.
On the other hand, environmental policy cannot simply be delegated to the states as air
and water recognize no state boundaries.
And third regulation must be based on science.
The research should not be viewed as invalid or suspect simply because its findings may
be politically uncomfortable.
A bipartisan moderate coalition is beginning to form around these principles, despite de-polarization
in Washington.
During debate on restricting the EPA's enforcement of health and safety standards, our coalition
held enough votes to eliminate the harmful provisions, 17 so-called riders preventing EPA
from implementing existing laws dealing with our food supply, clean air, and pure water.
Unfortunately, surprised libertarians fought back three days later by calling a re-vote.
And the resultant tie vote meant the provisions would remain in the bill under consideration.
Now the ball is in the Senate's court.
The moderate house effort was truly bipartisan and garnered more votes than anyone expected.
If moderates in both parties continue to work together, the public may yet get what it
wants.
Effective environmental protection that does not unduly burden business or individuals,
all at the same time protecting and enhancing the quality of our food supply, our air, and
our water.
Congressman Sherwood Bolett, Republican from New York, is chair of the House Subcommittee
on Water Resources and Environment.
These comments on the environment show appear part of a continuous series of commentaries
on environmental issues.
Learning to think big, a federal proposal to create a new wildlife refuge along the
Connecticut River is giving citizens, scientists, and politicians an opportunity to design a new
way of protecting land.
If the system proves successful, the results could be used as a model for other land use
planning projects around the nation.
In the first of a series looking at new methods for protecting critical habitat, Doug Freilich
reports on the Conti Wildlife Refuge.
In 1991, Silvio Conte, a congressman from Western Massachusetts, introduced legislation to
create a federal wildlife refuge along the Connecticut River.
Swept up by the affectionate memories of the congressmen, his house colleagues acted quickly
to establish the reserve.
He was only one problem.
Conti hadn't told anyone where in the four states the Connecticut River traverses he
wanted the refuge to be.
Larry Bandolin is a fisheries biologist with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
stationed in Turner's Falls, Massachusetts on the Connecticut River.
Working to establish the new refuge, Bandolin says the traditional style of acquiring large
tracks of land will not work in the east, where population is dense.
And since we're looking at roughly a seven million acre area with a tremendous amount
of private ownership, we knew from the start that we couldn't use strictly the traditional
approach of saying we want to buy here and buy there and buy here and buy there.
We knew we had to involve the landowners and the existing conservation infrastructure
in the basin.
So Bandolin expects to find and preserve a few isolated and critical habitats along
the 407 mile Connecticut River.
For the most part he says the Conti refuge will not contain the usual costlies visitor
center, wire fencing and government vehicles.
Instead he says the Fish and Wildlife Service will act as a bank, distributing both money
and expertise to local land trusts and farmers.
Bandolin believes some of these projects already running have been successful.
I think the Atlantic Salmon and American Shad Restoration Program is a great example
of state, private, federal, entities working to restore fish that had been either extropaded
from the basin or were in decline in the basin.
And there's an awful lot of small projects going on in the basin.
In addition, Bandolin says the Fish and Wildlife Service has worked with local landowners on
many other projects, including restoration of land along the river banks.
Land known as the Reparian Zone.
Bandolin says the traditional style of refuge management appropriates large tracks of land
to preserve one species of plant or animal.
He says this has been costly and has generated stiff opposition from a public wary of federal
mandates.
He says we are now learning to look at the larger ecosystem of an area and to work more closely
with local property owners.
This new style of federal management, Bandolin says, brought the Fish and Wildlife Service
into the Connecticut River Basin to ask the people what they want.
To get an idea in depth from people on what their concerns are, what their issues, what
they liked about the basin, what role the Fish and Wildlife Service could play because we
realized that we're really kind of a Johnny come lately into the conservation process
in the basin.
There's been an ongoing and very positive conservation ethic in this basin for a long
time and we really need to fit into that existing conservation ethic.
