Wolves: threats to elk or controllers of rivers?

This week I read two chapters from two different books; both written for the pubic and both describing the importance of wolves to ecosystems (in light of their re-introduction to Yellowstone National Park).  One was written by a scientist partaking in wolf research, the other by a wildlife journalist.  Both were well written and easy to understand.  They both talked about scientific studies and mentioned the same stories.  However, it was immediately apparent which what written by whom.  The tell-tail signs were how the chapters were opened, the way events were described, and how they ended.

“Wolf Effect,” the seventh chapter in Decade of the Wolf opens with a definition of terms so that the audience understands the context of the vocabulary; a logical – and very “scientific” – way to begin a topic.  The author then proceeds with a series of examples detailing how wolves are important to the system.  As the authors move up the food chain from trees to birds, bears, and beetles, each examples is a concise narrative of facts.  On a whole, the writing seems somewhat detached (despite the use of first person).  The chapter ended with the statement that the idea that wolves will wipe out elk is ridiculous because they have evolved together and co-existed for thousands of years prior to the removal of wolves. This chapter seemed to be a desperate argument in support of wolf reintroduction.  At the end, I was left with mind full of facts as to why wolves are not the only reason for the declines of elk and that they are good for almost every other living creature.

            “Valley of Fear” is a very different chapter in Where the Wild Things Were.  The first paragraph is a very visual experience as the author paints a picture of Yellowstone National Park.  The author then contrasts this scene with a first hand account of Robert Beschta who saw a not-quite picturesque scene on the banks of a stream.  The opening to the chapter ends with anticipation of what is to come.  This author is more verbose than the scientist and uses visual language to draw the reader into the events described.  The finale to this chapter is one of hope – of imagination.  What other changes might lay in the wake of the wolves’ return?  When I finished reading this chapter I felt as though I had traveled to the sites, had seen the studies take place, and knew the stories behind the story.  While this chapter can also be seen as an argument in favor of wolves, it felt more like a colorful story praising the power of wolves.  With the last sentences the reader is left with an image: “’It’s pretty amazing. Wolves controlling rivers’”

            I felt that both authors were effective at detailing the importance of wolves to ecosystems.  However, I felt that the author of Where the Wild Things Were was much more effective at getting and holding my attention.  I was drawn deeper into the story, knew the background, and was invited to imagine the future.  Even more impressive is that I don’t think any of the science was lost within the imagery.  The author detailed scientific studies – even going beyond and telling the story of the researchers so that the reader feels a connection to a person.  After reading this chapter I’m excited about wolves (and not thinking about elk survival in the face of wolves as I was with the other book).  I think that if scientists want to make people care about a subject then it needs to written in the fashion of Where the Wild Things Were: colorful imagery, suspense, and hard science.