Re: Caribou recovery and effective methods to deal with wolves en masse?
Wild One:
" Yes you brought forward an example I personally would not use but yes under those conditions there was results."
"I much prefer to acknowledge the failed results when this has been applied to ungulates here in Canada"
I brought up a recent BC study as well. Two studies. There are more. You're trying to say that there is one single answer to this. There isn't. Sometimes it works, if done properly. Sometimes it doesn't. (If you had cancer and the doctor said "You need chemo" would you say "I've seen chemo fail, so you're full of it doc"? Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Whats the alternative?)
"Remember this is not invasive pigs you’re dealing with either but instead native ungulates and ones also in decline here in BC."
I understand that very clearly. However, in one of the areas that I'm aware of the moose are not native in populations as large as they have become, nor were the deer. (BTW, you've never mouthed the words "The FNS in the Chilcotin didn't even have a name for moose, because moose weren't native to the are. They started arriving around the turn of the last century" have you? Just saying', because that's pretty common wisdom).
"So consider what % of the ungulate( elk and deer would be a factor)population is except able loss in hopes to limit predation on caribou?"
That is exactly the question that has to be asked. Do you want moose, deer, wolves, bears, cougars, snowmobile access, heli-skiing, roads, toilet paper, gas exploration......or do you want caribou? If you answer caribou then it seems really, really clear that you're going to have to give upon on something else, at least in the short term.
WDL wants more wolves and cats and is ready to let caribou go. OK, fine, it's a free country and everyone has a right to want what they want.
You won't accept any ungulate loss because you don't believe scientific data from right here in BC so you're ready to let caribou go. OK, fine, it's a free country and everyone has a right to want what they want.
Some people want cheap toilet paper or good returns in their RRSP, so they're ready to let caribou go. OK, fine, it's a free country ......
You get the picture. The thing is, we now live in a post-truth world. Nobody cares about other people's facts unless there is a level of trust. Who do you want to trust, and on what basis? I'll take the risk on trusting scientists that I've spoken to and listened to, and I'll try to increase the number of those people that I know. I understand that I'm going to have to give up some things that I may want because I want them less than I want mountain caribou on the landscape. If caribou disappear I'm going to end up with a different set of feeling about shooting them (I'd rather say "I've shot species that I've also helped recover rather than say I've shot species that were on their way out during the short lifetime left to me).
So, yeah, my mind's made up, but it's about who I'm going to trust and why (I know them somewhat and they share their data).
Speaking of trust vs truth, Foxton -your quote is right on target I think:
"Our useless government has already opened up almost 50 moose cow & calf leh hunting draws in the Revelstoke
Caribou area....They have no backbone to remove predators, as it's to political.
So the government has already made their decision, so its not a public consultation."
That encapsulates the problem. Can anyone explain, on a sheet of 8 1/2 by 11 piece of paper, why opening up an LEH to the tune of almost 50 cows/calves will have the desired result? Can anyone show who the actual individual is who made that decision? Can they show the scientist who called for that number? Can they show that wolves are also being killed or not being killed? Can they explain why you'd try to kill wolves (and for that matter blackmails in the Charlottes) with pros, but not do the same with moose/deer if they are a problem?
Remember, the recent BC study on increasing caribou numbers seems to indicate that you have to pull as many levers as you can and do it as hard as you can. Science has also demonstrated that recruiting sport hunters to cull certain species is not "pulling the levers hard", because hunters don't like the idea.
Whenever someone thinks that another party has made their mind top and is just going through the motions of discussing something there will always be a lack of trust and as a result a lack of agreement on most of the facts. It can't work.
Bear Valley:
"Now to quote a biologist friend of mine had a career in caribou recoveries...”Where the hell do you move a wolf where there already isn’t a wolf”?"
Like they say - you need to pull all the levers. If you just remove alternate prey but leave the predators alone it isn't likely to work. Still, is your fight with the bios (like your friend who pointed this out) or with the political side of the population that doesn't want to apply science to management?
"Lets look at the Itcha Mountain herd that was at 2500+ not many years ago and is now down to 600 or less.....Firstly, Mountain Caribou in BC are seeing population drops in many areas and some of these caribou herds are minimally affected by habitat degradation."
That right there is a pretty obvious question, isn't it? Speaking of truth vs. trust, why don't we see lots of info in caribou that references the Itcha herd as a reference? I can't say I've seen any of that, and it's at least a 250 pound gorilla sitting in the room.
"The biologists involved in this current recovery plan have a pretty good idea of how many wolves are chewing on these caribou." I gotta say, I've heard, various times and in various forms, bios saying things along the lines of "Oh, we know what's eating them", in regard to both caribou and moose. I'm sure there are some bios who want to play favourites instead of looking at the whole system and following science, but I have only met the ones who recognize that predator reduction is key. Their problem is that they don't have support.
"Mountain Caribou recovery plans recommend that wolf populations be dropped to less than 3 per 1000 sq/km.
Wouldn’t it make sense to deal with the culprit instead of executing the scapegoat."
You're correct. The science says do as many of the short term fixes as you can, and when you don't you won't have success. If all we do is kill alternate prey but leave the predator overload be, we're fooling ourselves and, as you say, scapegoating ungulates.
North of 49:
"Yes....using all tools at your disposal." I'm pretty sure that's what the science recommends as well. Not all hunters agree.
Walking Buffalo:
"Killing pigs (a predator) to save foxes is Not an example of the Alternative Prey Theory...."
The piglets were prey for the eagles, not predators. Removing the predators alone just led to more predators coming in to replace them (we can have the same problem with wolves, obviously). But you're misreading the study, I think.
"Hebblewhite could also provide you with proof that simply reducing the predators would provide a near guarantee that prey species Will increase."
I've heard him say that, but also heard him say that removing predators in controlled situations did nothing to reduce total mortality. Like I've said before, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Where it works we should use it. The recent BC study indicates that both removing predators and alternate prey is the solution in this case, and the study has numbers to back it up, and Hebblewhite is a listed author.
"...offered to politicians to provide them comfort within a conceived social licence while pretending that they were doing something".
Wait, are you saying we live in a post -truth world where people cherry pick facts to fool people into thinking they're saving the children when in fact they're out back strangling kittens? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you. Next you're going to tell me that we can't trust campaign promises.
"The Bio's said, want to save the Bou', kill the wolves until the habitat can regenerate."
They're saying that in the BC study as well. And they're also saying reduce alternate prey. Do you recommend cherry picking science or just doing what the scientists who are doing the work and want to save the caribou say we should do?
"Demand that the Alternative Prey theory be eliminated as an option." Wait, I guess you are saying "let's cherry pick science, just like WDL does".
"Exposed Alberta F&W's secret plan..." Again, trust vs truth. Wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where tax payer dollars created information that was shared with the public that paid for it? Someone should try that.
As Bear Valley points out (and hopefully you don't think I'm putting words in your mouth):
"...once again hands are being tied and the right call not made due to political interference."
The scientists aren't the enemy. The science isn't the enemy. The enemy are people willing to disregard what experts working in the field recommend in order to pursue different agendas.
Follow the science. Make the hard decisions. Pull all the levers. How can that be foolish?
Rob Chipman
"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
"Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey