Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: Bean Counter on February 16, 2014, 09:27:55 AMInteresting study and discussion. Reminding me that money talks.... Canada in many ways is more liberal than the United States and even Washington. But they see the handwriting on the wall for the millions and millions of dollars that hunting is to their economy. There would still be enough general tax revenue is Washington for a wildlife department in Washington even if nobody hunted and that doesn't strike me as the case in Canada.
Interesting study and discussion. Reminding me that money talks.... Canada in many ways is more liberal than the United States and even Washington. But they see the handwriting on the wall for the millions and millions of dollars that hunting is to their economy. There would still be enough general tax revenue is Washington for a wildlife department in Washington even if nobody hunted and that doesn't strike me as the case in Canada.
Interesting study and discussion. Reminding me that money talks.... Canada in many ways is more liberal than the United States and even Washington. But they see the handwriting on the wall for the millions and millions of dollars that hunting is to their economy.
Now that is rich. What they are protecting is the money from logging, and the tar sands, and other development. The money from hunters in that area is small potatoes. But lets assume you are right for a second. According to this report, hunting for deer and moose will decline, because part of the plan is to reduce deer and moose numbers to artificially keep wolf numbers deflated. How does that maintain or increase hunting and the money it brings with it?
This whole thing is a charade to mask the real problem, over development. Wolves are a scapegoat for projects like the tar sands development...........Here's the real culprit. https://www.google.com/search?q=tar+sands+images&client=firefox-a&hs=SsT&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=1RMBU9fDDcfgoAS244LQCw&ved=0CCcQsAQ&biw=1351&bih=633
Quote from: Sitka_Blacktail on February 16, 2014, 11:49:09 AMThis whole thing is a charade to mask the real problem, over development. Wolves are a scapegoat for projects like the tar sands development...........Here's the real culprit. https://www.google.com/search?q=tar+sands+images&client=firefox-a&hs=SsT&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=1RMBU9fDDcfgoAS244LQCw&ved=0CCcQsAQ&biw=1351&bih=633Sitka Blacktail: I am not one of those Internet wolf experts, so bear with me. I doubt that any hunter (conservationist) would dispute your thesis that loss of habitat is the primary (or, close to being the primary) cause of species decline--regardless of the species.But I don't follow your logic. This report is solely in regard to woodland caribou in British Columbia. Educate me: Where exactly are the tar sands in BC, and how did development of BC tar sands reduce woodland caribou habitat?An honest question, so that I can understand your post.
Other studies have indicated that only very aggressive reductions of 80% or more of the wolf population will result in immediate, positive responses by mountain caribou populations.
From the BC Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, in a report called "Caribou in British Columbia"http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eirs/finishDownloadDocument.do;jsessionid=vhv7TBTZ0ckGZTRqjJsyPlF2CFP1gW0F442pntGBGhQmNqnMQ80q!-714317157?subdocumentId=677"Today, Caribou occupy about 85 percent of their historic distribution in BC. Mountain Caribou occupy about 60 percent of their historic range. " P. 3."Wolves are generally the principal predators of Caribou, although Grizzly Bears and Cougars may also be significant sources of predation in some herds." P. 4. "When Moose expand into areas occupied by Caribou, Wolf populations also increase, which increases the potential for predation on Caribou. This may explain the loss in numbers of Caribou, as well as their reduced distribution." P. 4. "Wolf predation is believed to be the principal factor in the decline of Caribou in central BC. Industrial development (logging, mining and oil exploration, road-building) also threatens Caribou, not only because development reduces their principal food sources – ground and tree lichens – but also because Moose move in to take advantage of new vegetation on disturbed land, and this allows Wolf populations to increase." P. 5.The takeaway? Yes, habitat loss has indeed contributed to the decline of caribou in B.C., but wolves seem to be the principal agent of that decline. Also, the decline in numbers--while not a good thing--are not a crisis at this point.
