With Isle Royale National Park's wolf population perhaps on its last legs, the park is embarking on an environmental impact statement on a "Moose-Wolf-Vegetation Management Plan" that might be too late, at least for the trio of remaining wolves.
A document as voluminous as an EIS, one that must examine interactions of wolves and moose and moose and vegetation, is not an overnight production. With the first step -- collection of public comments on what the EIS should consider -- just getting under way, it will be months before the final document comes into focus.
"The plan will provide direction for managing the Isle Royale moose and wolf populations for at least the next 20 years in light of the dynamic changes occurring on the island," the park said in a release announcing the scoping period for the EIS.
“I have received a wide range of comments from folks interested in this issue and the range of preliminary alternative concepts reflect the broad opinions that have been expressed to me," Isle Royale Superintendent Phyllis Green said in the release. "I look forward to reading your comments once they are submitted through our formal process.”
While the fate of the island-park's wolf population is largely, if not entirely, tied to formation of an "ice bridge" linking Isle Royale to the Canadian mainland, a bridge that wolves could use to reach the island, the formation of ice bridges in recent years has not bolstered the park's wolf population.
The story of wolves on Isle Royale is compelling and ever changing. Their population has fluctuated over the past 65 plus years since they were first documented on the island, but has been in steep decline for the past five years. This past winter was no exception. Researchers from Michigan Technological University found three wolves on the island and documented one mortality. In addition, an ice bridge formed again this past winter for the second year in a row, and a pair of wolves crossed the ice bridge from their home range on the Grand Portage Indian Reservation and traveled about 14 miles to Isle Royale. The pair explored the island, but did not stay, returning to the mainland five days later. Furthermore, five out of the nine wolves present in 2014 are unaccounted for. They may have survived, perished, or left the island during the 2015 ice bridge events.
The plan is intended, in part, to examine the "environmental impacts that could occur to the moose population and vegetation from the potential extirpation of wolves."
In addition, a wide range of issues has been identified by the Park Service, ranging from how sensitive species such as orchids might be impacted to changes in the visitor experience and "wilderness character."
The public is invited to attend one of the public open houses listed below. All open houses will have the same format and agenda and will run from 6 p.m. - 8 p.m. The open houses will begin with a brief presentation followed by an open period when Park Service staff will be available to answer questions. Attendees will be able to submit written comments at the public open houses. If you are unable to attend a meeting, please submit your comments online or by mailing or hand delivering written comments to the park.
Dates for the Open Houses:
* July 27 – Houghton, Michigan – Superior Room inside the Magnuson Hotel Franklin Square Inn
* July 28 – Isle Royale National Park – Rock Harbor Auditorium
* July 29 – Grand Portage, Minnesota – Grand Portage National Monument Visitor Center
* July 30 – Isle Royale National Park – Windigo Visitor Center
The moose-wolf-vegetation food web is tightly coupled. Moose have important effects on island vegetation, including forest cover, and wolves are the only moose predator on the island. Given that the wolf population at Isle Royale is very low and their long-term survival on the island is in question, the moose population is likely to increase in the short term (5-10 years), which could result in impacts to vegetation and forest cover because of over-browsing.
Preliminary draft alternative concepts have been included in a public scoping newsletter, which is available at this site. The public comment period will close on August 29. Following the public comment period, the Park Service will analyze and consider all feedback received and begin the preparation of the draft plan/EIS.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
While it would be sad to see the wolves vanish from the island I am all for letting nature take it's own course.
As most people know, The wolves/moose ecosystem of Isle Royale is the only one known in the world. Some people have said, "let nature take its' course" and man should not intervene. But the truth of the matter is, we already have. Tapeworms/dogs would be a prime example. As sad as it sounds, if the wolves of the island are to disappear, then the moose will have to go the same route. Otherwise, sickness and starvation will set in just as it did before the wolves arrived on the island 50+ years ago. Also, in time the vegetation of the island will become overbrowsed. Isle Royale is a National Park. What the island has had to offer over the years with the wildlife is what many of the visitors come there for. I realize that if wolves are reintroduced to the island, there is no guarantee that they will stay. Also, the hierarchy of the wolves will need to be reestablished, alpha male and female on down and hopefully that would be something that would be able to naturally take place. I feel that we should make the effort even though the odds will be stacked against us rather then to always wonder if we should have attempted to do something. This is not like we are introducing an exotic invasive species. To bring back wolves to the island would be just that, a reintroduction. I really don't feel that the NPS can afford to wait very long, To wait too long is to be, "shutting the barn door after the horse got out," I find it ironic that meanwhile on the mainland of Michigan's upper peninsula, we have gone from the wolf population being at an "endangered species" level, to a population where some people believe that the species warrants a hunting season. Maybe the U.P. should be considered as a source for the trapping and relocating of wolves instead of just shooting them. I really would like to be kept informed as to what is going to happen on Isle Royale. My mailing address is" [email protected]. Thank you.
