Post by: bearpaw on February 15, 2014, 03:04:51 AM
Recommendations for Predator-Prey Management to Benefit the Recovery of Mountain Caribou in British Columbia
Prepared by:
Steven F. Wilson, Ph.D., R.P.Bio.,
Prepared for:
BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria
Executive Summary
On 16 October 2007, the BC government announced its endorsement of an implementation plan for mountain caribou recovery. The plan included several commitments, including managing predator and primary prey populations to reduce predation pressure in areas where predators are preventing caribou recovery. The purpose of this report is to recommend a framework for predator-prey management in support of mountain caribou recovery efforts in British Columbia.
The government-appointed Mountain Caribou Science Team was very clear that without immediate action to reverse population declines by reducing predation losses, some mountain caribou herds could be extirpated before the benefits of other management actions are realized. Therefore, it is imperative that the intensity of predator-prey management actions be scaled to the relative risk facing different mountain caribou herds.
Wolf predation is considered the major factor limiting the growth of caribou populations in North America and there is ample evidence that reductions in wolf populations can result in immediate and dramatic increases in caribou populations. The role of other predators in limiting caribou is less clear; however, high cougar abundance was correlated with a large decline in mountain caribou abundance in the South Purcells in the late 1990’s.
The following are recommended principles to guide predator management:
1. wolves and cougars will be the focus of predator management to benefit mountain caribou;
2. actions to benefit mountain caribou will be balanced against conservation objectives related to wolves and cougars; and,
3. wolf and cougar management will vary with the risk to mountain caribou herds. Grizzly and black bears are also important predators throughout mountain caribou range; however, reducing the risk of predation posed by bears would require either large-scale reductions, or the identification of individual problem bears, both of which are difficult. As a result, bears will continue to pose a mortality risk to mountain caribou, which will reduce the effectiveness of other predator management actions.
Based on available literature and data, predator densities in mountain caribou range and in the surrounding “matrix” habitat should average <6.5 wolves/1000 km2 and <10 cougar/1000 km2 and in most areas should be much lower, depending on the size and trend of mountain caribou herds. 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. Even this level of reduction might not result in responses similar to those observed elsewhere because of the role of bear predation.
Removal of all resident packs and/or individuals is a legitimate goal where even rare predation events would further jeopardize the viability of a caribou herd. Sterilization of alpha male and female wolves might also be effective in reducing the growth rate of resident packs.
Regulated hunting and trapping will not be sufficient to reduce wolves to target densities. Hired trappers can be more effective but many biologists doubt that recovery objectives can be met without resorting to shooting wolves from helicopters, which they consider to be the most effective and humane approach. In contrast, cougars can be well-regulated by conventional hunting techniques.
Predator-Prey Management to Benefit Mountain Caribou Recovery ii
In the long term, caribou persistence will likely require reducing prey abundance within and adjacent to mountain caribou range, otherwise, predator reductions will need to be ongoing and intense. Based on the outcomes of a workshop in January 2008 ungulate and caribou biologists deemed it possible to reduce moose to reduce wolf carrying capacity. But biologists concluded that the population of white-tailed deer in southern BC is too large and resilient to be effectively reduced; therefore, high hunting pressure on cougars will need to be maintained indefinitely.
Biologists expressed concern about the northward expansion of deer and cougars and the subsequent effect on mountain caribou. As a result, they recommended that deer should be prevented from increasing where populations are currently low.
The following are recommended principles to guide the implementation of primary prey management:
1. moose will be the focus of prey reductions to benefit mountain caribou;
2. moose reductions to benefit mountain caribou will be balanced against moose conservation and use objectives;
3. moose targets will fall within the bounds generally expected under a natural disturbance regime; and,
4. deer populations should be prevented from increasing, where feasible. There are several methods that can be used to inform moose density targets: a review of wolf and moose densities observed in other jurisdictions; static biomass-based equations; dynamic modelling; and, habitat
analyses based on natural disturbance return intervals. Analyses based on available data suggest that target densities of 50-300 moose/1000 km2 would benefit mountain caribou recovery, depending on the circumstances of individual caribou herds.
Reducing moose to benefit mountain caribou has a strong theoretical basis, but it has not been tested experimentally. Trials are underway in two mountain caribou planning units and future decisions need to be informed by the outcomes of these trials. It may be necessary to initiate reductions in other areas where mountain caribou are most at risk, before results of the trials are known.
The relationships between management action outcomes and mountain caribou herd sizes and trends will be the basis for assessing the effectiveness of the predator-prey strategy. The Ministry of Environment has established specific population goals for mountain caribou and evaluation of the programme should be based on the soonest-available caribou data following implementation of predator-prey management actions.
More here: http://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/Recommendations_Predator-Prey_Management_Final.pdf (http://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/Recommendations_Predator-Prey_Management_Final.pdf)
Post by: bearpaw on February 15, 2014, 03:05:48 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 15, 2014, 05:17:00 AM
This is a really good read: http://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/Recommendations_Predator-Prey_Management_Final.pdf (http://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/Recommendations_Predator-Prey_Management_Final.pdf):chuckle: And yet the our "genius" of a commission voted to approve the wolf plan anyway. :stup: :mor:
Post by: AspenBud on February 15, 2014, 07:22:58 AM
Maybe I misread it...??
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2014, 06:16:05 PM
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...??
Typically the Caribou are above the predators and other game species in the winter but not in the spring/summer/fall months. You should read this thinking moose and deer draw predators and in summer seasons overlap with the caribou.
If deer and moose were kept at very low levels the idea is they won't draw predators and caribou getting taken as a side menu.
Post by: deaner on February 15, 2014, 06:25:42 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 15, 2014, 09:45:04 PM
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...??
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.
Post by: AspenBud on February 16, 2014, 08:30:50 AM
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...??
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? :dunno: 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?
Post by: bearpaw on February 16, 2014, 08:41:05 AM
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...??
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? :dunno: 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.
Post by: bearpaw on February 16, 2014, 08:42:23 AM
Post by: AspenBud on February 16, 2014, 09:16:34 AM
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...??
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? :dunno: 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.
Post by: Bean Counter on February 16, 2014, 09:18:46 AM
Mountain caribou = woodland caribou?
Post by: Bean Counter on February 16, 2014, 09:27:55 AM
Post by: AspenBud on February 16, 2014, 09:36:20 AM
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.
:yeah:
Post by: bearpaw on February 16, 2014, 09:44:06 AM
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...??
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? :dunno: 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... :chuckle:
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.
Post by: bearpaw on February 16, 2014, 09:46:10 AM
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.
:yeah:
good point
Post by: pd on February 16, 2014, 10:22:12 AM
result in immediate, positive responses by mountain caribou populations.
That is fascinating, if true. Also, the point (relevant for rural BC, perhaps not applicable to lower 48 states with wolves) that helicopter hunting of wolves is the only effective (and, "humane"??) method to achieve the 80% population reduction is shocking.
Finally, the point that elimination of entire packs is recommended really grabs my attention.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I don't read the Seattle Times very often, but somehow doubt I would have seen this there.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 16, 2014, 11:49:09 AM
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 (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)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 16, 2014, 11:55:44 AM
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?
Post by: Bean Counter on February 16, 2014, 12:22:22 PM
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?
Whether its 100% wolf and 0% ungulate, or vice versa, i don't see that affecting mineral and lumber extraction either way.
