Post by: wolfbait on February 09, 2015, 10:31:35 PM
Habitat Protection Way Forward, Not US$500,000 Cull, Say Critics
As many as 184 wolves must be shot in British Columbia, Canada, in order to save the caribou, according to a statement from the provincial government. The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations announced plans on January 15 to address what they consider the threat of wolf predation in the areas of the South Selkirk Mountains and the South Peace, along the border of US states Washington and Idaho.
The caribou, one of Canada’s most recognized national symbols, “is at high risk of local extinction,” according to the ministry’s statement.
The government claims the South Selkirk caribou population declined from 46 in 2009 to just 18 as of March 2014, adding that “evidence points to wolves being the leading cause of mortality.”
The ministry further cites a joint-research project between officials from British Colombia, Washington and Idaho states, First Nations, the US Forest Service, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which found wolves killed two of the remaining caribou in the past 10 months.
Authorities also claim that in the area of South Pearce, inhabited by four caribou herds, at least 37 percent of all “adult [caribou] mortalities have been documented as wolf predation.”
In order to “remove” the wolves from these areas, the government will deploy “trained sharpshooters” to shoot the animals from a helicopter. The operation will cost over US$500,000.
This latest wolf cull follows the killing of more than 1,000 wolves in the forests of Alberta, between 2005 and 2012, in an attempt to protect 100 caribou living there.
However, while the wolf hunt in Alberta stabilized caribou numbers in the region, it did not result in a population increase, according to a study published in November 2014 in the Canadian Journal of Zoology. Read More @
http://panampost.com/rebeca-morla/2015/02/04/taxpayers-fund-mass-killing-of-wolves-in-british-columbia/ (http://panampost.com/rebeca-morla/2015/02/04/taxpayers-fund-mass-killing-of-wolves-in-british-columbia/)
Post by: mfswallace on February 09, 2015, 11:19:26 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 09, 2015, 11:28:59 PM
Some on this site would argue all these caribou need is better habitat :yike:
That's it, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Post by: Firedogg on February 09, 2015, 11:31:26 PM
Post by: timberfaller on February 09, 2015, 11:32:48 PM
So much for WA wolf numbers increasing soon :chuckle: WAIT maybe that is why they've been showing up :yike: them Canadians are shooting them! Remember the head of the National Parks and what he had to say about the Buffalo that left Yellowstone? :yike:
Post by: mfswallace on February 09, 2015, 11:35:27 PM
Some on this site would argue all these caribou need is better habitat :yike:
That's it, pay no attention to themanwolves behind the curtain!
Fixed it for ya :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on February 09, 2015, 11:40:29 PM
Some on this site would argue all these caribou need is better habitat :yike:
That's it, pay no attention to themanwolves behind the curtain!
Fixed it for ya :tup:
It's not the wolves that hide behind the greenie stance of habitat loss and global warming as a excuse for ungulate declines.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 10, 2015, 02:09:44 AM
The Peace river herds are probably on a downward spiral because of the building of the WAC Bennet Dam in 1968 and the creation of Williston Lake, which blocks the traditional migration routes of most of these animals and developmental changes to the local environment which favors deer, moose, and elk. The herd north of the lake is still in fair shape although much smaller than in years previous. It has access to important high mountain winter habitat. But the herds stuck on the south side of the lake are really dying off. Of course, that is a habitat issue and nobody wants to believe habitat is important. The other part of the habitat issue is that through human development with farming and logging and mining, the forest habitat in the area has become more suitable for deer, moose, and elk, all of which now thrive in the area. This is the reason for the surge in the wolf population, the rise in deer, moose, and elk population. In fact, one of the strategies for "saving" the local caribou is to sharply reduce the deer, moose, and elk populations to reduce the wolf population which doesn't target the local caribou, but does kill a few if the opportunity arises. Because of the now small size of these caribou herds, a few dying is a big deal. So to save a couple hundred caribou, (maybe) the deer, moose, and elk in the area may be reduced by thousands. What a trade off. Get rid of game animals that have thrived in the area, to save a few of one species that is struggling. And scapegoat wolves so people don't look to deeply into why the caribou are really struggling. Because at the same time they have been going downhill, the other cervids in the area have been flourishing. And the wolves are there because of the other cervids. According to internet experts, that isn't supposed to happen. Wolves are supposed to kill off everything.
