by Christopher J. Preston, University of Montana

From sports to pop culture, there are few themes more appealing than a good comeback. They happen in nature, too. Even with the Earth losing species at a historic rate, some animals have defied the trend toward extinction and started refilling their old ecological niches.

I’m a philosopher based in Montana and specialize in environmental ethics. For my new book, “Tenacious Beasts: Wildlife Recoveries That Change How We Think About Animals,” I spent three years looking at wildlife comebacks across North America and Europe and considering the lessons they offer. In every case, whether the returnee is a bison, humpback whale, beaver, salmon, sea otter or wolf, the recovery has created an opportunity for humans to profoundly rethink how we live with these animals.

One place to see the rethink in action is Colorado, where voters approved a ballot measure in 2020 mandating the reintroduction of gray wolves west of the Continental Divide. Colorado’s Parks and Wildlife Agency has released a draft plan that calls for moving 30 to 50 gray wolves from other Rocky Mountain states into northwest Colorado over five years, starting in 2024.

Aldo Leopold, the famed conservationist and professor of game management at the University of Wisconsin, believed that moral beliefs evolve over time to become more inclusive of the natural world. And what’s happening in Colorado suggests Leopold was right. Human attitudes toward wolves have clearly evolved since the mid-1940s, when bounties, mass poisoning and trapping eradicated wolves from the state.

Recovering animals encounter a world that is markedly different from the one in which they declined, especially in terms of how people think about wildlife. Here are several reasons I see why societal attitudes toward wolves have changed.

The importance of keystone species

The idea that certain influential species, which ecologists call keystone species, can significantly alter the ecosystems around them first appeared in scientific literature in 1974. Bison, sea otters, beavers, elephants and wolves all exert this power. One way in which wolves wield influence is by preying on coyotes, which produces ripple effects across the system. Fewer coyotes means more rodents, which in turn means better hunting success for birds of prey.

Wolves also cause nervous behaviors among their prey. Some scientists believe that newly returned predators create a “landscape of fear” among prey species – a term that isn’t positive or negative, just descriptive. This idea has shifted thinking about predators. For example, elk avoid some areas when wolves are around, resulting in ecological changes that cascade down from the top. Vegetation can recover, which in turn may benefit other species.

Insights into pack dynamics

Animal behavioral science research has provided pointers for better wolf management. Studies show that wolf packs are less likely to prey on livestock if their social structure remains intact. This means that ranchers and wildlife managers should take care not to remove the pack’s breeding pair when problems occur. Doing so can fragment the pack and send dispersing wolves into new territories.

Wildlife agencies also have access to years of data from close observation of wolf behavior in places like Yellowstone National Park, where wolves were reintroduced starting in 1995. This research offers insights into the wolf’s intelligence and social complexity. All of this information helps to show how people can live successfully alongside them.

Predators provide economic value

Research has also demonstrated that wolves provide economic benefits to states and communities. Wisconsin researchers discovered that changes in deer behavior due to the presence of wolves have saved millions of dollars in avoided deer collisions with cars. These savings far exceed what it costs the state to manage wolves.

Wolf recovery has been shown to be a net economic benefit in areas of the U.S. West where they have returned. The dollars they attract from wolf-watchers, photographers and foreign visitors have provided a valuable new income stream in many communities.

Predators do kill livestock, but improved tracking has helped to put these losses in perspective. Montana Board of Livestock numbers show that wolves, grizzly bears and mountain lions caused the loss of 131 cattle and 137 sheep in the state in 2022. This is from a total of 2,200,000 cattle and 190,000 sheep. Of the 131 cattle, 36 were confirmed to be taken by wolves – 0.0016% of the statewide herd.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, dogs, foxes and coyotes in Montana all killed more sheep and lambs than wolves did in 2020. Even eagles were three times more deadly to sheep and lambs than wolves were.

Actual costs to ranchers are certainly higher than these numbers suggest. The presence of wolves causes livestock to lose weight because the animals feed more nervously when wolves are around. Ranchers also lose sleep as they worry about wolves attacking their livestock and guard dogs. And clearly, low statewide kills are small comfort to a rancher who loses a dozen or more animals in one year. Margins are always tight in the livestock business.

What’s more, predators’ economic impacts don’t end with ranching. In Colorado, for example, elk numbers are likely to decline after wolves are reintroduced. This may affect state wildlife agency budgets that rely on license fees from elk hunters. It may also affect hunting outfitters’ incomes.

In my view, voters who supported bringing wolves back to Colorado should remain deeply aware of the full distribution of costs and support proactive compensation schemes for losses. They should be mindful that support for wolf reintroduction varies drastically between urban and rural communities and should insist that effective mechanisms are in place ahead of time to ensure fair sharing of the economic burdens that wolves generate.

