Caribou recovery and effective methods to deal with wolves en masse?

[Dannybuoy]

unfortunately only a small portion of licence and tag fees ever make it back into wildlife management. In my opinion, We should all be advocating for 100% of those fees going to wildlife in BC, similar to the freshwater fishing in BC. Also some type of tax on all outdoor user groups, time for others to step up and help out with funding. Along with scientific management and defined objectives for population we’d not have to fight over scraps. Imagine that....

The problem with this idea is that the ministry bio's still call the shots .... I have had discussions with the Fresh water fisheries group that gets the monies from the licencing and they get 0 say on what the money is spent on and dare not question the gov or the funding would dry up . If the hunting licence money had the same conditions, what would change ?

[Cabled]

The problem with this idea is that the ministry bio's still call the shots .... I have had discussions with the Fresh water fisheries group that gets the monies from the licencing and they get 0 say on what the money is spent on and dare not question the gov or the funding would dry up . If the hunting licence money had the same conditions, what would change ?

Interesting point,l, I agree completely l. I guess when I say scientific management I see it as having politics removed from the decision making process. I know that’s not likely to happen with the current system, but it’s what I think we need to be working towards. I admittedly don’t know how we get there, but I’m pretty convinced if we don’t find a way we are done being able to enjoy hunting as we know it right now.

[Dannybuoy]

And when I said ministry bio's , I should have said they get their direction from their boss's ... which may or may not be science based .

[Rob Chipman]

Nog:

"Rob: I understand your dedication.
I will respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding alternate prey removal - based both upon experience, and fellow experienced biologists that I happen to believe in very much."

Fair enough. Take note - I'm not trying to pick favourite science or favourite scientists. Science is, over time, self correcting (assuming you take the politics and profit motive out of it). My assessment isn't that one theory works or doesn't. My recommendation is that we commit to science and then try to fund it, keep it independent and keep critiquing it.

"As for expecting BC to "pull all the levers", please refer to my earlier post.
This ain't Kansas any more, and the wizard is corrupt beyond compare..."

I think we agree. The problem isn't the bios or their theories. The problem is the corrupt wizard. Let's adjust our aim.

Bear Valley:

"...what I’ll say is the corrective lever needs pulled first and that sure as hell is not primary prey reduction."

I don't care which gets pulled first. I say pull them both. I don't think you and I really have a meaningful disagreement. Studies i cited that advocate prey reduction don't recommend doing it in isolation, and neither do I.

Wild One:

"Rob trust your scientist and I will trust the scientists that contradict them. "

You're still missing the point. You want to pick your favourite science and scientist. I'm saying follow science and on't pick favourites. If two studies disagree, examine why. Google "dialectic vs debate" and you'll understand better. I don't want to win a debate - I want to get to the truth.

And do not misunderstand - if you pick favourites with science, you're doing the same thing as WDL.

Cabled:

" I guess when I say scientific management I see it as having politics removed"

That's what we need, otherwise we get a repeat of the grizzly hunt ban.

[338win mag]

CBC radio this morning (the only station I get in my car) its about climate change and FN know how to best manage the land and save the species.

[northof49]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Wild one]

Rob This is not a new theory or one I have not beaten to death looking into all the angles of it and sat down and spoken to bios with. There is a division amongst bio’s on this theory for a reason

You are arguing with multiple members on this thread who I know for a fact have been involved with bio’s and studies as well. This is not a matter of “well I don’t like the idea”

My mind won’t change and I doubt you are getting anywhere with BV, Nog, WB or anyone else with knowledge of this style of management and the results it’s had in Canada

Let it die

[wideopenthrottle]

as I said before, it is important for us to remind the bleeding hearts that killing the alternate prey means STARVING THE PREDITORS TO DEATH or alternately move into another wolf's territory and be killed by the resident pack ..not a very nice way to die...it actually sounds cruel to me to not balance out the ecosystem by doing the killing swiftly...

[m5wilson]

as I said before, it is important for us to remind the bleeding hearts that killing the alternate prey means STARVING THE PREDITORS TO DEATH..not a very nice way to die...it actually sounds cruel to me to not balance out the ecosystem by doing the killing swiftly...

I agree, I won't pretend to know the solutions and if someone were to say predators weren't the problem that's one thing, but it seems like most agree predators are a problem (and I do believe they are a big factor especially when the populations are low and habitat is less than ideal). The killing of prey to reduce the amount of preds is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. If the goal is to kill the predators then just kill the predators.

[Rob Chipman]

Wild One:

Let it die?

Wtf is "it"?

If you think "it" is the theory of apparent competition and the actions taken to mitigate it's results, you're missing the point.

I know that BV and I don't really disagree. I doubt that Nog and I disagree. I don't know about Walking Buffalo, but I think I know about you.

I think you're arguing against and disagreeing with something I'm not actually saying. I'm saying listen to science and let it guide you, and while doing so practice good science.

I think you think I'm saying "Don't kill wolves" or maybe "don't kill wolves - kill moose and the wolves will move to Florida". I'm not saying that.

Of course, if you're arguing that we should cherry pick the science we like and base our policy on emotions, opinions and profit, then you are indeed disagreeing with what I'm saying, and, like I said before, you're just like WDL, radical vegans, the Bear Viewing Association, etc.

You started by saying that this approach never works, then you said it doesn't work in Canada, and you asked for data.

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/13/6181

That's Canada. In fact, it's BC. And it's recent. It looks like it worked here when used in specific ways.

Is it one size fits all? No. Sometimes it won't work, certainly. But the bigger picture is this: if science is being honest and sticking to science ( and not being hijacked by politicians, social engineers or corporate profit seekers) it self corrects. If all the following scientists are wrong
(Robert Serrouya, Dale R. Seip, Dave Hervieux, Bruce N. McLellan, R. Scott McNay, Robin Steenweg, Doug C. Heard, Mark Hebblewhite, Michael Gillingham, and Stan Boutin), they or other scientists will prove it.

If that happens I'll say "Hey, I trusted science, not individual scientists, and the system worked exactly as described in the scientific method, complete with independent replication of results".

What happens if it's proven that it works? What will you say? Will it be "Well, I still don't believe science!"

Remember, that's exactly what the guys who got the g-bear hunt argued. They argued that the science was wrong and couldn't be trusted. They turned it into a moral issue with a political pay off. Personally, I want that behaviour taken off the table.


FWIW, I spoke with BV today about the Itchas. Much less habitat disruption, much less apparent competition (moose pops there are in big trouble). Not a ton of roads going onto the area. That's three of the multiple levers already taken care of. It seems obvious that predation has a big role to play there. We aren't talking about that much n the wider public conversation about caribou.

Why not?

I'd argue - 1) lack of funding 2) lack of social license 3) lack of clear objectives 4) many benefits of making conservation and wildlife management a political issue.

It's not a problem of competing scientific theories or stupid scientists.

(sidebar - he also raised the issue of wild horses, and it seems pretty reasonable that those bad boys, awesome as they are to see, carry a lot of implications we aren't addressing either) .