The wolf killing is just a bandaid on a gaping habitat wound.
Here is the Government draft plan to "save" the upper Peace caribou herds. While it places the blame on wolves for immediate problems, it also notes human caused habitat changes and herd displacement as long term causes of herd decline, although sometimes it seems like they are purposely downplaying that angle.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 10, 2015, 05:26:08 AM
The habitat change to favor moose and elk is really the biggest problem. Those populations are the ones supporting the wolves, caribou take is incidental, but important to the small population.
Post by: jasnt on February 10, 2015, 05:57:32 AM
As always you are purposely down playing wolves. You could have all the habitat in the world but if all/most the caves are eaten each year the herd size will continue to decline. I know habitat is an issue, not the deciding factor. It's a peace of the puzzle like everything else. They will need to fix more issues than just predators but IMO the predators is step one.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 10, 2015, 07:07:06 AM
It's not a "purposeful downplay" on wolves. It's a realistic explanation of the situation. Killing wolves will help the problem in the short term, but it's not the answer to all of the caribou's problems.
Again, I support the removal and agree that it needs to happen NOW. To save caribou there will need to be more effort on habitat and more time....
Post by: timberfaller on February 10, 2015, 08:54:42 AM
"Predator control" has been a issue NOT willing to be addressed now or in the future. I've run into it in just about every Public meeting over wildlife issues from, Protected Species to allowed Poaching!
I remember the day when game wardens shot "Raptors" :yike: and had one tell my dad to do the same when my dad confronted a warden about the dwindling number of Sharptail grouse in the area we hunted.
I grew up hunting Sage Hens and Sharptail, the Habitat is still there, but something else wiped them out, any guess?? AND its not Ag chemicals!
Canada's form of government, requires "taxpayers" to fork over a lot more then we have to. BUT we're catching up with them!
Post by: wolfbait on February 10, 2015, 09:46:04 AM
Habitat that encourages moose and elk populations to move higher into the mountains is a serious problem. That encourages predators to move higher up and incidentally take caribou.
It's not a "purposeful downplay" on wolves. It's a realistic explanation of the situation. Killing wolves will help the problem in the short term, but it's not the answer to all of the caribou's problems.
Again, I support the removal and agree that it needs to happen NOW. To save caribou there will need to be more effort on habitat and more time....
The Canadian Field-Naturalist
http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/72-The%20Return%20of%20the%20caribou%20to%20Ungava.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/72-The%20Return%20of%20the%20caribou%20to%20Ungava.pdf)
Post by: wolfbait on February 10, 2015, 09:55:09 AM
I doubt they'll get much of a result for their half million. They didn't get much of a result for the 1,000 wolves they killed in Alberta.
The Peace river herds are probably on a downward spiral because of the building of the WAC Bennet Dam in 1968 and the creation of Williston Lake, which blocks the traditional migration routes of most of these animals and developmental changes to the local environment which favors deer, moose, and elk. The herd north of the lake is still in fair shape although much smaller than in years previous. It has access to important high mountain winter habitat. But the herds stuck on the south side of the lake are really dying off. Of course, that is a habitat issue and nobody wants to believe habitat is important. The other part of the habitat issue is that through human development with farming and logging and mining, the forest habitat in the area has become more suitable for deer, moose, and elk, all of which now thrive in the area. This is the reason for the surge in the wolf population, the rise in deer, moose, and elk population. In fact, one of the strategies for "saving" the local caribou is to sharply reduce the deer, moose, and elk populations to reduce the wolf population which doesn't target the local caribou, but does kill a few if the opportunity arises. Because of the now small size of these caribou herds, a few dying is a big deal. So to save a couple hundred caribou, (maybe) the deer, moose, and elk in the area may be reduced by thousands. What a trade off. Get rid of game animals that have thrived in the area, to save a few of one species that is struggling. And scapegoat wolves so people don't look to deeply into why the caribou are really struggling. Because at the same time they have been going downhill, the other cervids in the area have been flourishing. And the wolves are there because of the other cervids. According to internet experts, that isn't supposed to happen. Wolves are supposed to kill off everything.