Agree Hoxie.
I have been to the Island.Did not see any wolves in my 4 day stay but some Moose.At the time the park guessed there was about 1000 moose to 4-5 wolves.This was a couple of years ago.They eat the rabbits that are there as well.The only other animal is the Fox.Right now the best thing to do is reintroduce at least 2 new packs,7-9 animals,Alpha male and female,couple of pups and some aunts and uncles.One pack on both ends of the Island.This is the way it used to be.It does not take a study by a bunch of Liberals that just want to spend more money to figure this out.Both packs will slowly lower the moose population,which is too large and will create at least another pack or 2
from their offspring which will even out the population of both.Having that many wolves will scare some of the cows not to birth in the first place so not all the moose will be eaten by wolves to lower the population.Just do not,repeat,do not bring a pack of the very large grey wolves from Canada.Bring in normal sized wolves and problem solved.Also,get ready for more people like ourselves who enjoy listening to the wolves to come to the Park.It is the wolves that draw the people not the moose.More sightings more people.If you have not heard wolves howl at night for more than a half hr you are missing out on something spectacular.
A bunch of good commentary, although when one person in the middle of talking about moose, wolves, and islands interjects to take a cheap shot at liberals it was a clanger.
If I'm not mistaken the main cause of their demise is inbreeding. Unless there is a compelling reason to intervene to continue this long running study I say let nature take it's course. Another pack may well establish itself sometime in the future or it may not but why treat the island like a zoo? I don't think wolves need help in Canada, northern WI or MI any longer. I'm in favor of protecting threatened species or intervening when man has or is causing their demise but I don't think that is the case here. It's always an interesting debate (at least to me), any time we talk about what is "natural". And not to open a can of worms here but it is also nice to see the lack of ice bridges can't be blamed, otherwise I'm convinced many would be blaming global warming for their demise.
wild places, you make an interesting point, I do not know enough about the situation to make an informed comment. It will be interesting to see what the wildlife biologists come up with. What is natural is complex, climate changes, animal and plant species do migrate. Here in the Sierra Nevada mountains, biologists are beginning to say the biotic communities have moved up about 1000 feet, if I have my facts right. This due to the last 50 years of climate change here in the mountains. Perhaps someone in the area or Kurt could get some information on the issue if Kurt has not already done so,
Ahhh, Traveler has written much on the plight of these wolves:
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2013/03/isle-royale-national-parks-...
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2012/03/are-wolves-isle-royale-nati...
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2011/04/how-stable-future-isle-roya...
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/04/isle-royale-national-parks-...
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2007/10/2008-marks-50-years-wolf-mo...
Thank you Kurt, very helpful. A complex issue, the biologists points are extremely interesting.
Yes, introduce wolves from Michigan's U.P. Man has already unintentionally introduced Parvovirus once which effected the wolf population. Culling or removing the Moose would only be a temporary fix. Not having the checks and balances will result in the destruction of vegetation. I have been to Isle Royal twice and it was an unforgettable experience. It would be devastating to loose what makes it so special, the wolves.
I've backpacked Isle Royale many times over the last 37 years & have always been interested in the wolf/moose relationship. The fact that wolves inhabited the island made the visits very special to my family. To simply let their population disappear is wrong IMO. I normally wouldn't recommend intervening in the natural process, but I definitely feel an exception needs to be made here.
During my last visit in 2013, I listened to a wolf expert (can't recall his name) talking about inbreeding most likely causing the declining population. If & when the current wolf population disappears, mainland wolves from Michigan/Minnesota should be introduced to the island.
I would have thought that by now the EIS would have been completed and action taken.
If the wolves are allowed to disappear the moose will over browse the island.
I sincerely hope that one way or another, wolves will have a future on the island.
75% of the 1090 comments submitted prior to the formal opening of the comment period support genetic rescue. Another 9% support introducing wolves once the wolves are gone. Why has NPS chosen to ignore them and not include them as part of the process? The people who wrote are clearly concerned about Isle Royale. I suspect that NPS has other motives and the public comments do not support what NPS wants to do and so, ignore the comments & open a formal comment period.