As others have suggested the moose and deer might be more prolific breeders so bringing them down for a while might be just to SSS the wolves. :dunno:
Post by: pd on February 16, 2014, 03:48:18 PM
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 (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.
Post by: pd on February 16, 2014, 04:01:12 PM
http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eirs/finishDownloadDocument.do;jsessionid=vhv7TBTZ0ckGZTRqjJsyPlF2CFP1gW0F442pntGBGhQmNqnMQ80q (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.
:twocents: :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on February 16, 2014, 04:10:37 PM
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 (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.
Excellent points pd.... :tup:
Quote
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.
Although I definitely agree, this quote comes from the Steven F. Wilson, Ph.D., R.P.Bio., for the BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria.
Post by: bearpaw on February 16, 2014, 04:37:57 PM
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 (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.
:twocents: :twocents:
I normally would not encourage loss of hunting opportunity for anyone. However, unlike the claimed but false "endangered" status of wolves, these caribou herds are in decline and they need help while there is still some hope. I would point out that hunters will be used to facilitate declines in the moose and whitetail in an attempt to recover the BC mountain caribou.
If Washington was concerned about species that are actually in decline, they would attempt helping our small declining caribou herd in the Salmo Wilderness. There is no logging or tar sands in the Salmo Wilderness but our only caribou herd in the lower 48 continues to decline. I would suggest that removal of wolves, cougar, and bear within this wilderness would aid survival of young caribou as well as adults. If removal of other prey is needed to facilitate slower population recovery of predators, I would also support lengthening hunting seasons in the wilderness to accomplish that goal.
A person must wonder why so many millions are wasted on wolves that were never endangered and are actually expanding their range while the enviro's seem to ignore some other species like caribou that are in actual decline. I suppose if the intent was to close land to human use the enviro's would be all over it. It seems obvious that the real intent is to limit man's use of the land, the real intent does not seem to be necessarily for the welfare of endangered animal populations, they are merely the vehicle to accomplish the end goal.
There was mention at one time of the WA/ID caribou herd. They wanted to stop logging to help the herd in areas that the caribou do not frequent as often as in the wilderness and to stop logging even in areas the caribou never frequent. I think this supports the theory that logging and people control is the real intent.
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2014, 04:39:25 PM
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 (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)
:DOH:
Well I can tell you got no clue of what you speak, have you even been in Canada? I'm all over caribou country and I can tell you habitat is NOT a factor. There is an insane amount of country up there free from human encroachment and logging. You can see vast quantities of lichen growing off the trees .
No you got not clue, just spouting off feces out of your enormous blowhole of misinformation.
The habitat excuse is getting really old people, it's just a crutch to use when you otherwise have no clue what you're talking about.
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2014, 08:08:02 PM
It's lichen! Holy crap!! That can't be! I'm so confused, do you mean to tell me logging didn't kill all the lichen???
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcolumbiahighlands.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F03%2Flichens.jpg&hash=2c37649b8f57d3b6488679cdbf000bd3a625ccb1)
Here's another young tree, and look it's in a previously logged area!
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canadiannaturephotographer.com%2Fcaribou%2Frberdan_DSC0262.jpg&hash=675088352f2d49dec03511837cce22b85b90b1b8)
They love this stuff
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fs.usda.gov%2FInternet%2FFSE_MEDIA%2Ffsbdev3_034605.jpg&hash=a5df862db23e422730ec36117bb793e6ebcc9acf)
Yup - all previously logged
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.unbc.ca%2F%7Ewetbelt%2Fimages%2FMountainForests%2FAlectoria-at-treeline-SBGD.jpg&hash=733529230147e930790686f468fe0692e8ec2acb)
You've got no idea how much of this junk I've had smeared across my face in Canada and down here in the states too eh.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 16, 2014, 11:23:15 PM
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.
Here you go. http://albertawilderness.ca/issues/wildlife/caribou/features (http://albertawilderness.ca/issues/wildlife/caribou/features) a little background on the Woodland caribou for you. The BC Mt Caribou are a woodland caribou of a specific region of BC. If you go down to "Distribution and Status" you will see this. "The mountain variety exist only in the western provinces and territories but scientists treat them as separate northern (BC, YT, NT) and southern (BC, AB) populations." And this "Southern populations of mountain woodland caribou are most in need of protection with range declines of 40 percent throughout British Columbia and Alberta, where they have been listed as a nationally threatened species since 2000." The problem isn't just a BC problem, it's a Woodland Caribou problem across their whole range in Canada.
And here's a little reading for you on the tar sands' effects on Mt caribou. http://www.desmogblog.com/comparing-territories-tar-sands-blanket-caribou-habitat (http://www.desmogblog.com/comparing-territories-tar-sands-blanket-caribou-habitat)
Here some more good info. Go down to Alberta and have a read. http://caribouandyou.ca/in-your-region.html (http://caribouandyou.ca/in-your-region.html)
And KF hunter, you can choose to believe science and scientists or not, but in the forests we are talking about in Canada, the trees you are showing are old growth. Trees grow much slower and are overall smaller than southern forests. From the above linked article..... "While the plan requires industry to restore caribou habitat, restoration will not benefit caribou until 80 years later, when the forest is again old enough to support them. Meanwhile, continued logging and petroleum development negatively impact caribou and their habitat immediately." And I have been through Mt caribou habitat in Northern BC over 40 times and I've seen many Mt Caribou. I see them every year driving to and from Alaska, Usually in the Muncho Lake Provincial park to Ft Nelson area but sometimes in other areas. A lot of the lichen or "Old Man's Beard" you show is out of the reach of caribou and doesn't do the any good.
More good reading. http://www.mountaincaribou.ca/content/q (http://www.mountaincaribou.ca/content/q)
Post by: bearpaw on February 16, 2014, 11:55:23 PM
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. :twocents:
FYI - Tar sand development in Alberta has little to do with caribou declines in BC or with our herd in ID/WA. :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on February 17, 2014, 07:54:06 AM
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...??
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? :dunno: 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... :chuckle:
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.
Nothing crafty about it. They obviously aren't worried about moose like you are with reference to wolves. Given that British Columbia has spectacularly more wolves than WA/ID I would think that would spell doom for the moose there. At least according to past discussions here.
Of course, BC probably has more open space free of people and likely better habitat, but that argument is getting old and habitat is irrelevant. :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on February 17, 2014, 10:42:09 AM
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? :dunno:
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. :twocents:
FYI - Tar sand development in Alberta has little to do with caribou declines in BC or with our herd in ID/WA. :twocents:
The moss is only utilized during a short period of the year, what they aren't saying is that the caribou LOVE logged out clear cuts in the early spring eating fireweed, groundsel and other shoots.
Summer months they're up top in the alpine areas where logging never reaches anyways.
One thing I didn't see mentioned was wolverine, are they going to lower their numbers as well?
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 17, 2014, 11:36:42 AM
This whole thing is a charade to mask the real problem, over development. Wolves are a scapegoat for projects like the tar sands development.
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 (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)
You might get away with that Habitat story south of the 49'th But north of it you're just proving you are a :tree1: liberal
Post by: bearpaw on February 17, 2014, 11:46:44 AM
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? :dunno:
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. :twocents:
FYI - Tar sand development in Alberta has little to do with caribou declines in BC or with our herd in ID/WA. :twocents:
The moss is only utilized during a short period of the year, what they aren't saying is that the caribou LOVE logged out clear cuts in the early spring eating fireweed, groundsel and other shoots.
