Caribou Recovery Enguagement

[338win mag]

So high moose numbers are to blame for caribou declining. Odd they are saying industry is causing moose numbers to increase yet moose numbers are declining. The reality funny part is industry is also blamed when you hear talk of moose numbers are declining.

Now what is really going on here because when you get contradictions like this it one of 2 reasons. Someone does not know WTF they are talking about and is just throwing out BS answers to a problem they can’t figure out or someone is using a known issue as an excuse to push something through

Either way I am smelling BS and Sitkaspruce might be into something or at min possibly joint cooperation to benefit 2 agendas

^^^^^^^I suspect this

[Wild one]

^^^^^^^I suspect this

My bets too but never underestimate the stupidity of human beings. For this reason I never rule out stupid lol

[IronNoggin]

The anti's are really ramping up their efforts on this one.
Today alone the Sierra Club, Wildsight & Dogwood all are circulating emails, complete with form letters & contact information, requesting all their sheep to send in comments of support.

I sent mine quite some time ago, as have most I know.
Hope we will carry the day, but it's looking a tad nervous...

Nog

[Rob Chipman]

Wildone:

"So high moose numbers are to blame for caribou declining. Odd they are saying industry is causing moose numbers to increase yet moose numbers are declining. The reality funny part is industry is also blamed when you hear talk of moose numbers are declining.

Now what is really going on here because when you get contradictions like this it one of 2 reasons. Someone does not know WTF they are talking about and is just throwing out BS answers to a problem they can’t figure out or someone is using a known issue as an excuse to push something through "

There's a third way of looking at it, and I'll admit I'm kind of thinking out loud, so don't nail me to any walls here.

Step 1, recognize you're reading a news article written by a reporter who probably doesn't understand the underlying caribou issue, isn't really exploring that with the caribou bio, but is writing a headline grabbing article that plays off not only the traditional urban/rural divide but also the tried and true tactic of fanning suspicions;

Step 2 - look at what actual caribou bios are saying about moose, deer, caribou and apparent competition and see if that conflicts with or supports the idea that moose/deer numbers can be both decreasing but still at levels high enough compared to historical numbers wherein they can still be a threat to caribou.

The second idea is completely workable as far as I understand things (I'm basing this on what I understood Rob Serrouya, a caribou bio, to have explained in a presentation I attended at the last BCWF AGM).

Caribou exploit habitat that contributes to their predator evasion strategy (they don't live in really wolf friendly habitat). We disrupt that habitat with the result of expanding moose and deer populations. Those populations both attract *and* better tolerate wolf predation, but they bring predators in closer contact with caribou who now have less habitat in which to evade predation. Caribou don't tolerate the predation as well, having different short term anti-predation strategies and slower reproductive rates. While moose and deer survive the wolves the caribou enter a predator pit.

I think we all understand that aspect of the problem, which is why habitat restoration (a long term process) can't work on it's own without predator suppression or suppression of apparent competitors like moose and deer and without maternal penning (the short term fixes).

Good and fine.

Consider this aspect of the numbers: in a specific habitat that was originally caribou habitat but has been disrupted, moose and deer numbers rise as habitat that is favourable to them increases. Wolf and other predator populations grow as a result of moose and deer population increases, but they lag that growth. You need more deer and moose before you get more wolves.

As wolf population grows and caribou are threatened the moose and deer pops decline from the peak due to both predation *as well as bio recommended more liberal human harvest rules* they are no longer growing but in decline. However, even in decline they're still high enough that they support enough wolves that caribou can't survive the increased predation load.

If you look at moose numbers from a moose-centric point of view you conclude "Moose pops are declining", but if you look at it from a caribou-centric POV you still say "Moose pops have increased and are a threat".

Granted, I'm spit-balling with this, but it's to put the conspiracy theory aspect of caribou recovery into perspective. And that really brings us to your comment "Your trying too hard to give them credit here lol"

Who's the "them" that we're giving credit too? Is everyone out there against us and common sense?

Does government have a hidden agenda? I'll bet you $20 they do, even if its not a conscious one.
Do FNs have agendas in addition to caribou recovery? Say, more control or sovereignty? I'll bet you $20 they do.
Does media have a single minded agenda of simply selling more newsprint/website content regardless of accuracy and long term effect? Again, I know which way I'm betting.

But are the bios doing the work part of a conspiracy? And are they citing both increasing and decreasing numbers of moose in order to bamboozle the public? I don't think so. I think the other players probably cherry pick scientific knowledge (we've seen that with DFO quite recently, right?), but I think the actual bios on the ground are probably shooting as straight as they can.

We may disagree on this, but consider: if we call for science to be the driver in wildlife management, but then in the next breath we say we don't trust the bios on the ground, how do we move forward? As I recently heard a guy describe it "Science without action is research, but action without science is a fool's endeavour".

If we think we can trust the scientists it's incumbent upon us to draw a bright line between what the scientists tell us directly, and what other actors in this drama cherry pick and promote.