This whole thing is a charade to mask the real problem, over development. Wolves are a scapegoat for projects like the tar sands development.If you read the whole report, you'll see that Bearpaw is wrong in asserting that wolves are the primary limiting factor. The primary limiting factor is HABITAT. Here's the money quote from this report."Although the Science Team identified habitat change as the most important cause of mountain caribou declines, the most significant consequences of habitat change are thought to be indirect. Forest harvesting has removed forest stands that support arboreal lichens, which caribou depend upon for winter food. The resulting early seral stands favour deer, elk and moose, which all thrive in younger-aged forests."Without the older forests that provide the lichens these caribou depend on in the winter, it doesn't matter what else is done, these caribou will never return to historic numbers.Then there is the rest of the plan which I'm really shocked Bearpaw is supporting. To get this herd of protected caribou up to 2,000 unhuntable animals, they are going to reduce the number of deer and moose in the area in an attempt to depress predator numbers. So they will be taking away hunting opportunity and the chance to put meat in the freezer for many people, to supposedly protect an unhuntable small herd of animals that probably isn't going to come back anyway because of modern logging practices and other development. And the real irony is they are getting rid of a prey base that has thrived and grown despite the growth of predator numbers. Now according to many internet wolf experts here, that isn't what happens when a few wolves get established. They kill everything and depress all prey populations. Well if wolves were the culprit, why have deer and moose populations gone up in that region while caribou numbers have gone down? Is it because wolves prefer caribou? Deer and moose are better at evading wolves? No. It's all about habitat. And I know many here who argue that habitat doesn't matter. you can just create and store more prey animals out of the blue if you just get rid of wolves and other predators. But the fact is, as pointed out above in the quote from the report, " the Science Team identified habitat change as the most important cause of mountain caribou declines" and "The resulting early seral stands favour deer, elk and moose, which all thrive in younger-aged forests". So because habitat favors deer and moose, they have thrived IN SPITE OF WOLVES. While poor habitat has sent the caribou into a tailspin.Here's another money quote that comes from this report that basically admits, no matter what is done to protect the Mt Caribou, they still may not come back. "Climate change has the potential to affect all these factors through increased frequency and/or severity of forest fires, changes in snow conditions and altered predator-prey dynamics. These interactions among habitat and predator-prey populations make it difficult to predict the outcomes of future management actions to benefit mountain caribou." So basically, they have no idea if any management decisions will help the caribou. This is all speculation and experiment.But in the mean time, deer, and moose, which are doing fine and providing hunting opportunity and food, are going to be reduced. And so are wolves who are cast as the scapegoat. You think local hunters are going to be overjoyed that their hunting opportunities are going to shrink in an attempt to make it look like an unhuntable population of Caribou is being protected? Meanwhile the real cause of the decline will continue unimpeded.......development.Here's the real culprit. https://www.google.com/search?q=tar+sands+images&client=firefox-a&hs=SsT&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=1RMBU9fDDcfgoAS244LQCw&ved=0CCcQsAQ&biw=1351&bih=633
Sitka Blacktail: I am not one of those Internet wolf experts, so bear with me. I doubt that any hunter (conservationist) would dispute your thesis that loss of habitat is the primary (or, close to being the primary) cause of species decline--regardless of the species.But I don't follow your logic. This report is solely in regard to woodland caribou in British Columbia. Educate me: Where exactly are the tar sands in BC, and how did development of BC tar sands reduce woodland caribou habitat?An honest question, so that I can understand your post.
Quote from: AspenBud on February 16, 2014, 09:16:34 AMQuote from: bearpaw on February 16, 2014, 08:41:05 AMQuote from: AspenBud on February 16, 2014, 08:30:50 AMQuote from: bearpaw on February 15, 2014, 09:45:04 PMQuote from: AspenBud on February 15, 2014, 07:22:58 AMI didn't read all of it but if you get past all the bold you also see they are recommending lower moose and deer numbers. I'm assuming this would be done in tandem with cougar and wolf hunting to keep the wolves from having as much to eat and limit pup survival??? So are they saying moose and deer up there are able to handle wolf and cougar predation?Maybe I misread it...??They say the healthy moose and deer herds are causing wolf numbers to expand in caribou country. They can reduce predator numbers but they will likely expand quickly again with lots of prey available. By reducing moose and deer numbers the wolves will not be able to maintain as high of population level. Fewer wolves means less predation on caribou, so fewer prey animals will support fewer wolves which ultimately should allow caribou numbers to expand. It makes sense. This scenario also involves reducing cougars.I get that, it makes sense, but it seems to me that they must feel fairly confident that wolves won't kill off their moose and deer despite lowering the number of moose and deer. They're effectively saying their deer and moose are growing in