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

[Atlas12]

I'm sure everyone is aware of the ongoing Caribou recovery programs.
Its stated over and over again that the most effective tool to help the caribou is predator control.
Even the Provinces cull of moose and other ungulates is ONLY to control predator numbers and area.

What are some methods of dealing with wolves en masse besides poison?

Do bait stations ever lure out more than 1 wolf from a pack?
Has live-fenced in bait ever been tried successfully?

I have the chance to chat with one of the biologists in a not-so-public setting like the 1000+people open nights they've been hosting.
Any PRODUCTIVE talking points that you think might make some sort of impact with the bios?

Thanks!

[Bugle M In]

Although expensive, I believe aerial shooting is the most effective to remove them.

This whole idea of removing prey so that the wolves move on seems absolutely ridiculous to me.
I get the principle of it.
But wolves will hang around till the last prey is gone it seems at times.
Seems much more effective to treat the cause of the problem, and if the cause is Preds like wolves. than
take care of them.
Sort like you have a stone in your shoe causing pain on one of the toes...
Do you go and remove the toe!????..NO (I suppose you could, like removing prey)
You remove the stone. (the preds)

Good luck with the CO, but you will find out very quickly they have nothing to do with the management
of our wildlife.
They only "enforce".
This whole caribou management issue is between the Bios and the higher up in the ministry giving orders. (Mostly the higher ups)
The Higher ups take their orders from who knows who, but sometimes from those in Politics of the province.
And right now, those folks don't want to have a wolf cull because of public pressure it seems.

[Bugle M In]

I stand corrected, you said Biologist...my bad.

[northof49]

Concept of removing prey as a solution is asinine and sums up everything that is so wrong.....keep right on managing to zero....won’t matter soon.

[Wild one]

Concept of removing prey as a solution is asinine and sums up everything that is so wrong.....keep right on managing to zero....won’t matter soon.

Agree 100%

It seems some forget predators diet can really vary and adapt according to available food sources. Unfortunately this has been attempted and failed many times yet still implemented as a management tool

What is the definition of insanity again?

[338win mag]

Concept of removing prey as a solution is asinine and sums up everything that is so wrong.....keep right on managing to zero....won’t matter soon.
It makes no sense unless, the goal is to drive ungulate populations down, and then limit resident hunters opportunities, then giving the rest and the eventual build up of ungulate populations to the FN.
Then after that happens the government will be putting lots of cash into game management making them look like real hero's, then they will be taking out Wolves in any way they can, my guess is aerial shooting and new technology poison.

[Darksith]

The problem is the biologists know what needs to be done, they make recommendations and then the decision makers make their choices as to what recommendations to follow, how much of the recommendation to follow or if they will follow the recommedation at all. Look at the fires in the caribou and the thompson. The no hunting w/ ATV ban in certain regions was recommended to be a complete ban to ALL ATV's, recreational users, hunters etc. The backlash that would of come from that was too great so they just picked on the hunters.

[dracb]

Bugle,
It is hard to get hard data on wolf cull costs, but last weekend I heard at a public meeting that helicopter gunning cost on the order of $3,000 per wolf whereas trapping them is between $1K and $2K. Actually closer to $1K but I do not remember the specific average cost.

A couple of our site members took on the order of 16 wolves from a guide area last year. This resulted in the owner reporting a good lamb crop after not seeing any lambs for the previous two or three years.

[wideopenthrottle]

the so called animal sympathizers would rather that the wolves were starved to death than killed quickly...how cruel is that!!!!!

[Bugle M In]

Bugle,
It is hard to get hard data on wolf cull costs, but last weekend I heard at a public meeting that helicopter gunning cost on the order of $3,000 per wolf whereas trapping them is between $1K and $2K. Actually closer to $1K but I do not remember the specific average cost.

A couple of our site members took on the order of 16 wolves from a guide area last year. This resulted in the owner reporting a good lamb crop after not seeing any lambs for the previous two or three years.

Fair enough!
I didn't say it was going to be "cheap".
Just saying it is "affective".

Wolves can be tricky to trap.
But can be done.
And yes, removing wolves does "help the cause" of some of the issues on game #'s in BC

[Wild one]

A good wolf trapper can be down right impressive but most trappers don’t have the same skill level. Even those that most think are good really only fall under OK

Unfortunately most trappers dont become skilled wolf trappers because of the time, work, amount of bait, and the knowledge needed to become efficient vs the profit is low compared to other species. For this reason most only dedicate a small portion of their effort into wolves

Then add in the BC governments piss poor management of traplines leading to a lot of areas going un trapped and trappers having difficulty even finding a line it don’t help. You guys think hunting is miss managed in BC trapping is out right neglected

[Bugle M In]

^^^^^This.
I know talking to the GO where I hunt elk that he was really upset with the trapper that had this line for years as he never was interested in taking wolves.