Summer months they're up top in the alpine areas where logging never reaches anyways.
One thing I didn't see mentioned was wolverine, are they going to lower their numbers as well?
You are correct, the caribou utilize moss in the late winter when other food is out of reach under snow. I doubt wolverine numbers are substantial in the southerly mountain caribou range. :dunno:
Post by: KFhunter on February 17, 2014, 12:01:06 PM
And KF hunter, you can choose to believe science and scientists or not, but in the forests we are talking about in Canada, the trees you are showing are old growth. Trees grow much slower and are overall smaller than southern forests. From the above linked article..... "While the plan requires industry to restore caribou habitat, restoration will not benefit caribou until 80 years later, when the forest is again old enough to support them. Meanwhile, continued logging and petroleum development negatively impact caribou and their habitat immediately." And I have been through Mt caribou habitat in Northern BC over 40 times and I've seen many Mt Caribou. I see them every year driving to and from Alaska, Usually in the Muncho Lake Provincial park to Ft Nelson area but sometimes in other areas. A lot of the lichen or "Old Man's Beard" you show is out of the reach of caribou and doesn't do the any good.
Sorry Sitka, those pics are all of logged areas. If you're calling that old growth then you're more ignorant than I thought.
Congratulations on making the drive from Alaska to the lower 48 and seeing a caribou licking fertlizer in the ditches of BC highways, doesn't make you a caribou expert lol
by that token I should be a captain on a cruise ship since I flew over the ocean a few times :rolleyes:
Post by: AspenBud on February 17, 2014, 12:12:16 PM
Point being I think both you and Sitka are wrong, or at the very least over looking the real problem.
That said, the only way to do anything for the Caribou now is to reduce wolf numbers until the habitat becomes less favorable to deer, if it ever does again.
This is actually a textbook example of what I mean by habitat not being as great as you think it is. Sure, the caribou can live there and eat, but subtle changes to the surroundings also meant the deer could too, which brought in more wolves...
Post by: KFhunter on February 17, 2014, 12:23:55 PM
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? :dunno:
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. :twocents:
FYI - Tar sand development in Alberta has little to do with caribou declines in BC or with our herd in ID/WA. :twocents:
The moss is only utilized during a short period of the year, what they aren't saying is that the caribou LOVE logged out clear cuts in the early spring eating fireweed, groundsel and other shoots.
Summer months they're up top in the alpine areas where logging never reaches anyways.
One thing I didn't see mentioned was wolverine, are they going to lower their numbers as well?
You are correct, the caribou utilize moss in the late winter when other food is out of reach under snow. I doubt wolverine numbers are substantial in the southerly mountain caribou range. :dunno:
http://snowymountainalpinetours.blogspot.com/2010_11_01_archive.html (http://snowymountainalpinetours.blogspot.com/2010_11_01_archive.html)
Quote
However, the Wolverine exist in this valley in very high numbers...they also prey on vulnerable Mountain Caribou. The Wolverine is currently listed as a "species of concern" in Canada by Cosewic.http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/bc/glacier/natcul/natcul6/carcajou-wolverine/carcajou-wolverine1.aspx (http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/bc/glacier/natcul/natcul6/carcajou-wolverine/carcajou-wolverine1.aspx)
Quote
Diet
The wolverines' appetite is legendary. Their scientific name, Gulo gulo, comes from the Latin word for glutton, but really they eat no more than any other animal their size. It's just that they aren't particularly picky eaters. Once thought to be almost exclusively eaters of carrion, we now know they are accomplished predators. They will kill caribou and goats, animals several times their size; they also prey on small mammals such as marmots, porcupine, ground squirrels and being omnivore, will eat roots and berries1. Much of their diet consists of large mammals that were previously killed by predators or avalanches1.
I also read a thread on the trapperman site about a guy doing wolverine work, there are some valleys with a pretty large population of wolverine.
I'm fairly UTD on this stuff because I used to snowmobile in those areas. Logged a lot of miles in "Caribou country", but never seen one as they hang down in the dark timber and that's no fun to ride.
Post by: KFhunter on February 17, 2014, 12:29:59 PM
To be fair, the Canadians openly admit that habitat changes are a large portion of the problem. Particularly in Alberta, but also in BC, changes in habitat have led to a deer explosion which in turn led to a bigger wolf population.
Point being I think both you and Sitka are wrong, or at the very least over looking the real problem.
That said, the only way to do anything for the Caribou now is to reduce wolf numbers until the habitat becomes less favorable to deer, if it ever does again.
This is actually a textbook example of what I mean by habitat not being as great as you think it is. Sure, the caribou can live there and eat, but subtle changes to the surroundings also meant the deer could too, which brought in more wolves...
good job
the cut blocks as they are called in Canada are excellent graze for deer and moose and that's the problem - the habitat is TOO good ;)
Post by: bearpaw on February 17, 2014, 12:38:33 PM
To be fair, the Canadians openly admit that habitat changes are a large portion of the problem. Particularly in Alberta, but also in BC, changes in habitat have led to a deer explosion which in turn led to a bigger wolf population.
Point being I think both you and Sitka are wrong, or at the very least over looking the real problem.
That said, the only way to do anything for the Caribou now is to reduce wolf numbers until the habitat becomes less favorable to deer, if it ever does again.
This is actually a textbook example of what I mean by habitat not being as great as you think it is. Sure, the caribou can live there and eat, but subtle changes to the surroundings also meant the deer could too, which brought in more wolves...
The Canadians say the habitat changes have increased other prey numbers but will support caribou, however, the caribou need protection from the increasing wolf and cougar populations. The Canadians have done the studies and seem to have established a plan to help the caribou. I am wishing them good luck with their plan, I hope it works. At least the Canadians are doing something, WA caribou are getting no help with the uncontrolled predator numbers that are impacting them. :twocents:
KFH, maybe the wolverines are a predator the Canadians have overlooked. I could see them impacting young caribou in particular. :dunno:
Post by: AspenBud on February 17, 2014, 12:47:43 PM
To be fair, the Canadians openly admit that habitat changes are a large portion of the problem. Particularly in Alberta, but also in BC, changes in habitat have led to a deer explosion which in turn led to a bigger wolf population.
Point being I think both you and Sitka are wrong, or at the very least over looking the real problem.
That said, the only way to do anything for the Caribou now is to reduce wolf numbers until the habitat becomes less favorable to deer, if it ever does again.
This is actually a textbook example of what I mean by habitat not being as great as you think it is. Sure, the caribou can live there and eat, but subtle changes to the surroundings also meant the deer could too, which brought in more wolves...
good job
the cut blocks as they are called in Canada are excellent graze for deer and moose and that's the problem - the habitat is TOO good ;)
Now you're catching on to what I've been trying to say. Be it not enough escape cover, not enough food, or too much of both, one way or another you have to question what about the habitat is making a particular ungulate so easy to prey on by wolves.
I have a similar argument with people representing the other side of the wolf controversy. Man has changed the habitat enough over the years that some sort of management is going to have to happen. You can't just let nature sort it out, because it will, and not much will be left in the end.
Habitat is not irrelevant.
Post by: KFhunter on February 17, 2014, 12:47:54 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 17, 2014, 12:53:56 PM
To be fair, the Canadians openly admit that habitat changes are a large portion of the problem. Particularly in Alberta, but also in BC, changes in habitat have led to a deer explosion which in turn led to a bigger wolf population.
Point being I think both you and Sitka are wrong, or at the very least over looking the real problem.
That said, the only way to do anything for the Caribou now is to reduce wolf numbers until the habitat becomes less favorable to deer, if it ever does again.
This is actually a textbook example of what I mean by habitat not being as great as you think it is. Sure, the caribou can live there and eat, but subtle changes to the surroundings also meant the deer could too, which brought in more wolves...
good job
the cut blocks as they are called in Canada are excellent graze for deer and moose and that's the problem - the habitat is TOO good ;)
Now you're catching on to what I've been trying to say. Be it not enough escape cover, not enough food, or too much of both, one way or another you have to question what about the habitat is making a particular ungulate so easy to prey on by wolves.
I have a similar argument with people representing the other side of the wolf controversy. Man has changed the habitat enough over the years that some sort of management is going to have to happen. You can't just let nature sort it out, because it will, and not much will be left in the end.
Habitat is not irrelevant.
The Canadians acknowledged the habitat changes and increases in other prey and predators in their study, that's why they made the recommendations that they made.
Post by: AspenBud on February 17, 2014, 01:00:55 PM
To be fair, the Canadians openly admit that habitat changes are a large portion of the problem. Particularly in Alberta, but also in BC, changes in habitat have led to a deer explosion which in turn led to a bigger wolf population.
Point being I think both you and Sitka are wrong, or at the very least over looking the real problem.
That said, the only way to do anything for the Caribou now is to reduce wolf numbers until the habitat becomes less favorable to deer, if it ever does again.
This is actually a textbook example of what I mean by habitat not being as great as you think it is. Sure, the caribou can live there and eat, but subtle changes to the surroundings also meant the deer could too, which brought in more wolves...
The Canadians say the habitat changes have increased other prey numbers but will support caribou, however, the caribou need protection from the increasing wolf and cougar populations. The Canadians have done the studies and seem to have established a plan to help the caribou. I am wishing them good luck with their plan, I hope it works. At least the Canadians are doing something, WA caribou are getting no help with the uncontrolled predator numbers that are impacting them. :twocents:
KFH, maybe the wolverines are a predator the Canadians have overlooked. I could see them impacting young caribou in particular. :dunno:
I am not disagreeing with any of that.
But at the end of it, the primary cause of their decline is changes in habitat which have led to an increase in wolves. That should not be construed to mean wolves are not a problem now. But it does mean they are the resulting problem from the primary cause. If the habitat hadn't changed we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Caribou and wolves have lived in Canada since long before Europeans showed up, something recent caused their coexistence to no longer be feasible.
Again, if the aim is to make the exiting habitat full of deer, caribou, moose, etc fine, do what's needed to make that happen. If the goal is to restore the true balance in the ecosystem, fine, make that happen. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that last one can be accomplished without some sort of predator management, at least for some years to come, and let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's all the wolf's fault.
Post by: AspenBud on February 17, 2014, 01:02:29 PM
To be fair, the Canadians openly admit that habitat changes are a large portion of the problem. Particularly in Alberta, but also in BC, changes in habitat have led to a deer explosion which in turn led to a bigger wolf population.
Point being I think both you and Sitka are wrong, or at the very least over looking the real problem.
That said, the only way to do anything for the Caribou now is to reduce wolf numbers until the habitat becomes less favorable to deer, if it ever does again.
This is actually a textbook example of what I mean by habitat not being as great as you think it is. Sure, the caribou can live there and eat, but subtle changes to the surroundings also meant the deer could too, which brought in more wolves...
good job
the cut blocks as they are called in Canada are excellent graze for deer and moose and that's the problem - the habitat is TOO good ;)
Now you're catching on to what I've been trying to say. Be it not enough escape cover, not enough food, or too much of both, one way or another you have to question what about the habitat is making a particular ungulate so easy to prey on by wolves.
I have a similar argument with people representing the other side of the wolf controversy. Man has changed the habitat enough over the years that some sort of management is going to have to happen. You can't just let nature sort it out, because it will, and not much will be left in the end.
Habitat is not irrelevant.
The Canadians acknowledged the habitat changes and increases in other prey and predators in their study, that's why they made the recommendations that they made.
I have no disagreement with that.
Post by: KFhunter on February 17, 2014, 01:06:40 PM
Take a ride over 3b and see the miles and miles of beetle kill, it's amazing the damage done.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhendert.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F03%2F666.jpg&hash=38a38c0a3f8fe27860623882eb2c02828edfebcc)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-kRoImtSLUgg%2FUrZXoKG3grI%2FAAAAAAAAC9w%2FAoMK9Bir0gQ%2Fs640%2FScreen%2Bshot%2B2013-12-21%2Bat%2B3.34.49%2BPM.png&hash=e5054580f8e4af912a73584ebff71bc2fba0bbac)
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hre/external/ (http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hre/external/)!publish/web/bcmpb/year9/BCMPB.v9.2011Kill.pdf
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 17, 2014, 01:15:59 PM
And KF hunter, you can choose to believe science and scientists or not, but in the forests we are talking about in Canada, the trees you are showing are old growth. Trees grow much slower and are overall smaller than southern forests. From the above linked article..... "While the plan requires industry to restore caribou habitat, restoration will not benefit caribou until 80 years later, when the forest is again old enough to support them. Meanwhile, continued logging and petroleum development negatively impact caribou and their habitat immediately." And I have been through Mt caribou habitat in Northern BC over 40 times and I've seen many Mt Caribou. I see them every year driving to and from Alaska, Usually in the Muncho Lake Provincial park to Ft Nelson area but sometimes in other areas. A lot of the lichen or "Old Man's Beard" you show is out of the reach of caribou and doesn't do the any good.
Sorry Sitka, those pics are all of logged areas. If you're calling that old growth then you're more ignorant than I thought.
Congratulations on making the drive from Alaska to the lower 48 and seeing a caribou licking fertlizer in the ditches of BC highways, doesn't make you a caribou expert lol
by that token I should be a captain on a cruise ship since I flew over the ocean a few times :rolleyes:
What? You grab some pictures off the internet and claim to know that the area they are in is logged?
Never seen a caribou licking fertilizer in the ditches. And never claimed to be an expert. I just pass on expert information and my opinion of what it means.
Post by: KFhunter on February 17, 2014, 01:24:14 PM
Never seen a caribou licking fertilizer in the ditches. And never claimed to be an expert. I just pass on expert information and my opinion of what it means.
translation:
You have zero experience or personal knowledge so you latch on to tidbits of internet information that you want to believe then you put your personal spin on it.
I knew it all along but thanks for the confirmation.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 17, 2014, 01:29:43 PM
Never seen a caribou licking fertilizer in the ditches. And never claimed to be an expert. I just pass on expert information and my opinion of what it means.
translation:
You have zero experience or personal knowledge so you latch on to tidbits of internet information that you want to believe then you put your personal spin on it.
I knew it all along but thanks for the confirmation.
Wait, what is your "expertise" again Dr KF Hunter? Talk about a spin Dr.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 17, 2014, 01:39:27 PM
Never seen a caribou licking fertilizer in the ditches. And never claimed to be an expert. I just pass on expert information and my opinion of what it means.
translation:
You have zero experience or personal knowledge so you latch on to tidbits of internet information that you want to believe then you put your personal spin on it.
I knew it all along but thanks for the confirmation.
