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

[northof49]

^^^griz are hell on tasty caribou....just nobody wants to hear the truth. Doesn’t fit the agenda.

[Bugle M In]

I was watching a documentary the other day where they stated Grizz are responsible (elk) for 1/3 of all calf mortalities.
I can see that being the case with Boo as well.

[Rob Chipman]

"Its stated over and over again that the most effective tool to help the caribou is predator control."

Maybe we're hearing different things. What I've heard is that we need to pull all the levers.

That includes:
-habitat restoration (very long term);
-predator reduction (short term until habitat is restored, so don't put too much stress on "short");
-maternal penning to give calves a jump start;
-removal of alternate prey sources such as moose and deer.

The idea that removing alternate prey species as a way to increase the population of the threatened species is far from ridiculous. It's been demonstrated to work more than once. It's generally required when a new prey species moves into a habitat it didn't previously occupy, resulting in more food for predators and then growing predator numbers.

I think the recent paper published by Serrouya, Hebblewhite, et al, entitled "Saving endangered Species Through Adaptive Management" shows that using multiple tools at once can actually produce results. They've got numbers to back that up.

I think they also demonstrate that not using all levers and/or not pulling all levers really hard returns less than optimal results.

I'm also pretty sure I've heard bios say that targeting predators (and that's "targeted" vs "general" culling) is effective, but it is very, very unpopular. That's why they often pivot to reducing alternate prey. In my experience they're pretty clear that they'd like both but (like funding) will take what they can get.

The main problem with targeting alternate prey, however, is that hunters don't usually like to fulfill the role of executioner/culler. Non-hunters seem to think we're all about killing and that we'll take any chance we can to kill anything, but as we see quite often, hunters don't like that idea much at all. Tell them to exterminate moose or deer and you get push back. It makes sense that bios would prefer both alternate prey reduction and predator reduction.

And let's face it: if you and alternate prey and predators under control you wouldn't really need maternal pens. You could just wait for habitat to recover.

It's got to be tough as a bio trying to recover these herds. They actually get the same charges from both sides. Hunters say that reducing alternate prey is ridiculous (despite science indicating that it works) and animal rights activists argue that it's not the predators' fault that the habitat is destroyed.

At the end of the day, however, the little bit of science we actually pay for seems to be there, and the numbers seem to be there, and the scientists do seem to know what they're doing. What's missing, and what should be the target of our anger, is funding, application of science to policy, and clear objectives.


"I was watching a documentary the other day where they stated Grizz are responsible (elk) for 1/3 of all calf mortalities.
I can see that being the case with Boo as well."

Seems it depends on where you're looking. I think there's a famous Alaska study that shows GBs absolutely hammering moose calves, but I believe there's a study from the Flathead that indicates the opposite for elk calves. You know what the solution for that is? Get more funding and put some GoPros around the necks of GBs and more collars around the necks of caribou calves in threatened caribou habitat. Nothing that a little money and a grad student won't fix.

[Wild one]

Rob I will ask with an open mind if you can provide factual success using the “scorched earth theory” to save a species from declining?

I am well aware of the science of the theory but I have only seen failed results when it has been applied

[Walking Buffalo]

The idea that removing alternate prey species as a way to increase the population of the threatened species is far from ridiculous. It's been demonstrated to work more than once. It's generally required when a new prey species moves into a habitat it didn't previously occupy, resulting in more food for predators and then growing predator numbers.

Cough.. cough.... Bullshit.... cough...

[Bugle M In]

Well, as a part of the problem, like Rob states is "you have to implement ALL" of those tools.
"ALL" being the important part.
We don't do that, like no wolf culling (hardly ever) and now, no gbear hunting.
So, removing alternative prey sources is then, in that case, ineffective!

ESPECIALLY, if that is the only tool you use!!

So, I get Rob, and I get Wild one.

Me, I just think killing other prey sources is just down right F'n stupid.
Just get rid of the wolves where problems exist, and reduce them everywhere else before they become a
problem, and then just keep up with it.

If aerial is the best way, even if it expensive, than just "do it" so we can fix this problem ASAP.
We can always go to the trapper method later, to keep it in control, and if that means the ministry pays
for "hired wolf trappers", so be it. (because they are pissing away the money anyways!).

We just need funding revenue for a lot of "game/habitat management" issues.
If we get that, and start doing the right things, than we can all move on to another problem which is
this whole FN BS and us having less places to hunt.

[Cordillera]

to be effective at actually reducing impact on ungulates, predator removal has to be higher than 50%. Below that, it has no effect, except to make someone killing a few wolves feel better. the reason aerial actually works is they can find the wolves and quickly remove most of a pack. By collaring one wolf per pack, they are able to keep following the pack and ensure they have achieved the objective. In the Northeast, the wolf removal has achieved the goal of greater than 50% removal for four straight years. The result is clear and caribou are coming back. In a situation like this, some ground removal by trapping can complement the aerial program, and that is being done by the First Nations who have a ground trapping program.

In a few situations, it appears that incredibly dedicated and talented trappers can make a population difference. I saw that once in the Atlin area where an old trapper would get a dozen to twenty wolves per year and he did that for years. And so did a couple other trappers in the area. But he's gone and those situations are rare.