And most veteran trappers say that a wolf is the hardest creature to trap.
Lots of extra effort needed for that compared to martin trapping that's for sure.

[Wild one]

^^^^^This.
I know talking to the GO where I hunt elk that he was really upset with the trapper that had this line for years as he never was interested in taking wolves.

And most veteran trappers say that a wolf is the hardest creature to trap.
Lots of extra effort needed for that compared to martin trapping that's for sure.

Did the GO put in effort to work something out with the trapper? And I am not talking $

Most have no clue what it takes to run a line

[Bugle M In]

Honestly, I can't say what he attempted.
All he said is that he had spoken with the trapper several times about trapping wolves in the area and that
the Trapper seemed/said that he was "not interested" in trapping them.
(Sounded like the Trapper could care less about the wolves being around, from what I gathered)

I have been told my someone that there "may have been a change" in Trappers in the area?
Until I ever talk to the GO, I wont know for sure.

But you do make a good point, I seriously doubt the GO was going to throw cash the trappers way to
"help the cause".
But it has cost the GO, as his elk hunts the past 3 or 4 seasons has been virtually NIL in success!?????
The only thing he managed to do was gain a few extra goat permits because there was a lack of hunters
putting in for LEH up there (used to be 0.5:1 odds for years, which was my beef with it being leh at all),
Now, he gained 5 or 6 permits and odds are 1:1.

Thing is, where he hunts goat much of the time, those goats in winter time come down very low.
And they tend to winter on some ground that the wolves use as a natural pinch point for other prey.
So, he could see issues with his goat hunts if he doesn't pay attention to the wolves in the area.
But sounded like the trapper "just didn't want to"???

[Wild one]

It’s not always a matter of $ it takes time to cut trails, a lot of wolf trapping strategies involve 10x the bait that trapper would use for the season otherwise, beefed up snares, footholds for wolf are $100+ a trap, and patterning the wolves is needed. Lots of ways to offer assistance that might motivate a trapper but some guys just can’t be motivated as well

I know the physical work also stops some of the old trappers

There is plenty of guys who would trap wolves to some extent but it’s no easy to get a line even with many being inactive

[Bugle M In]

It’s not always a matter of $ it takes time to cut trails, a lot of wolf trapping strategies involve 10x the bait that trapper would use for the season otherwise, beefed up snares, footholds for wolf are $100+ a trap, and patterning the wolves is needed. Lots of ways to offer assistance that might motivate a trapper but some guys just can’t be motivated as well

I know the physical work also stops some of the old trappers

There is plenty of guys who would trap wolves to some extent but it’s no easy to get a line even with many being inactive

All good points for HBC members to know (me included as I hadn't given that part much thought!)

[338win mag]

It’s not always a matter of $ it takes time to cut trails, a lot of wolf trapping strategies involve 10x the bait that trapper would use for the season otherwise, beefed up snares, footholds for wolf are $100+ a trap, and patterning the wolves is needed. Lots of ways to offer assistance that might motivate a trapper but some guys just can’t be motivated as well

I know the physical work also stops some of the old trappers

There is plenty of guys who would trap wolves to some extent but it’s no easy to get a line even with many being inactive
Yeah, good point there wild one, I think I will seek out a local trapper and offer to help him cut trails or whatever to help them out, I had a trappers licence almost 40 years ago now, lol, but I'm still a good saw man.

[northof49]

Gov funded bounty!! $1200 per wolf would help motivate trappers and hunters.

[Wild one]

Gov funded bounty!! $1200 per wolf would help motivate trappers and hunters.

Yup and I bet if you cut that in half it would still work

[Salix]

I attended the meeting in Revelstoke and the biologist said the main source of caribou deaths was wolves. After the meeting I was able to read the draft herd plan for the Columbia North herd which stated that the main predator cause of caribou deaths for the Columbia North here was bears, black and grizzly. No one seems to be discussing the grizzly impacts to the caribou herds.

[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 (https://www.straight.com/news/1220651/human-rights-tribunal-orders-christian-activist-pay-morgane-oger-55000)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.

[IronNoggin]

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.

Hear Hear! https://www.tnof.ca/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/Pozitive.gif

I am quite aware of the experiments WB notes.
And as a biologist, I STRONGLY concur with his assessment.
This is a ludicrous proposal, and should not have even been slightly entertained.

Rob - you note it may only work if ALL steps are adhered to.
This is BC.
That will NEVER happen.
Tossing the baby out with the bathwater is not what is called for at this juncture.
Nuking 50% plus of the wolves, a decent number of the cats, and reintroducing the girzzly hunt are what is required.
And that is what we should be working towards.
Period. Full Stop.

Nog

[Bugle M In]

Just remember hbc folks, "don't kill the messenger"!!!:tongue:
Rob was only stating "how it works" and "what has to happen", to have such a policy.
I am pretty sure he is very aware that it isn't the case in BC.