Wait, what is your "expertise" again Dr KF Hunter? Talk about a spin Dr.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm/
Hoquiam????? Wedge????????????? Lets see........................ Who has dealt with wolves................and has spent the most time in Lower Eastern BC???? I gotta go with the guy from Orient :tup:
Post by: Bob33 on February 17, 2014, 01:41:10 PM
Please keep comments relevant to the topic, and not directed at individuals.
Post by: KFhunter on February 17, 2014, 01:42:47 PM
Never seen a caribou licking fertilizer in the ditches. And never claimed to be an expert. I just pass on expert information and my opinion of what it means.
translation:
You have zero experience or personal knowledge so you latch on to tidbits of internet information that you want to believe then you put your personal spin on it.
I knew it all along but thanks for the confirmation.
Wait, what is your "expertise" again Dr KF Hunter? Talk about a spin Dr.
If the day comes when I loose a debate then I'll be happy I've learned something, I won't go out a sore looser.
I don't recall ever having lost an argument, mainly because if I'm not comfortable I don't enter the debate in the first place.
Also not having a particular agenda helps in that I'm not constrained by ideology, so you'll always loose if you enter the ring with me.
:hello:
I jest, relax I'm not that boastful :chuckle:
Post by: idaho guy on February 17, 2014, 01:46:48 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 17, 2014, 01:49:53 PM
I dont even hunt in washington but waste a lot of time on this site! interesting stuff. I cant stand it and have to weigh in with some stuff no bioligist has probably written articles on. Kf hunter and bear paw are right. Most of the endangered species, wolf reintrouction have very little to do with the particular species from the liberal view point. You can argue habitat vs predator all day long. The liberal agenda is to keep any man from doing anything ever in the woods. wether it is hunting or cutting a piece of firewood. The liberals that want wolves not logging etc etc etc. really just dont want people in the woods doing anything. I believe most of them live in the city and spend very little time in the real woods besides nature hikes on vacation. They believe the wilderness exists outside of where people should be and dont understand that man has been in the woods since the beginning. Also hunters, outdoorsman even loggers doing it right have been good stewards of the outdoors and wildlife and that is why we have an abundance of wildlife that we didnt have years ago. The wolf is just a way to remove those surplus numbers and reduce or eliminate us from hunting and the outdoors.And no I dont think we need to kill every wolf in the lower 48 just a lot more of them. Hunters fighting over loss of habitat or how to manage or ignore wolves is the liberals dream.
:yeah:
Don't forget cattle grazing too, that's a biggie.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 17, 2014, 01:54:56 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 17, 2014, 01:56:37 PM
Great philosophy! :tup: I try to live by that but sometimes I can't help myself and bite off more than I can chew. :chuckle:
If the day comes when I loose a debate then I'll be happy I've learned something, I won't go out a sore looser.
I don't recall ever having lost an argument, mainly because if I'm not comfortable I don't enter the debate in the first place.
Also not having a particular agenda helps in that I'm not constrained by ideology, so you'll always loose if you enter the ring with me.
:hello:
Post by: KFhunter on February 17, 2014, 02:01:30 PM
Great philosophy! :tup: I try to live by that but sometimes I can't help myself and bite off more than I can chew. :chuckle:
If the day comes when I loose a debate then I'll be happy I've learned something, I won't go out a sore looser.
I don't recall ever having lost an argument, mainly because if I'm not comfortable I don't enter the debate in the first place.
Also not having a particular agenda helps in that I'm not constrained by ideology, so you'll always loose if you enter the ring with me.
:hello:
That was all BS BTW :chuckle:
I'd like it to be true, and sometimes it is but no one is infallible.
Post by: AspenBud on February 17, 2014, 02:05:07 PM
I dont even hunt in washington but waste a lot of time on this site! interesting stuff. I cant stand it and have to weigh in with some stuff no bioligist has probably written articles on. Kf hunter and bear paw are right. Most of the endangered species, wolf reintrouction have very little to do with the particular species from the liberal view point. You can argue habitat vs predator all day long. The liberal agenda is to keep any man from doing anything ever in the woods. wether it is hunting or cutting a piece of firewood. The liberals that want wolves not logging etc etc etc. really just dont want people in the woods doing anything. I believe most of them live in the city and spend very little time in the real woods besides nature hikes on vacation. They believe the wilderness exists outside of where people should be and dont understand that man has been in the woods since the beginning. Also hunters, outdoorsman even loggers doing it right have been good stewards of the outdoors and wildlife and that is why we have an abundance of wildlife that we didnt have years ago. The wolf is just a way to remove those surplus numbers and reduce or eliminate us from hunting and the outdoors.And no I dont think we need to kill every wolf in the lower 48 just a lot more of them. Hunters fighting over loss of habitat or how to manage or ignore wolves is the liberals dream.
I can think of more than a few Conservative minded people that fit that description. They live in the city as well.
People eating wolf poop and getting tape worms, stories of the UN releasing wolves in the woods airlifted in by black helicopter, and Red Riding Hood stories...those are a wolf lover's dream come true.
Post by: idaho guy on February 17, 2014, 02:38:08 PM
[
[
I can think of more than a few Conservative minded people that fit that description. They live in the city as well.
People eating wolf poop and getting tape worms, stories of the UN releasing wolves in the woods airlifted in by black helicopter, and Red Riding Hood stories...those are a wolf lover's dream come true.
Yep, liberal was wrong description-meant so called radical "enviromentalist" I guess. Maybe tree hugger,greenie whatever not liberal politically. Wth is the stuff about black helicopters and eating poop?
Post by: AspenBud on February 17, 2014, 02:56:42 PM
Wth is the stuff about black helicopters and eating poop?
There are a lot of meaningless posts here about diseases and government conspiracies that generally distract from facts that people less knowledgeable about the problem would listen to. People "in the city" already think of paranoid people, militias, and the unabomber when you talk eastern WA, Idaho, and Montana, better to not stoke that impression further.
Was not aiming that at you. Just generally editorializing.
Post by: idaho guy on February 17, 2014, 03:28:51 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 17, 2014, 03:42:34 PM
Its official wasted 2 hours on huntwa again.:chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on April 29, 2014, 05:46:01 PM
http://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/Recommendations_Predator-Prey_Management_Final.pdf (http://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/Recommendations_Predator-Prey_Management_Final.pdf)
Recommendations for Predator-Prey Management to Benefit the Recovery of Mountain Caribou in British Columbia
Prepared by:
Steven F. Wilson, Ph.D., R.P.Bio.,
Prepared for:
BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria
Executive Summary
On 16 October 2007, the BC government announced its endorsement of an implementation plan for mountain caribou recovery. The plan included several commitments, including managing predator and primary prey populations to reduce predation pressure in areas where predators are preventing caribou recovery. The purpose of this report is to recommend a framework for predator-prey management in support of mountain caribou recovery efforts in British Columbia.
The government-appointed Mountain Caribou Science Team was very clear that without immediate action to reverse population declines by reducing predation losses, some mountain caribou herds could be extirpated before the benefits of other management actions are realized. Therefore, it is imperative that the intensity of predator-prey management actions be scaled to the relative risk facing different mountain caribou herds.
Wolf predation is considered the major factor limiting the growth of caribou populations in North America and there is ample evidence that reductions in wolf populations can result in immediate and dramatic increases in caribou populations. The role of other predators in limiting caribou is less clear; however, high cougar abundance was correlated with a large decline in mountain caribou abundance in the South Purcells in the late 1990’s.