number despite wolves and cougars and causing the predator numbers to grow too large for caribou to handle as a result. That's a little different take than what we hear down here. Sounds to me like they're saying some ungulates can handle the pressure better than others. My question is why? Do they have more stable populations? More appropriate habitat? Are they more prolific? The fact that they manage wolves up there can't be the only reason when they are talking about managing cougars, wolves, deer, and moose. If anything the piece would seem to indicate the four animals live a little too well together. What makes BC different?You are missing the point. Sure wolves will eventually reduce deer and moose as they multiply in southern BC. But they need to act before wolves over populate to that point. Caribou are at low enough levels that incidental kill of them by the large predator population must be reduced now to save the specie. They plan to take out a large percentage of wolves but the wolf population will rebuild unless they take out deer and moose so that there isn't enough prey to support a large predator population. Otherwise they will be stuck killing large numbers of wolves every year. They can use liberal hunting seasons to reduce deer and moose numbers which will make it tougher for predators to recover as quickly and wolf reductions won't be needed as often.I didn't miss that. The Canadians are doing what we should be doing. I'm just fascinated that they aren't worried the combination of wolves and increased limits won't effectively create a predator pit. They're essentially showing with proper management that the two can coexist.Nice try, you are a crafty one... Here's the difference, the Canadians are trying to save their caribou herd and have identified wolves as the primary limiting factor and are taking all measures needed to save the caribou. Whitetail are nearly looked upon as an intrusive specie that is expanding it's range, so the Canadians don't mind limiting them and the moose are seen as a temporary casualty in the scheme of saving the caribou from wolves because they can't afford annual wolf control.Here in the northwest US, we are trying to save our elk, moose, and deer herds from wolves and we have a lot more hunters and trappers per square mile who can make an impact on wolves, so we are faced with an entirely different set of circumstances and reductions in prey is not as needed to control wolves, we just need the government to recognize wolves are a problem and get out of the way and we'll make giant steps toward controlling wolves in the northwest US. Unfortunately it appears that the WDFW has no concern about the caribou in GMU 113. That is the only GMU in WA that somewhat resembles the circumstances being experienced in BC.
Quote from: bearpaw on February 16, 2014, 08:41:05 AMQuote from: AspenBud on February 16, 2014, 08:30:50 AMQuote from: bearpaw on February 15, 2014, 09:45:04 PMQuote from: AspenBud on February 15, 2014, 07:22:58 AMI didn't read all of it but if you get past all the bold you also see they are recommending lower moose and deer numbers. I'm assuming this would be done in tandem with cougar and wolf hunting to keep the wolves from having as much to eat and limit pup survival??? So are they saying moose and deer up there are able to handle wolf and cougar predation?Maybe I misread it...??They say the healthy moose and deer herds are causing wolf numbers to expand in caribou country. They can reduce predator numbers but they will likely expand quickly again with lots of prey available. By reducing moose and deer numbers the wolves will not be able to maintain as high of population level. Fewer wolves means less predation on caribou, so fewer prey animals will support fewer wolves which ultimately should allow caribou numbers to expand. It makes sense. This scenario also involves reducing cougars.I get that, it makes sense, but it seems to me that they must feel fairly confident that wolves won't kill off their moose and deer despite lowering the number of moose and deer. They're effectively saying their deer and moose are growing in number despite wolves and cougars and causing the predator numbers to grow too large for caribou to handle as a result. That's a little different take than what we hear down here. Sounds to me like they're saying some ungulates can handle the pressure better than others. My question is why? Do they have more stable populations? More appropriate habitat? Are they more prolific? The fact that they manage wolves up there can't be the only reason when they are talking about managing cougars, wolves, deer, and moose. If anything the piece would seem to indicate the four animals live a little too well together. What makes BC different?You are missing the point. Sure wolves will eventually reduce deer and moose as they multiply in southern BC. But they need to act before wolves over populate to that point. Caribou are at low enough levels that incidental kill of them by the large predator population must be reduced now to save the specie. They plan to take out a large percentage of wolves but the wolf population will rebuild unless they take out deer and moose so that there isn't enough prey to support a large predator population. Otherwise they will be stuck killing large numbers of wolves every year. They can use liberal hunting seasons to reduce deer and moose numbers which will make it tougher for predators to recover as quickly and wolf reductions won't be needed as often.I didn't miss that. The Canadians are doing what we should be doing. I'm just fascinated that they aren't worried the combination of wolves and increased limits won't effectively create a predator pit. They're essentially showing with proper management that the two can coexist.