A new ethical playing field

Despite these complexities, the idea of the “big bad wolf” clearly no longer dominates Americans’ thinking. And the wolf is not alone. Social acceptance of many other wildlife species is also increasing. For example, a 2023 study found that between 80% and 90% of Montanans believed grizzly bears – which are recovering and expanding their presence there – have a right to exist.

Aldo Leopold famously claimed to have experienced an epiphany when he shot a wolf in New Mexico in the 1920s and saw “a fierce green fire” dying in her eyes. In reality, his attitude took several more decades to change. Humans may have an ingrained evolutionary disposition to fear carnivorous predators like wolves, but the change ended up being real for Leopold, and it lasted.

Leopold, who died in 1948, did not live to see many wildlife species recover, but I believe he would have regarded what’s happening now as an opportunity for Americans’ moral growth. Because Leopold knew that ethics, like animals, are always evolving.

Christopher J. Preston, Professor of Philosophy, University of Montana

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

by Todd M. Freeberg, University of Tennessee

Carolina chickadees are small, boisterous year-round residents of the southeastern United States. They are regularly found with much larger tufted titmice, white-breasted nuthatches and various woodpecker species.

In these mixed flocks, chickadees are almost always the subordinate individuals, outcompeted by their larger flockmates. Why, then, do chickadees regularly join these flocks? Might they have a symbiotic relationship with other species in these flocks?

I study animal behavior and am especially interested in testing how diverse groups of animals sometimes outperform uniform groups made up of a single species.

One potential explanation for why chickadees – or any species, for that matter – might join a mixed-species group is that such groups may possess a wider variety of cognitive tools, resulting in increased creativity and innovation for the group as a whole.

More is more

One of the first experiments to demonstrate the benefits of diversity involved honeybees and their ability to maintain optimal hive temperature, which is crucial to egg and larval development.

Scientists manipulated the surrounding temperature of bee colonies that varied in their genetic relatedness. Some colonies had only a single male that mated with the queen, while others had multiple males that mated with the queen. The more genetically diverse colonies were better at maintaining hive temperatures than the genetically alike colonies.

The benefits of diversity within a species appear to extend to mixed-species groups as well.

Scientists have shown that Caribbean zenaida doves benefit by being in groups with Carib grackles, a species of blackbird. Zenaida doves do not have alarm calls of their own but respond to the alarm calls of grackles with increased vigilance. Carib grackles, in turn, may gain foraging benefits from interactions with zenaida doves by copying their foraging behavior and movements.

Similarly, Diana monkeys and Campbell’s monkeys in Côte d’Ivoire regularly join up in mixed-species groups. When this occurs, both species are freed up by the greater number of eyes and ears scanning for trouble, enabling them to focus on other tasks. Diana monkeys forage more in mixed-species groups than when they are alone and Campbell’s monkeys move and call more than when they are alone.

Birds of different feathers also flock together

My colleagues and I found similar results in our research on Carolina chickadees. These birds are often found in flocks with tufted titmice and white-breasted nuthatches, as well as a handful of other occasional species. We have been studying these flocks for two decades using simple platform feeders as a starting point. Once we found that a flock was using our platform feeder, we cleared the seeds and put them in a hopper-style feeder the birds had never seen before.

We found chickadees in flocks with titmice and nuthatches were more likely to figure out the feeder than chickadees in less diverse flocks. Titmice in diverse flocks were also more likely to solve the task than titmice in less diverse flocks. It’s possible, with more eyes and ears to perceive potential threats, individuals can spend less time patrolling for predators and more time problem-solving.

Other research on flocks of chickadees, titmice and nuthatches has supported this idea. When a predator is detected by these birds, they actively mob it in an effort to drive it from the area. Titmice tend to hang back and let the chickadees and nuthatches do the majority of the work, however, so it seems likely that titmice, in particular, benefit from the defensive behavior of the other two species in these flocks. Ongoing work is trying to determine whether titmice are freeloaders in these flocks – or if they are providing anti-predator or food-finding benefits.

Human diversity

The benefits-of-diversity idea has also been studied in people. Multiple experiments reveal that not only do groups make better decisions than individuals, more-diverse groups make better decisions than less-diverse groups.

In an experimental study of simulated marketplace decisions, teams of diverse individuals were better able to judge the true market value of commodities than homogeneous teams, in both southeast Asian and North American populations. In another study, juries of diverse individuals weighed relevant evidence more carefully and deliberated more effectively than homogeneous juries. Similar benefits of diversity are regularly observed in business and educational settings.

Scientists increasingly know there is strength in diversity – not just for bees and birds but for our own species, as well.

Todd M. Freeberg, Professor and Associate Head of Psychology, University of Tennessee

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.