Some conservationists convince that only strong federal management will save the Connecticut's
Fish and Wildlife, say they've gone too far in addressing the concerns of property rights
groups.
Others mindful of the difficulties in working on a river with a run of shad that can
top a million but a flock of people twice that large, praise the compromising and consensus
building.
All agree that like it or not, they just may be looking at the future.
No matter what is being said about his agency, Bandolin says the Fish and Wildlife Service
will not go back to the old style of top down mandated regulation.
However, we will stick to the mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service which is protecting
habitat for endangered species, for migratory birds, for migratory fish.
Wetlands are important, but we're going to do it in a cooperative way.
Bandolin says this means working with willing sellers.
All told, he says the Fish and Wildlife Service expects to buy no more than 10,000 acres
out of the 7 million available in the basin.
$600 million has been spent already to preserve the basin.
Bandolin says it makes sense to go the extra mile to see the project completed.
In order to complete the project, federal law requires an extensive environmental impact
study be conducted, examining both the ecological and the economic impacts of such a project.
Professor of Resource Economics Thomas Stevens at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst
has completed the economic analysis portion of the EIS.
He concludes that taking additional land for habitat protection would cost the localities
$830,000 in lost tax revenue.
Initially, but in the long run, says Stevens, acquisition could have a positive economic
effect.
That would work something as follows.
Land, which is set aside for wildlife habitat, is of course open space.
And government expenditures associated with open space are much less than government expenditures
associated with shopping centers and housing developments and things like that.
Furthermore, open space is often associated with increase in adjacent property values.
So our analysis indicates that over time, the impact on local government revenues and expenditures
may actually be positive.
In other words, over time, there probably would be little, if any, net loss to local governments.
In fact, local governments may actually gain because of this project.
The nonprofit Connecticut River Watershed Council is the only conservation organization
in the region serving all towns, communities, and states in the watershed.
The council has become the secretariat for the Conti Refuge, coordinating all the local
responses with those of the federal agencies.
Whitty Sanford is executive director of the Watershed Council.
She says it seems there is a consensus along the river that the refuge would benefit both
the environment and the economy of the Connecticut River Basin.
Depending on where you are in the watershed, you might have a rural perspective in the upper
valley versus a more urban sense of how the refuge could benefit people down in the Hartford
area or the Springfield area in Massachusetts.
So the general feel is that it's a positive thing.
How that hands out for the whole watershed will relate to those different land uses that
you find in the valley.
According to Sanford, the Silvio Conti Refuge is a new model for large-scale landscape
protection that may set the vision for national wildlife refuges of the future.
I think basically because there's been a recognition both by government and I think the conservation
interests that they're really, and the general public of the whole, that there is a synergy
between environmental quality and the economic vitality that might exist in our watershed.
And I think that this is an understanding that holds true out the nation.
People are less bolconized about this issue and they're realizing that there are really
common interests and common goals between economic development and environmental protection.
Sanford says, communities seem to be moving away from the old, we-they-divisiveness of
the environmental protection versus economic development debate.
After two years of study, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service came up with five
proposals for action, ranging from taking no action to developing a comprehensive regional
management and education program involving private landowners, local and state agencies,
and private organizations.
With the period for public comment on the draft EIS over, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
will submit a final report to Congress and other federal agencies in compliance with
the National Environmental Protection Act.
If after review, the final report is deemed consistent with the goal set by the Conti
Refuge Act, then the report will become the official action plan for the Connecticut River
Basin, a project expected to take 15 years to complete.
This is Doug Freilich.
Next, Doug for that report, next week, learning to think big, vision mapping with Bill
McKibbin.
That's a report on the Environment Show for this week where Gladja joined us for a cassette
copy of the program called 1-800-747-7444.
Ask for the Environment Show program number 296.
The Environment Show, a presentation of national productions solely responsible for its content.
Dr. Alan Shartock, executive producer, this is Bruce Robertson.
The Environment Show made possible by Heming's Motor News, the monthly Bible of the Old
Car Hobby, 1-800-C-A-R-H-E-R-E.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0