Perhaps without an apex predator the prey species would evolve out of the overpopulation problem eventually. However, species that evolve with a predator tend to reproduce more quickly, which helps avoid being completely wiped out by the predator - when the population constraint impose by the predator is removed, the prey population explodes, leading to particularly pronounced problems.

(Perhaps if we had to contend with some homo-vampirus, we wouldn't have global climate change...)

Overall, humans already interfered in the shape of the ecosystem by removing wolves. You're correct that there's no objective 'correct' state for an ecosystem. But it is worthwhile to help balance ecosystems, especially when they have been unbalanced by our own interventions. Without restoration work, we're headed to a world with humans, livestock, and the few species that manage to live on our margins.

Philosophically though you're correct- humans very easily see themselves as "apart" from the environment, when really we're just another mammal doing our thing. We are nature as much as we are in it, even for all of our tools and manufacturing.

When you "destroy" an ecosystem, a new one will take its place. The remaining animals and plants will converge on a new balanced state.

The ecosystems we admire today are often that new balance after humans destroyed the natural one.

One of the hallmarks of human engineered environments is how shallow and fragile they are. Changes, like the reintroduction of wolves, are "good" because they give us deeper and more resilient environments

It's wild, because it's so easy to measure and asses: an ecological desert, dying ecosystem, rich in single overgrazing specie is unequivocally bad.

Rich, lush ecosystems sustaining great biodiversity and ecologically unique features (eg chalk streams or temperate rainforests in the UK) are good. Killing everything for the sake of one specie: Bad.

More on that if your position is honest: https://www.monbiot.com/2025/05/12/the-commoner-kings/

Biodiversity is a good measure of ecosystem health, no? Is it really a human value?

It sure sounds like we're just choosing the species we like. It's like a big walled garden.

> The average height of willows in fenced and dammed plots 20 years after the initiation of the experiment exceeded 350 cm, while the height in controls averaged less than 180 cm

> This suggests that well watered plants could tolerate relatively heavy browsing. It also shows that the absence of engineering by beavers suppressed willow growth to a similar extent as did browsing

They posit that the growth in control groups not matching the fenced areas is evidence of wolves reintroduction not having the effects they are said to have. It is a pretty unconvincing argument since there are so many other variables involved. They also prove that IF the wolves have indirectly lead to either the return of beaver dams, or reduced elk browsing, there is undoubtedly an impact in tree growth, which is a positive result regardless.

Their theory that things will never return to their original state, and instead will settle into a new alternate equilibrium is probably correct, but does not seem like the definitive blow to the wolf theory that it’s made out to be.

However, the introduction of wolves did, incontrovertibly, add a system element that had not been present before. Exactly what that element was, and how it expressed is up for interpretation :-)

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/ys-24-1-the-challenge-of-unde...

TL;DR - the observed reduction of the elk herd correlated with wolf introduction, but also with an increase in cougars, grizzly bears, and even bison, all of which either reduce or compete with elk. Human hunting also added pressure, but that has been limited as the herd size reduced. It is complicated.

Waiting for someone to reply to this doing exactly this

I suggest reading Candide by Voltaire, first published 266 years as a critique to the philosophy you are currently espousing.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44674445

It’s an interesting question and this could be empirically tested if human hunting would be slowly reduced.

I’ll say that I’ve not read the article so if it’s in the article then I would rather you just point to that, rather than make this response.

After all, off in a democracy an expert expects to be paid by taxpayers to make decisions that affect the taxpayer the expert should be, at the very least, be able to explain himself in an intelligible manner.

Thats the bare minimum of expectations. I also expect the taxpayer funded expert to provided full access to his data, notes and analysis software.

Im considered an expert in thermodynamics, materials science and E&M. The people that pay me routinely don't understand what I'm working on, but they expect me to explain myself.

The effect on quaking aspens in Pardo is also something we need to study long term. Are the two related?