The wolf killing is just a bandaid on a gaping habitat wound.
Here is the Government draft plan to "save" the upper Peace caribou herds. While it places the blame on wolves for immediate problems, it also notes human caused habitat changes and herd displacement as long term causes of herd decline, although sometimes it seems like they are purposely downplaying that angle.
Habitat Largely Irrelevant? I have to be kidding right? Well, Banff and Jasper National Parks in the central Canada contained some of the most spectacular wildlife habitat in North America but today it is largely a game-less country due to predation. Approximately 40 years ago, wolves re=colonized parks that already contained grizzlies, black bears and mountain lions. The addition of wolves to the system has just about eliminated the moose and reduced elk populations by 80% or more. It's important to remember that the wildlife in Banff and Jasper are not hunted. Wolves have also caused elk herds to abandon large portions of their pre-wolf ranges. The habitat is still their, but the elk are not. And unlike our Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, who contend that predators have little effect on game populations, Parks Canada fully acknowledges what has transpired!
Read More @ http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/63-%20Are%20predators%20killing%20your%20hunting%20opportunies%20.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/63-%20Are%20predators%20killing%20your%20hunting%20opportunies%20.pdf)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 10, 2015, 12:15:33 PM
Post by: Curly on February 10, 2015, 12:38:49 PM
6 wolves per 100 km sq seems to be the threshold for caribou populations....according to Canada researchers.
Seems like a lot of wolves. That's about 6 wolves per 40 sq miles. :o
Post by: Bob33 on February 10, 2015, 12:56:24 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 10, 2015, 01:09:50 PM
Fifty years ago there were as many caribou in Washington as moose. Now moose numbers exceed 1,000 and caribou are on the verge of extinction in Washington.
And nobody in charge cares. NE elk are going in the same direction...
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 10, 2015, 03:37:00 PM
Habitat Largely Irrelevant? I have to be kidding right? Well, Banff and Jasper National Parks in the central Canada contained some of the most spectacular wildlife habitat in North America but today it is largely a game-less country due to predation. Approximately 40 years ago, wolves re=colonized parks that already contained grizzlies, black bears and mountain lions. The addition of wolves to the system has just about eliminated the moose and reduced elk populations by 80% or more. It's important to remember that the wildlife in Banff and Jasper are not hunted. Wolves have also caused elk herds to abandon large portions of their pre-wolf ranges. The habitat is still their, but the elk are not. And unlike our Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, who contend that predators have little effect on game populations, Parks Canada fully acknowledges what has transpired!
Gee a quick trip the the Banff Park website shows me this....... http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/ab/banff/natcul/Animaux-Animals/mammifieres-mammals/wapiti.aspx (http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/ab/banff/natcul/Animaux-Animals/mammifieres-mammals/wapiti.aspx) Here are a couple quotes.......
"Elk have always been part of the natural ecology of the park but probably in fewer numbers than we see today."
"Today, elk are the most numerous large animal with close to 350 found in the park; over 200 of them live in the lower Bow Valley close to the town of Banff."
" On average, 70 elk die from cars or trains each year."
70 out of 350 killed by vehicles? That's 20% Just a guess, but I'd bet trains were responsible for the greatest portion of that. In Alaska, in the winter, trains take a horrible toll on moose, as when the snow gets deep and makes travel hard for animals, they naturally move on to the railroad right of ways to get around as those are kept clear for the trains. Then as the trains navigate down the tracks the moose are trapped by high snow banks and are literally slaughtered by the hundreds in bad winters. I could see the same thing happening in Banff.
Then this on another web page .....