The following are recommended principles to guide predator management:
1. wolves and cougars will be the focus of predator management to benefit mountain caribou;
2. actions to benefit mountain caribou will be balanced against conservation objectives related to wolves and cougars; and,
3. wolf and cougar management will vary with the risk to mountain caribou herds. Grizzly and black bears are also important predators throughout mountain caribou range; however, reducing the risk of predation posed by bears would require either large-scale reductions, or the identification of individual problem bears, both of which are difficult. As a result, bears will continue to pose a mortality risk to mountain caribou, which will reduce the effectiveness of other predator management actions.
Based on available literature and data, predator densities in mountain caribou range and in the surrounding “matrix” habitat should average <6.5 wolves/1000 km2 and <10 cougar/1000 km2 and in most areas should be much lower, depending on the size and trend of mountain caribou herds. 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. Even this level of reduction might not result in responses similar to those observed elsewhere because of the role of bear predation.
Removal of all resident packs and/or individuals is a legitimate goal where even rare predation events would further jeopardize the viability of a caribou herd. Sterilization of alpha male and female wolves might also be effective in reducing the growth rate of resident packs.
Regulated hunting and trapping will not be sufficient to reduce wolves to target densities. Hired trappers can be more effective but many biologists doubt that recovery objectives can be met without resorting to shooting wolves from helicopters, which they consider to be the most effective and humane approach. In contrast, cougars can be well-regulated by conventional hunting techniques.
Predator-Prey Management to Benefit Mountain Caribou Recovery ii
In the long term, caribou persistence will likely require reducing prey abundance within and adjacent to mountain caribou range, otherwise, predator reductions will need to be ongoing and intense. Based on the outcomes of a workshop in January 2008 ungulate and caribou biologists deemed it possible to reduce moose to reduce wolf carrying capacity. But biologists concluded that the population of white-tailed deer in southern BC is too large and resilient to be effectively reduced; therefore, high hunting pressure on cougars will need to be maintained indefinitely.
Biologists expressed concern about the northward expansion of deer and cougars and the subsequent effect on mountain caribou. As a result, they recommended that deer should be prevented from increasing where populations are currently low.
The following are recommended principles to guide the implementation of primary prey management:
1. moose will be the focus of prey reductions to benefit mountain caribou;
2. moose reductions to benefit mountain caribou will be balanced against moose conservation and use objectives;
3. moose targets will fall within the bounds generally expected under a natural disturbance regime; and,
4. deer populations should be prevented from increasing, where feasible. There are several methods that can be used to inform moose density targets: a review of wolf and moose densities observed in other jurisdictions; static biomass-based equations; dynamic modelling; and, habitat
analyses based on natural disturbance return intervals. Analyses based on available data suggest that target densities of 50-300 moose/1000 km2 would benefit mountain caribou recovery, depending on the circumstances of individual caribou herds.
Reducing moose to benefit mountain caribou has a strong theoretical basis, but it has not been tested experimentally. Trials are underway in two mountain caribou planning units and future decisions need to be informed by the outcomes of these trials. It may be necessary to initiate reductions in other areas where mountain caribou are most at risk, before results of the trials are known.
The relationships between management action outcomes and mountain caribou herd sizes and trends will be the basis for assessing the effectiveness of the predator-prey strategy. The Ministry of Environment has established specific population goals for mountain caribou and evaluation of the programme should be based on the soonest-available caribou data following implementation of predator-prey management actions.
More here: http://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/Recommendations_Predator-Prey_Management_Final.pdf (http://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/Recommendations_Predator-Prey_Management_Final.pdf)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 29, 2014, 10:59:34 PM
But wait....... If the wolves don't have moose and deer to eat, won't they be more likely to target caribou? And conversely, if the wolves have all those deer and moose to eat, it's likely wolves aren't spending much time slaughtering caribou.
My prediction? Way too much money will be wasted on predator control and not enough on habitat restoration. Hunters will complain about a lack of moose and deer,...... and wolves and cougars and bears will be blamed even though they will be hunted mercilessly. That will be an excuse for even more "predator control". And there will be no noticeable bump upwards of the caribou herds. The net result will be less huntable animals.
If deer and moose herds are expanding and doing well, why not encourage that. Maybe this is a natural regime change.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 29, 2014, 11:13:40 PM
But say they decided to hit the wolves and cougars and maybe bear in the area very hard, blaming predators for the decline. I'm sure many here would merrily cheer that decision. But then lets say that as in BC, Fish and Wildlife decided to knock down the deer herd in the area and also hit the moose pretty hard to prevent wolves from having a prey base to survive and thrive on as a way to "protect" the caribou?
Now how many would approve that plan, and how many think it would actually grow the caribou her to any significant number? Do you think it would make up for the lower numbers of deer and moose? Good luck with that plan.
Post by: AspenBud on April 30, 2014, 09:02:17 AM
This is going to be good. They are going to reduce moose populations and prevent deer herds from growing, to try to stabilize caribous herds that by most reports are shrinking because of habitat issues. So somehow, moose and deer populations can grow in the face of increasing wolves? But caribou can't? The large moose herds and deer herds are causing the wolf population to grow? So we have to reduce deer and moose herds to shrink wolf and cougar populations so caribou populations will supposedly grow?
But wait....... If the wolves don't have moose and deer to eat, won't they be more likely to target caribou? And conversely, if the wolves have all those deer and moose to eat, it's likely wolves aren't spending much time slaughtering caribou.
My prediction? Way too much money will be wasted on predator control and not enough on habitat restoration. Hunters will complain about a lack of moose and deer,...... and wolves and cougars and bears will be blamed even though they will be hunted mercilessly. That will be an excuse for even more "predator control". And there will be no noticeable bump upwards of the caribou herds. The net result will be less huntable animals.
If deer and moose herds are expanding and doing well, why not encourage that. Maybe this is a natural regime change.
Moose I can't speak to, but my understanding is they have in influx of white tails up there. If true, it will take a lot to kill them off. They are rats with antlers.
Post by: JLS on April 30, 2014, 09:21:29 AM
Quote
Maybe this is a natural regime change.
This just might be the pink elephant sitting in the living room.
Post by: KFhunter on April 30, 2014, 10:01:24 AM
This is going to be good. They are going to reduce moose populations and prevent deer herds from growing, to try to stabilize caribous herds that by most reports are shrinking because of habitat issues. So somehow, moose and deer populations can grow in the face of increasing wolves? But caribou can't? The large moose herds and deer herds are causing the wolf population to grow? So we have to reduce deer and moose herds to shrink wolf and cougar populations so caribou populations will supposedly grow?
But wait....... If the wolves don't have moose and deer to eat, won't they be more likely to target caribou? And conversely, if the wolves have all those deer and moose to eat, it's likely wolves aren't spending much time slaughtering caribou.
My prediction? Way too much money will be wasted on predator control and not enough on habitat restoration. Hunters will complain about a lack of moose and deer,...... and wolves and cougars and bears will be blamed even though they will be hunted mercilessly. That will be an excuse for even more "predator control". And there will be no noticeable bump upwards of the caribou herds. The net result will be less huntable animals.
If deer and moose herds are expanding and doing well, why not encourage that. Maybe this is a natural regime change.
Moose I can't speak to, but my understanding is they have in influx of white tails up there. If true, it will take a lot to kill them off. They are rats with antlers.
Are you talking about the oil sands or southern interior?