Quote from: AspenBud on February 16, 2014, 08:30:50 AMQuote from: bearpaw on February 15, 2014, 09:45:04 PMQuote from: AspenBud on February 15, 2014, 07:22:58 AMI didn't read all of it but if you get past all the bold you also see they are recommending lower moose and deer numbers. I'm assuming this would be done in tandem with cougar and wolf hunting to keep the wolves from having as much to eat and limit pup survival??? So are they saying moose and deer up there are able to handle wolf and cougar predation?Maybe I misread it...??They say the healthy moose and deer herds are causing wolf numbers to expand in caribou country. They can reduce predator numbers but they will likely expand quickly again with lots of prey available. By reducing moose and deer numbers the wolves will not be able to maintain as high of population level. Fewer wolves means less predation on caribou, so fewer prey animals will support fewer wolves which ultimately should allow caribou numbers to expand. It makes sense. This scenario also involves reducing cougars.I get that, it makes sense, but it seems to me that they must feel fairly confident that wolves won't kill off their moose and deer despite lowering the number of moose and deer. They're effectively saying their deer and moose are growing in number despite wolves and cougars and causing the predator numbers to grow too large for caribou to handle as a result. That's a little different take than what we hear down here. Sounds to me like they're saying some ungulates can handle the pressure better than others. My question is why? Do they have more stable populations? More appropriate habitat? Are they more prolific? The fact that they manage wolves up there can't be the only reason when they are talking about managing cougars, wolves, deer, and moose. If anything the piece would seem to indicate the four animals live a little too well together. What makes BC different?You are missing the point. Sure wolves will eventually reduce deer and moose as they multiply in southern BC. But they need to act before wolves over populate to that point. Caribou are at low enough levels that incidental kill of them by the large predator population must be reduced now to save the specie. They plan to take out a large percentage of wolves but the wolf population will rebuild unless they take out deer and moose so that there isn't enough prey to support a large predator population. Otherwise they will be stuck killing large numbers of wolves every year. They can use liberal hunting seasons to reduce deer and moose numbers which will make it tougher for predators to recover as quickly and wolf reductions won't be needed as often.
Quote from: bearpaw on February 15, 2014, 09:45:04 PMQuote from: AspenBud on February 15, 2014, 07:22:58 AMI didn't read all of it but if you get past all the bold you also see they are recommending lower moose and deer numbers. I'm assuming this would be done in tandem with cougar and wolf hunting to keep the wolves from having as much to eat and limit pup survival??? So are they saying moose and deer up there are able to handle wolf and cougar predation?Maybe I misread it...??They say the healthy moose and deer herds are causing wolf numbers to expand in caribou country. They can reduce predator numbers but they will likely expand quickly again with lots of prey available. By reducing moose and deer numbers the wolves will not be able to maintain as high of population level. Fewer wolves means less predation on caribou, so fewer prey animals will support fewer wolves which ultimately should allow caribou numbers to expand. It makes sense. This scenario also involves reducing cougars.I get that, it makes sense, but it seems to me that they must feel fairly confident that wolves won't kill off their moose and deer despite lowering the number of moose and deer. They're effectively saying their deer and moose are growing in number despite wolves and cougars and causing the predator numbers to grow too large for caribou to handle as a result. That's a little different take than what we hear down here. Sounds to me like they're saying some ungulates can handle the pressure better than others. My question is why? Do they have more stable populations? More appropriate habitat? Are they more prolific? The fact that they manage wolves up there can't be the only reason when they are talking about managing cougars, wolves, deer, and moose. If anything the piece would seem to indicate the four animals live a little too well together. What makes BC different?
Quote from: AspenBud on February 15, 2014, 07:22:58 AMI didn't read all of it but if you get past all the bold you also see they are recommending lower moose and deer numbers. I'm assuming this would be done in tandem with cougar and wolf hunting to keep the wolves from having as much to eat and limit pup survival??? So are they saying moose and deer up there are able to handle wolf and cougar predation?Maybe I misread it...??They say the healthy moose and deer herds are causing wolf numbers to expand in caribou country. They can reduce predator numbers but they will likely expand quickly again with lots of prey available. By reducing moose and deer numbers the wolves will not be able to maintain as high of population level. Fewer wolves means less predation on caribou, so fewer prey animals will support fewer wolves which ultimately should allow caribou numbers to expand. It makes sense. This scenario also involves reducing cougars.
I didn't read all of it but if you get past all the bold you also see they are recommending lower moose and deer numbers. I'm assuming this would be done in tandem with cougar and wolf hunting to keep the wolves from having as much to eat and limit pup survival??? So are they saying moose and deer up there are able to handle wolf and cougar predation?Maybe I misread it...??
I see "moss" as I call it on low level limbs in the photos that KFhunter posted, limbs that the caribou could reach, maybe you should look at the photos again? I also see this same moss on trees all around NE Washington on trees of all sizes including on limbs low to the ground. I still say that an 80% reduction in predators is what is needed for our Washington/Idaho caribou herd and for the BC herd just as biologists recommend. FYI - Tar sand development in Alberta has little to do with caribou declines in BC or with our herd in ID/WA.