"Banff Moose
Moose are on the decline in the park, due in part to a deadly liver fluke, the return of wolves after a long absence, and an unnaturally high number of deaths on the railways and highways. However, you still have a good chance of spotting a moose"
There's those pesky vehicle accidents again.
"Banff Deer
The park is home to both whitetail and mule deer, and both are common along the Vermilion Lakes Drive and the Bow Valley Parkway, particularly in the spring. "
"
Banff Bighorn
Sheep Bighorn sheep are abundant throughout the park, and are most commonly seen along the Bow Valley Parkway at Backswamp, on the Mount Norquay and Lake Minnewanka roads, and at the top of the gondola ride on Sulphur Mountain."
Doesn't sound like there is a shortage of animals in Banff because of wolves. Are cervids at an all time high? no. Are they at an all time low? no
Post by: wolfbait on February 10, 2015, 05:55:27 PM
Habitat Largely Irrelevant? I have to be kidding right? Well, Banff and Jasper National Parks in the central Canada contained some of the most spectacular wildlife habitat in North America but today it is largely a game-less country due to predation. Approximately 40 years ago, wolves re=colonized parks that already contained grizzlies, black bears and mountain lions. The addition of wolves to the system has just about eliminated the moose and reduced elk populations by 80% or more. It's important to remember that the wildlife in Banff and Jasper are not hunted. Wolves have also caused elk herds to abandon large portions of their pre-wolf ranges. The habitat is still their, but the elk are not. And unlike our Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, who contend that predators have little effect on game populations, Parks Canada fully acknowledges what has transpired!
Gee a quick trip the the Banff Park website shows me this....... http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/ab/banff/natcul/Animaux-Animals/mammifieres-mammals/wapiti.aspx (http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/ab/banff/natcul/Animaux-Animals/mammifieres-mammals/wapiti.aspx) Here are a couple quotes.......
"Elk have always been part of the natural ecology of the park but probably in fewer numbers than we see today."
"Today, elk are the most numerous large animal with close to 350 found in the park; over 200 of them live in the lower Bow Valley close to the town of Banff."
" On average, 70 elk die from cars or trains each year."
70 out of 350 killed by vehicles? That's 20% Just a guess, but I'd bet trains were responsible for the greatest portion of that. In Alaska, in the winter, trains take a horrible toll on moose, as when the snow gets deep and makes travel hard for animals, they naturally move on to the railroad right of ways to get around as those are kept clear for the trains. Then as the trains navigate down the tracks the moose are trapped by high snow banks and are literally slaughtered by the hundreds in bad winters. I could see the same thing happening in Banff.
Then this on another web page .....
"Banff Moose
Moose are on the decline in the park, due in part to a deadly liver fluke, the return of wolves after a long absence, and an unnaturally high number of deaths on the railways and highways. However, you still have a good chance of spotting a moose"
There's those pesky vehicle accidents again.
"Banff Deer
The park is home to both whitetail and mule deer, and both are common along the Vermilion Lakes Drive and the Bow Valley Parkway, particularly in the spring. "
"
Banff Bighorn
Sheep Bighorn sheep are abundant throughout the park, and are most commonly seen along the Bow Valley Parkway at Backswamp, on the Mount Norquay and Lake Minnewanka roads, and at the top of the gondola ride on Sulphur Mountain."
Doesn't sound like there is a shortage of animals in Banff because of wolves. Are cervids at an all time high? no. Are they at an all time low? no
"Today, elk are the most numerous large animal with close to 350 found in the park; over 200 of them live in the lower Bow Valley close to the town of Banff."
Sounds like other areas where wolves have impacted the game herds, elk etc. living in or near town for protection from wolves
So much for your "habitat" argument Sitka :hello:
Post by: jasnt on February 10, 2015, 07:09:14 PM
Post by: wolfbait on February 10, 2015, 09:57:42 PM
What Pro-Wolf Advocates Do Not Want You to Know
Prior to the build-up of wolves, eight hundred to a thousand elk were routinely counted from the air in the Bow Valley
Importance of habitat: Habitat is irrelevant. Everything biologists have told you about habitat being the overriding consideration is totally and absolutely wrong. Remember those two examples I showed earlier — Banff National Park and Yellowstone National Park. And they’re national parks. The habitat’s still there. Nobody’s driven any oil wells or gas wells there. No one’s ripped them up for tar sands or done anything else like that but, you know, the elk are no longer there because of predation.