Post by: KFhunter on April 30, 2014, 10:03:52 AM
This is going to be good. They are going to reduce moose populations and prevent deer herds from growing, to try to stabilize caribous herds that by most reports are shrinking because of habitat issues. So somehow, moose and deer populations can grow in the face of increasing wolves? But caribou can't? The large moose herds and deer herds are causing the wolf population to grow? So we have to reduce deer and moose herds to shrink wolf and cougar populations so caribou populations will supposedly grow?
But wait....... If the wolves don't have moose and deer to eat, won't they be more likely to target caribou? And conversely, if the wolves have all those deer and moose to eat, it's likely wolves aren't spending much time slaughtering caribou.
My prediction? Way too much money will be wasted on predator control and not enough on habitat restoration. Hunters will complain about a lack of moose and deer,...... and wolves and cougars and bears will be blamed even though they will be hunted mercilessly. That will be an excuse for even more "predator control". And there will be no noticeable bump upwards of the caribou herds. The net result will be less huntable animals.
If deer and moose herds are expanding and doing well, why not encourage that. Maybe this is a natural regime change.
Moose I can't speak to, but my understanding is they have in influx of white tails up there. If true, it will take a lot to kill them off. They are rats with antlers.
You and Sitka are mixing two very different places together and cherry picking to support your argument. I can tell you haven't spent much time in BC, EVERYTHING you write is very regurgitated and worse, cherry picked and muddled.
Post by: AspenBud on April 30, 2014, 10:20:22 AM
This is going to be good. They are going to reduce moose populations and prevent deer herds from growing, to try to stabilize caribous herds that by most reports are shrinking because of habitat issues. So somehow, moose and deer populations can grow in the face of increasing wolves? But caribou can't? The large moose herds and deer herds are causing the wolf population to grow? So we have to reduce deer and moose herds to shrink wolf and cougar populations so caribou populations will supposedly grow?
But wait....... If the wolves don't have moose and deer to eat, won't they be more likely to target caribou? And conversely, if the wolves have all those deer and moose to eat, it's likely wolves aren't spending much time slaughtering caribou.
My prediction? Way too much money will be wasted on predator control and not enough on habitat restoration. Hunters will complain about a lack of moose and deer,...... and wolves and cougars and bears will be blamed even though they will be hunted mercilessly. That will be an excuse for even more "predator control". And there will be no noticeable bump upwards of the caribou herds. The net result will be less huntable animals.
If deer and moose herds are expanding and doing well, why not encourage that. Maybe this is a natural regime change.
Moose I can't speak to, but my understanding is they have in influx of white tails up there. If true, it will take a lot to kill them off. They are rats with antlers.
You and Sitka are mixing two very different places together and cherry picking to support your argument. I can tell you haven't spent much time in BC, EVERYTHING you write is very regurgitated and worse, cherry picked and muddled.
And I can tell you haven't spent much time around white tails. The only reason farmers don't pay people to shoot them in the eastern half of the country is because people pay them to be able to hunt them. They can''t kill enough of them.
If white tails are booming up in BC and Alberta there is a good reason why wolves are flourishing up there.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 01, 2014, 09:07:04 AM
#2 Predators- wolves and lions are both eating caribou. We know that. Lions are easy to control, additional pressure from hound hunters will knock the cat population. Wolves are tougher. BC and Idaho are on track to manage them. WA is still handcuffed by their wolf plan... :bash: #3 Highway 3 at Salmo Pass is a problem. Some sort of safety needs to be provided for these animals moving North/South across the border. #4 disruption by illegal snowmobiles inside the closure area. Some of the closure areas are nonsense (IMO) and some of them are CRITICAL. The snowmobiles in the cirques that hold caribou cause problems and need policed.
Killing the wolves in that area is (also IMO) an obvious first step, but it needs to be the first step in a series of other efforts.
There are some collars on the Caribou now, hopefully they will show more accurate mortality information and help managers hone in on the most critical-immediate needs.
Post by: bearpaw on May 01, 2014, 09:45:17 AM
The caribou situation is a tough one. There are several serious limiting factors for caribou recovery. #1 is habitat loss. There are LOTS of big clear cuts and fairly young stands of trees in Southern BC and N Idaho/NE Washington. That's not a simple fix and is going to take time for those stands to develop.
#2 Predators- wolves and lions are both eating caribou. We know that. Lions are easy to control, additional pressure from hound hunters will knock the cat population. Wolves are tougher. BC and Idaho are on track to manage them. WA is still handcuffed by their wolf plan... :bash: #3 Highway 3 at Salmo Pass is a problem. Some sort of safety needs to be provided for these animals moving North/South across the border. #4 disruption by illegal snowmobiles inside the closure area. Some of the closure areas are nonsense (IMO) and some of them are CRITICAL. The snowmobiles in the cirques that hold caribou cause problems and need policed.
Killing the wolves in that area is (also IMO) an obvious first step, but it needs to be the first step in a series of other efforts.
There are some collars on the Caribou now, hopefully they will show more accurate mortality information and help managers hone in on the most critical-immediate needs.
:yeah: I agree the caribou are a tough one, we are on the fringe of their range which makes it even tougher. Back when the wolf plan was being developed I tried to bring the caribou issue up with the Dept and Commission but it seems the caribou were largely ignored.
I would agree with limiting snowmobiling and logging in truly critical areas, as long as caribou aren't used for another big land grab by enviro greenies. Unfortunately the enviro greenie whacko groups will use an issue like caribou to further their agenda of limiting access and use of as much land as they can.
WAcoyote, how many caribou are being killed on Hwy 3?
Are the Canadian tribes still hunting these caribou?
Post by: wolfbait on May 01, 2014, 12:02:11 PM
This is going to be good. They are going to reduce moose populations and prevent deer herds from growing, to try to stabilize caribous herds that by most reports are shrinking because of habitat issues. So somehow, moose and deer populations can grow in the face of increasing wolves? But caribou can't? The large moose herds and deer herds are causing the wolf population to grow? So we have to reduce deer and moose herds to shrink wolf and cougar populations so caribou populations will supposedly grow?
But wait....... If the wolves don't have moose and deer to eat, won't they be more likely to target caribou? And conversely, if the wolves have all those deer and moose to eat, it's likely wolves aren't spending much time slaughtering caribou.
My prediction? Way too much money will be wasted on predator control and not enough on habitat restoration. Hunters will complain about a lack of moose and deer,...... and wolves and cougars and bears will be blamed even though they will be hunted mercilessly. That will be an excuse for even more "predator control". And there will be no noticeable bump upwards of the caribou herds. The net result will be less huntable animals.
If deer and moose herds are expanding and doing well, why not encourage that. Maybe this is a natural regime change.
Moose I can't speak to, but my understanding is they have in influx of white tails up there. If true, it will take a lot to kill them off. They are rats with antlers.
You and Sitka are mixing two very different places together and cherry picking to support your argument. I can tell you haven't spent much time in BC, EVERYTHING you write is very regurgitated and worse, cherry picked and muddled.
And I can tell you haven't spent much time around white tails. The only reason farmers don't pay people to shoot them in the eastern half of the country is because people pay them to be able to hunt them. They can''t kill enough of them.
If white tails are booming up in BC and Alberta there is a good reason why wolves are flourishing up there.
