Yeah, major progress there....
Look at how many people will be flooding the gates at Yellowstone to see the cottonwoods. 
Sure, tree huggers pay lots of money for the right to hug, right?
I also suggest this report purposely leaves out information that may lead to different conclusions. Yes, if you removed all ungulate wildlife from a given ecosystem, tree and plants will flourish. Is that healthy for the ecosystem? Doubtful. If you add 15 dozen beavers to an ecosystem from which you've removed the ungulates, you're going to see more tree growth in the wetter areas. But there's a problem: the ungulate herds in Yellowstone have become so small, they no longer support the enhanced predator populations, which is evidenced by the fact that wolves from Yellowstone are leaving the park, their safe place, to find ungulates elsewhere. We know this is true because they're being tracked by MFW&P and as a result, the number of wolf tags just outside the park has been increased, while the ungulate tags have decreased.
So, the conclusion of this internet biologist and keyboard expert is that the increased tree growth in the park is 1. Due to a number of influences, some which remain purposely left out of this study, leaving the results and ethics of the study in question, 2. an indication of declining ungulate populations to dangerously low levels, so low, in fact, that the predators are no longer being sustained within the study area, and 3. is an indication of negative effects reaching beyond the borders of the study into the surrounding areas.
I have to agree with many who've pointed out that when you try to reach a specific result through the compilation of data, you will, regardless of the actual value of that result. Sorry Jerky, we need more science and less theater.