Caribou: Wolves are now in the process of wiping out woodland and mountain caribou across the length and breadth of Canada. This is another example of predator-mediated competition. Historically, there were no moose in these systems. And the reason there were no moose — I wrote a paper on this — Biogeography of Moose in Western North America — is because the natives just wiped out the moose. But since the natives are no longer there doing the hunting the way they did, the moose population has increased. This has led to an increase in the number of wolves and whenever the wolves run across more vulnerable caribou they just nail it, and kill it.
This editorial appeared in one of Canada’s leading newspapers — I believe it’s the Edmonton Journal, by writer Dick Dekker — about how to save the woodland caribou and the mountain caribou in Canada. His idea is we need to create a new national park for caribou. He’s totally right. But his view is you need to high gate and fence it, electrify the fence, catch all the predators — throw them out. Then put the caribou back in. So it’s the only way the caribou are going to survive. And the importance about this is the author, Dr. Dick Dekker. Dr. Dick Dekker ran the Canadian Wolf Defenders for fifteen years. Dick Dekker and I are friends. He’s the only rational wolf advocate I’ve ever met. Now, we have different value systems. But we’re still friends because he’s not misleading, he’s telling that “the wolves did it.” And in Canada they’re trying to blame it on oil and gas and logging and tar sands and roads and everything else except wolves. You know, wolves did it. Again, habitat is irrelevant.
Read More @
http://prfamerica.org/speeches/16th/WolfRecovery.html (http://prfamerica.org/speeches/16th/WolfRecovery.html)
Post by: nwwanderer on February 11, 2015, 08:09:12 AM
Post by: wolfbait on February 11, 2015, 04:03:02 PM
Control often equals dispersion. More for Washington?
So far there hasn't been any wolf control, and there probably never will be to the extent that it would do any good.
"Return of partial state wolf management: Wolf management was returned — partial wolf management — was returned to the states of Montana and Idaho under a rider — that was a congressional rider — which was attached to an appropriation bill which I’ll discuss in more detail in a minute. So Idaho and Montana held seasons last year on wolves. And according to news accounts of the wolves killed in Idaho — first, they never reached their quota. Despite a six-week hunting season or six-month hunting season. With deep snow on the ground, they never reached their quota. Turns out you cannot, which was known back in ’87 when the wolf recovery plan was first written, you cannot control wolf population by hunting or trapping. If you want to control it, you need to poison them and get in there with helicopters and use helicopter gunships on them. Neither of which are popular with certain groups, if you can imagine. So the hunt in Idaho they had, half the wolves that were killed were in places the state fish and game agency had no idea there were any wolves."
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 11, 2015, 09:43:01 PM
Turns out you cannot, which was known back in ’87 when the wolf recovery plan was first written, you cannot control wolf population by hunting or trapping. If you want to control it, you need to poison them and get in there with helicopters and use helicopter gunships on them. Neither of which are popular with certain groups, if you can imagine. So the hunt in Idaho they had, half the wolves that were killed were in places the state fish and game agency had no idea there were any wolves."
Hunting and trapping helps. But the real secret is, most wolves die from accidental causes, malnutrition, or intraspecific competition ie killed by other wolves. In may ways, wolves are self limiting. They don't have an easy life.
Post by: CementFinisher on February 11, 2015, 10:04:38 PM
Post by: wolfbait on February 11, 2015, 10:21:09 PM
Turns out you cannot, which was known back in ’87 when the wolf recovery plan was first written, you cannot control wolf population by hunting or trapping. If you want to control it, you need to poison them and get in there with helicopters and use helicopter gunships on them. Neither of which are popular with certain groups, if you can imagine. So the hunt in Idaho they had, half the wolves that were killed were in places the state fish and game agency had no idea there were any wolves."