BS, we have watched the whitetail deer drop just like the mule deer, the mule deer have been hit the hardest though. Tell us A-bud, what happens when there is no more prey in an area, do the wolves move to a different area or do they start killing more livestock? Wacoyote always skirts around the question.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 01, 2014, 12:36:24 PM
The enviros blew it when they made unrealistic Critical Habitat requests. Ultimately, it only hurt the resource (caribou in this case)The caribou situation is a tough one. There are several serious limiting factors for caribou recovery. #1 is habitat loss. There are LOTS of big clear cuts and fairly young stands of trees in Southern BC and N Idaho/NE Washington. That's not a simple fix and is going to take time for those stands to develop.
#2 Predators- wolves and lions are both eating caribou. We know that. Lions are easy to control, additional pressure from hound hunters will knock the cat population. Wolves are tougher. BC and Idaho are on track to manage them. WA is still handcuffed by their wolf plan... :bash: #3 Highway 3 at Salmo Pass is a problem. Some sort of safety needs to be provided for these animals moving North/South across the border. #4 disruption by illegal snowmobiles inside the closure area. Some of the closure areas are nonsense (IMO) and some of them are CRITICAL. The snowmobiles in the cirques that hold caribou cause problems and need policed.
Killing the wolves in that area is (also IMO) an obvious first step, but it needs to be the first step in a series of other efforts.
There are some collars on the Caribou now, hopefully they will show more accurate mortality information and help managers hone in on the most critical-immediate needs.
:yeah: I agree the caribou are a tough one, we are on the fringe of their range which makes it even tougher. Back when the wolf plan was being developed I tried to bring the caribou issue up with the Dept and Commission but it seems the caribou were largely ignored.
I would agree with limiting snowmobiling and logging in truly critical areas, as long as caribou aren't used for another big land grab by enviro greenies. Unfortunately the enviro greenie whacko groups will use an issue like caribou to further their agenda of limiting access and use of as much land as they can.
WAcoyote, how many caribou are being killed on Hwy 3?
Are the Canadian tribes still hunting these caribou?
There has not been a documented strike on hwy 3 for a couple years, (no collars either...) but there were 3 cows killed one winter, I think it was 2009
Post by: bearpaw on May 02, 2014, 06:10:13 AM
The enviros blew it when they made unrealistic Critical Habitat requests. Ultimately, it only hurt the resource (caribou in this case)The caribou situation is a tough one. There are several serious limiting factors for caribou recovery. #1 is habitat loss. There are LOTS of big clear cuts and fairly young stands of trees in Southern BC and N Idaho/NE Washington. That's not a simple fix and is going to take time for those stands to develop.
#2 Predators- wolves and lions are both eating caribou. We know that. Lions are easy to control, additional pressure from hound hunters will knock the cat population. Wolves are tougher. BC and Idaho are on track to manage them. WA is still handcuffed by their wolf plan... :bash: #3 Highway 3 at Salmo Pass is a problem. Some sort of safety needs to be provided for these animals moving North/South across the border. #4 disruption by illegal snowmobiles inside the closure area. Some of the closure areas are nonsense (IMO) and some of them are CRITICAL. The snowmobiles in the cirques that hold caribou cause problems and need policed.
Killing the wolves in that area is (also IMO) an obvious first step, but it needs to be the first step in a series of other efforts.
There are some collars on the Caribou now, hopefully they will show more accurate mortality information and help managers hone in on the most critical-immediate needs.
:yeah: I agree the caribou are a tough one, we are on the fringe of their range which makes it even tougher. Back when the wolf plan was being developed I tried to bring the caribou issue up with the Dept and Commission but it seems the caribou were largely ignored.
I would agree with limiting snowmobiling and logging in truly critical areas, as long as caribou aren't used for another big land grab by enviro greenies. Unfortunately the enviro greenie whacko groups will use an issue like caribou to further their agenda of limiting access and use of as much land as they can.
WAcoyote, how many caribou are being killed on Hwy 3?
Are the Canadian tribes still hunting these caribou?
There has not been a documented strike on hwy 3 for a couple years, (no collars either...) but there were 3 cows killed one winter, I think it was 2009
OK, I thought the Hwy might have been a larger problem. One cougar or 1 wolf that keys in on caribou could cause more damage to the herd than that each year.
Do you think if Idaho and BC reduce predators in that area that they will try to augment the herd again?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 02, 2014, 08:25:50 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 03, 2014, 05:45:02 PM
I think they will. I'm hopeful that they do!
Although there are factors that obviously need changed first for herd augmentation to be successful, I hope they will try, it would be a shame to spend the type of money that has been spent on wolves and then not do anything to save woodland caribou.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 05, 2014, 07:01:29 AM
I agree. The caribou will be gone if we don't make some changes. Wolves/lions are one of them. HWY 3 safety is another, and protection from disturbance is also important.I think they will. I'm hopeful that they do!
Although there are factors that obviously need changed first for herd augmentation to be successful, I hope they will try, it would be a shame to spend the type of money that has been spent on wolves and then not do anything to save woodland caribou.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 05, 2014, 10:31:07 AM
What do you mean I "skirt around the question"? I know wolves can and will kill livestock. It's not a secret.This is going to be good. They are going to reduce moose populations and prevent deer herds from growing, to try to stabilize caribous herds that by most reports are shrinking because of habitat issues. So somehow, moose and deer populations can grow in the face of increasing wolves? But caribou can't? The large moose herds and deer herds are causing the wolf population to grow? So we have to reduce deer and moose herds to shrink wolf and cougar populations so caribou populations will supposedly grow?
But wait....... If the wolves don't have moose and deer to eat, won't they be more likely to target caribou? And conversely, if the wolves have all those deer and moose to eat, it's likely wolves aren't spending much time slaughtering caribou.
My prediction? Way too much money will be wasted on predator control and not enough on habitat restoration. Hunters will complain about a lack of moose and deer,...... and wolves and cougars and bears will be blamed even though they will be hunted mercilessly. That will be an excuse for even more "predator control". And there will be no noticeable bump upwards of the caribou herds. The net result will be less huntable animals.
If deer and moose herds are expanding and doing well, why not encourage that. Maybe this is a natural regime change.
Moose I can't speak to, but my understanding is they have in influx of white tails up there. If true, it will take a lot to kill them off. They are rats with antlers.
You and Sitka are mixing two very different places together and cherry picking to support your argument. I can tell you haven't spent much time in BC, EVERYTHING you write is very regurgitated and worse, cherry picked and muddled.
And I can tell you haven't spent much time around white tails. The only reason farmers don't pay people to shoot them in the eastern half of the country is because people pay them to be able to hunt them. They can''t kill enough of them.
If white tails are booming up in BC and Alberta there is a good reason why wolves are flourishing up there.
BS, we have watched the whitetail deer drop just like the mule deer, the mule deer have been hit the hardest though. Tell us A-bud, what happens when there is no more prey in an area, do the wolves move to a different area or do they start killing more livestock? Wacoyote always skirts around the question.
If prey animals get to a low enough population that hunting them is too difficult for the wolves, they will look elsewhere. If there are cattle in the area they will probably eat them. Again, (like always) you're not getting to any point.
Whitetail deer are not taking a beating from wolves, at all. They're not on a downward population trend. I'm not sure where you got that idea.
Speaking of dancing around questions- where are all those hunting pictures of you? What ever happened to your big court case that was going to blow this conspiracy out of the water? Answers please.... :chuckle:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 05, 2014, 10:53:24 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 05, 2014, 12:00:48 PM
The region one harvest has increased slightly since but consistently since the bad winters.