[northof49]

Yes the answer is reduction of the predators...plain and simple. Why do people like to overthink and complicate things. All those opposed to managing wolf numbers can own this problem. The solution is so F’n obvious and has been for years...and yet here we are. And now add to it the increasing griz numbers and impact that will have.

[Rob Chipman]

Wild One/ Walking Buffalo:

What's the problem? You understand that I'm saying "Follow science. If they can demonstrate that something works, do it. If they say do multiple things all at once, do multiple things. Don't pick favorites".


Do you think I'm saying "don't manage predators"? I'm not saying that.

It sounds, however, like you two are saying "the science is wrong, we don't trust the scientists, and there's only one solution - remove the predators. There is either no evidence that removing alternate prey works or there is evidence that it works, but we don't care. We love moose too much to follow science. "

Am I understanding you two properly?


"Recovering the fox population required an intensive ecosystem management program. Apparent competition with the pigs caused the fox population on Santa Cruz Island to fall from approximately 1500 to100. The recovery program included eagle translocation early on, but eagles from the mainland and other islands could replace the removed birds (Roemer et al., 2001). It was therefore determined that conserving the fox required feral pig control (Coonan, 2003; Roemer et al., 2002). In2005, the U.S. National Park Service and the Nature Conservancy, which owns most of Santa Cruz Island, implemented a pig removal program.Within a year over 5000 pigs were removed and the species was successfully eliminated from the island (Griggs, 2007). The fox population has subsequently rebounded to a healthy level (estimated 734 ± 254in 2008;Morrison, 2011" (http://agecon.okstate.edu/faculty/publications/4951.pdf).

Based on what I read in the back up data for the recent Serrouya/Hebblewhite study of caribou it looks like reducing alternate prey (moose) without doing other things doesn't always guarantee a rebounded population for caribou, but it can increase them. It also looks like the same thing happens with wolf reduction. Combining the approaches seems to produce the best results. It's not surprising that scientists recommend pulling all the levers.

(That's two examples of it working more than once).


North of 49:

"Yes the answer is reduction of the predators...plain and simple. Why do people like to overthink and complicate things. All those opposed to managing wolf numbers can own this problem. The solution is so F’n obvious and has been for years...and yet here we are. And now add to it the increasing griz numbers and impact that will have. "

You've summed up the problem, maybe, but you' also know the answer. You can't just kill wolves. You definitely can't start killing grizzlies. That is exactly where we are. That's the problem that all of us, including bios, have to deal with.

Why can't you just start killing more wolves or killing grizzlies? Do I really need to explain that? "We" did away with the grizzly hunt with a stroke of a pen (and a pen uninformed by science) because the critical majority of "we" decided that killing GBs was wrong. The part of "we" that's made up by people like WDL carried the day. They argue for wildlife policy based on their personal ethics and their personal opinion and knowledge. They reject science when it doesn't agree with them. Politicians recognize the opportunity that presents and run with it.

And that's why people overthink and complicate things. The scientists have been pretty clear about this. They say, often, that if you pull the predator control lever too often and too hard you lose social license (that can't be disputed by anyone who wants to be taken seriously; we see it all the time all over the world).

Scientists make the solution more complicated for at least two reasons: the issue is complicated to begin with, and science demonstrates this, and, the obvious solutions are not easy to implement so they look for other complimentary solutions. It can't be a surprise to anyone on this forum that you can kill moose a lot easier than you can kill bears or wolves. That isn't news.

For the guys on here who think the answer is simple, obvious and simply requires aerial gunning and poisoning of wolves, here's my question: here in the real world how do you propose to get that to happen? Does it involve waving a magic wand? Do you expect NDP stalwarts like Morgane Oger to support the idea?

I see an interesting dynamic. People in BC who pay taxes, vote and actively influence policy are more than willing to reject science in order to get the results they want. I'm talking about people who want the killing of wolves and bears and cats to be ended. They will quickly reject and attack science when it conflicts with their world view.

Other people in BC who pay taxes, vote but influence policy much, much less will also reject and attack science when it doesn't conform to their personal beliefs. A lot of those people want much more predator management.

If it's just a battle of opinions and desires guess who's going to win. If you want predator management I'd be very hesitant to blow off science because you also want moose. I think you'd be better off using science instead of your opinions and desires. (BTW, demonstrate, scientifically, that adaptive management or suppression of alternate prey doesn't work under the conditions recommended and I will, like always, side with the science).

[Walking Buffalo]

Rob,

I was quite specific in my response.

I happily restate it, the claim that the Alternative prey reduction "Theory" has been successfully proven is Bullshit!

Quite the opposite has been proven.

Alberta was the first jurisdiction to experiment with made in Europe theory, thanks to promotion from Mark Boyce.
It has yet to work. It has often resulted in Increased predation on the protected species.
The same thing happened in SW BC.

So again, Specifically, the theory of Alternative prey reduction not only has yet to be proven successful, it has been proven to result in Increased harm to protected species.


It is time to demand that biologists and politicians give up on using this concept, social licence be damned.