Hunting and trapping helps. But the real secret is, most wolves die from accidental causes, malnutrition, or intraspecific competition ie killed by other wolves. In may ways, wolves are self limiting. They don't have an easy life.
Yellowstone is Dead (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYxGJB5dJxI#ws)
Post by: timberfaller on February 12, 2015, 01:01:50 PM
Tickle the "emotions" of the city dwellers and YOU'VE got your $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Post by: mfswallace on February 13, 2015, 07:34:54 AM
Wait your telling me there were once 17000-25000 elk, well winter kill is the reason 70-90% of the population died :bdid:
So many ways to spin it except admitting wolves are the root cause, along with a small small percentage of other factors :bash:
Post by: CementFinisher on February 14, 2015, 12:01:38 PM
Yellowstone doesn't have the habitat to support more than 5000 elk, everyone knows that :bdid:
Wait your telling me there were once 17000-25000 elk, well winter kill is the reason 70-90% of the population died :bdid:
So many ways to spin it except admitting wolves are the root cause, along with a small small percentage of other factors :bash:
LOL your kidding right? if the habitat didn't support more than 5000 elk than how did the population continue to grow past 20000 over the years? I miss the yellowwstone that had elk, moose, and all animals everywhere you went in the greater yellow stone area, went back there for the 3rd time and it made me so sick to see so little life there now
Post by: huntnphool on February 15, 2015, 07:29:50 PM
Yellowstone doesn't have the habitat to support more than 5000 elk, everyone knows that :bdid:
Wait your telling me there were once 17000-25000 elk, well winter kill is the reason 70-90% of the population died :bdid:
So many ways to spin it except admitting wolves are the root cause, along with a small small percentage of other factors :bash:
LOL your kidding right? if the habitat didn't support more than 5000 elk than how did the population continue to grow past 20000 over the years? I miss the yellowwstone that had elk, moose, and all animals everywhere you went in the greater yellow stone area, went back there for the 3rd time and it made me so sick to see so little life there now
No sh@t! :mor:
Post by: mfswallace on February 18, 2015, 09:54:16 AM
Yellowstone doesn't have the habitat to support more than 5000 elk, everyone knows that :bdid:
Wait your telling me there were once 17000-25000 elk, well winter kill is the reason 70-90% of the population died :bdid:
So many ways to spin it except admitting wolves are the root cause, along with a small small percentage of other factors :bash:
LOL your kidding right? if the habitat didn't support more than 5000 elk than how did the population continue to grow past 20000 over the years? I miss the yellowwstone that had elk, moose, and all animals everywhere you went in the greater yellow stone area, went back there for the 3rd time and it made me so sick to see so little life there now
No sh@t! :mor:
Sorry thought my last paragraph would explain it,
Yes being facetious!!!
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 23, 2015, 11:08:26 AM
http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/Opinion+Ecologists+oppose+wolf+kill/10827496/story.html (http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/Opinion+Ecologists+oppose+wolf+kill/10827496/story.html)
Some comments.......
This first is from the official BC Wolf Management Policy
“Attempts to control wolves to reduce predation risks on caribou has been a provincial priority since 2001. Wolf densities have been reduced; however, at this time, a correlation between reduced wolf densities and caribou recovery cannot be substantiated.”
From John and Mary Theberge who wrote this piece....
"Another possibility is that no rise in caribou numbers is possible because of habitat destruction, regardless of the presence of wolves"
"Realistically, caribou days in the southern part of their range are numbered. It is biologically futile to kill wolves to return to the former situation."
"We would place our bets, however, on a third reasons that wolf killing has not lead to caribou recovery. Over much of B.C., what is known as an ecological phase shift has happened."