If we don't think we can trust the scientists (or some of them) we have an entirely different problem to address (do we try to determine which scientists to trust, or do we abandon calls for science entirely?)

Another problem your idea highlights is this: do we really know what's happening with moose numbers and why? Are we going to reach a misinformed opinion that an increase in moose numbers in a few restricted places that they share with caribou means moose are not only fine, but a threat, while bigger picture the facts are that moose are also in rough shape? That could happen. I find it hard to believe that Wildlife Defense League will get too worked up about saving moose if throwing moose and caribou under the bus buys wolves a short term reprieve from death (they starve rather than get shot).

[Darksith]

The way I read it. They aren't claiming logging (in general) creates more moose (in general). They are saying clear cutting old growths allow moose to move in (creating a higher moose density in that specific area, that wasn't moose habitat in prior years).

So you could say both things. Without contradicting yourself.

Exactly, your taking a condensed moose population, and your allowing it to spread out. It gives the impression of population decline, but its just population dispersement. That being said, I do believe that the moose numbers are going down and not simply dispersing.

[Wild one]

Rob with out getting too in-depth there is a problem and clearly has been for a long time. The reasons for this can truly vary

we all openly admit to and preach about the lack of funding affecting the quality of science based management for starters.

I think we all support sound solid scientific management but that does not mean we are getting it all the time. This also does not mean you blindly follow what you are told because even the best human being with the best intentions are wrong at times

Supporting science based management does not mean follow like a sheep

[Rob Chipman]

"there is a problem and clearly has been for a long time"

I think that's right, but it seldom comes up. By "long time" I don't know what you mean, but I mean in excess of a century. The latest problem is just the extreme state of the longer one. I don't have good evidence, but if you read "Grass Beyond the Mountains" for example, he talks about lots of caribou in the Itchas. I'd like to hear what other people know about caribou pops in the Interior and North 100 years ago.

"lack of funding affecting the quality of science based management"

There's no question it's a problem, and one that needs to be addressed.

"I think we all support sound solid scientific management..." I'm not sure I'd agree, depending on how you define "we". I think we should test that proposition and take note of the results. If you include all voters then clearly not everyone supports science based management (WDL doesn't for example). I was watching the public meeting on Caribou in PG on the internet earlier - there are plenty of people in that room who don't believe the bios know what they're talking about - you can't tell me they really believe in science based management when compared to their own anecdotal knowledge based approach (and there's no shortage of those people anywhere).

"Supporting science based management does not mean follow like a sheep"

I'm not sure what you mean. The bios don't make policy - the government does. Do I recommend following the government like sheep? Clearly not. Like I wrote, there are a lot of players and a lot of agendas. That said, I think that if you want to find the highest number of trustworthy people, stick to the bios. Much lower ratio of hidden agendas. Those that do have hidden agendas are pretty obvious.

The main point remains: we should go to the original source on the science whenever possible. We should spend some money translating studies into material that's easy for the interested layman to access. We should avoid putting much trust in the MSM unless it's from an MSM source that has clearly established good trust.

Just for fun check this link on Gell Mann Amnesia Effect - then don't succumb to the amnesia the next tine you read a newspaper!

[Deaddog]

Lots of people in that room didn’t believe the bios as so often in the past it was the bios opinion with no data to back it up that set wildlife policy. Now we have “study” after study with no action from the study’s but are told to just “ trust” things will be done properly , it is no wonder that those of us north of hope have little faith in gov reps. Until the bios are given funding to act on study findings people will remain Leary of opinions .

The caribou consultation is one more example, a year of secret consulting behind closed doors and then five weeks consulting with the public and the communities that will be crushed by it. If this was south of hope and mills were going to be closing as a result you would see Horgan, Weaver ,Wilkinson all hovering around . Up in the north they send an ADM who really has no authority to change anything, it’s a travelling road show so they can say they listened , however the deal is already done

[boxhitch]

Heres an older info article for you Rob

maybe caribou are just being stressed out of existence throughout North America

https://www.cbc.ca/news/billion-doll...ibou-1.2695322

fixed

[Rob Chipman]

boxhitch - thanks, but the link is missing something I think.

Deaddog -

You're kind of making my point both ways - "Lots of people in that room didn’t believe the bios...." and "Until the bios are given funding to act on study..."

Science without action is just research, but the bios don't set eh policy anyway - it's government who does that. We'd be well advised, I think, to help scientists by forcing government to help them.

I watched part of the PG Caribou engagement meeting. An audience member took the bios to task about not having any data or numbers to support the belief that they can recover caribou. The bio who answered was clearly a bit put off and replied "in my project area we've gone from 16 to 81 as a result of predator suppression and maternal penning, so how do you like those numbers?"

It's be damn simple to keep that bio honest and make him produce data and hard numbers, especially in comparison to keeping government honest (I suspect we agree on that).


I know that those of you beyond Hope think that the Lower Mainland gets everything it wants whenever it wants. That's because you're far away and from a distance we all look the same. Trust me, there are plenty of people here in the big city who pretty much feel the same way you do about who the government listens to. The urban/rural divide is magnified and exploited.