"Across much of B.C., massive forest cutting has resulted in gross habitat alteration and fragmentation. The cost? A phase shift. Moose, benefiting from early successional forests after logging and other land uses have greatly extended their range in B.C. Numbers of elk and deer have adjusted, too. However, caribou, especially the southern mountain ecotype, have declined due to a loss of critical older-growth, lichen-clad forests. They have been victims, too, of habitat fragmentation preventing herd-to-herd “metapopulation” flow that once reduced risks of local, herd extinctions."
"New species crowd out the potential for recovery of old ones. Recovery is generally beyond the scope of management intervention."
(In this case, deer and elk)
"Every practicing wildlife biologist knows two landmark scientific publications show a straight line graph linking wolf population size to prey biomass (the live weight of prey in that region). It is simple. More prey, more wolves."
" With fewer wolves, will moose and elk populations increase? Will their browsing inhibit forest regeneration? Should they be killed, too? (In B.C.’s 2010 plan for an aerial wolf kill, moose reduction was a management prescription, too)"
Again, habitat is more the issue than predators. But it is more convenient to go after predators, even if it doesn't work, because habitat changes take decades in many cases and people want to see changes NOW. The thinking is "At least it looks like we are doing something, even if it changes nothing.".
I now some of you hate the habitat argument, and argue that the habitat is already there. The problem is, habitat isn't just empty space. Each species has it's own needs and they are not the same for each species. So where you see forest and think...."there is habitat", it may not have what individual species need. For instance, locally Deer and Elk do great inf well managed tree farms where there is a succession of different age classes of trees. The newer clearcuts offer great food sources (unless they are sprayed with herbicides) and the older areas provide plenty of cover or protection from hunters. But if an area is logged all at once, it may be good for several years, but once it reaches the cover stage, it's a dead zone because 12 to 20 year old reprod Douglas fir plantation has virtually no food to offer. The only thing on the ground is fir needles. As the forest grows up, and trees are thinned, eventually there is some forage that grows sparsely but it will still be marginal hunting at best. In the 80s and into the 90s there was an area north of Hoquiam, basically the Copalis unit, that was heavily logged and my gang had superb deer hunting there. It was blacktail paradise. The large group of us that hunted together pretty much tagged out every year there. In 2013 a total of 60 deer were taken in the whole unit. That is next to nothing. Our group alone would take a dozen deer in a year there in the late 80s and early 90s. There is still habitat there, but it doesn't support the deer numbers it once did. They are starting to log parts of it again, so it may get better for a time. Then a couple other local areas, unit 638 Quinault Ridge and unit 618 Matheney ....... Lots of habitat there, but it isn't deer habitat to speak of. 20 deer and 4 deer were taken in those two units respectively in 2013.
Land and forest does not necessarily translate to habitat.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 23, 2015, 03:14:49 PM
The leading caribou biologist in the region has determined wolf predation to be the number one cause of mortality, and at this point wolves are the limiting factor for caribou recovery. Killing the wolves is not going to hurt the wolf population, losing any caribou has serious impacts on that population. This is a triage operation....
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 23, 2015, 08:55:00 PM
Killing the wolves is not going to hurt the wolf population, losing any caribou has serious impacts on that population. This is a triage operation....
I agree with that to a point. The point was made in the article I linked.
"Realistically, caribou days in the southern part of their range are numbered. It is biologically futile to kill wolves to return to the former situation."
What this biologist who has conducted "the longest, most intensive, telemetry-based wolf research program in Canada" is saying is that it is pointless to try to save a few animals of the fringe of their range by predator control, when other factors that are much more serious to survival are working against those few animals they are trying to save. Regime change in the local environment made the area in question favorable to moose, elk and deer, but lessened it for Mt Caribou. It's not that the habitat is not supporting any ungulates, it's that it's not supporting Mt Caribou.
It's just like water temperature changes brought on by the El Nino effect bring about regime changes in the ocean. Some fish and shellfish favor cold water, and some favor warm water. El Nino goes north and you will see tuna boats fishing off of Sitka Alaska. (this has happened in the past) But you can't always expect those waters to be prime tuna grounds. When El Nino goes away, so do the tuna.