[Wild one]

Well WB and Nog are on point with my train of thought

Like we are stating the theory of targeting alternative prey to decrease predation on another prey species has been attempted with poor results

Because of the way predators adapt to various prey you basically need collapse an ecosystem is where the flaw lies

Not a Bio but past projects I was involved in or provided info were predator related

[Wild one]

Just remember hbc folks, "don't kill the messenger"!!!:tongue:
Rob was only stating "how it works" and "what has to happen", to have such a policy.
I am pretty sure he is very aware that it isn't the case in BC.

Its no disrespect to Rob

[Rob Chipman]

Wild One, WB & Nog

As they say on TV - pump the brakes there, Super-chief.

"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 worked with foxes in the Channel Islands right? Those are the Channel Islands in California, btw, not the ones between the UK and France. Obviously an easier application because they were exterminating pigs, not moose, but they couldn't just kill the predators (golden eagles) because more just came in.

Can we agree that some scientific methods work only when they're done properly, and when they aren't done properly they often don't work?

For example, if we started killing wolves but didn't kill enough of them, I think we'd all agree that the evidence demonstrates that the technique doesn't work because you haven't executed on it well enough. Would you then argue that killing wolves has been proven to not work? In fact, as you and I both know, there are instances where killing wolves has reduced predation, and other instances where it's increased predation.

When you ignore instances of removing alternate prey that were successful and focus on instances where it wasn't successful you're cherry picking. The real question is: why didn't it work in Alberta or SW BC, and why does the scientist think it will work in the recommended location?

The actual scientists working on caribou recovery here in BC have shown that they get the best result with both wolf killing and alternate prey killing. The data isn't as conclusive as I'd like, but it seems clear that doing both gives better results than doing only one.

That's two instances of it working. Not everything works everywhere all the time, but that's still two instances of it working.

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

Fly at 'er. If it works and you get results I'll be the first to congratulate you. I'm curious, though - you had much luck lately demanding that politicians do what you tell them to do? If so, what's your secret. I know a bunch of pissed off salmon fishermen who would like to know how you do it.

"Rob - you note it may only work if ALL steps are adhered to."

I don't think I said that, actually. I think I said that scientists recommend pulling multiple levers when possible in order to get the best results. I didn't say "You *may* get results if you pull *all* levers".

The BC data actually shows that you don't *need* to pull all of them, but pulling more than one at a time works, and only pulling one tends to not work. Again, the data isn't as conclusive as I'd like, but the population increases are there.

"Nuking 50% plus of the wolves, a decent number of the cats, and reintroducing the girzzly hunt are what is required.
And that is what we should be working towards.
Period. Full Stop".

Maybe we should be working towards that. If you want me onside you'd have a bit of an idea of wolf, grizzly and cat populations so we knew we weren't wasting money, but you probably agree with that anyway. Point being, we don't know how many wolves we have because we don't have funding to count them, let alone kill them.

Funding is the #1 problem we face.

Replace the White Rock pier? It's going to happen. The cost? Almost half of what we spend on wildlife in this province.

Where will you get the funding to count wolves, let alone kill them? Are you spending money we don't even have yet?

Let's go a bit further with this. Nuke half the wolves? How about nuking half the sea lions? How about knocking off another chinook predator - the SRKW? You think that'll get any traction?

Kill a "decent" number of cats? What makes you think we have too many cats? Constant news stories of young cats coming into urban areas looking for new territory? Great. You run with that and I'll work with WDL arguing that you're a big meany. Anyone want to bet whose going to win?

Reintroduce the G-bear hunt? I'm not opposed. How do you propose we do that? Last I checked we're in BC. A guy I occasionally read recently said:

"This is BC.
That will NEVER happen."


I get your frustrations, boys, but who are you kidding?

We've got scientists here who are getting some results.

They say "Kill wolves because science" and you all agree.

They say "Kill moose because science" and you scream "Idiots!"

The you say "Just demand that politicians and bios do what we say regardless of how many other people say the exact opposite".

Who among us is in the position to demand anything and see it actually happen? If you've figured that out please share the secret sauce.


Like I said, if you want to fight anti-scieince anti-hunting pseudo-conservationists with opinion and emotion, go ahead. I don't think you'll be successful on any front.

If you want to join those groups and fight the scientists with them, go ahead.

If you want wildlife policy in BC to be determined by political pressure groups pursuing their emotional agendas, as we've seen occur recently, great.

Me? I'll support scientists who share their data and take flak from those people. The guys recommending killing wolves, maternal penning, habitat restoration *and* alternate prey reduction are the guys sharing that data and getting flak form all sides. I'm with them. They're getting results.

[Bugle M In]

The same goes for the EK elk situation.
Just killing wolves (and hopefully cats) is not going to fix the problem.
It is only "part" of the solution.
I don't see game coming back to the high country, and in part due to all the logging and habitat issues.
No winter range designations etc.

So yes, there has to be "multiple" things happening to fix the elk issue and as per this thread, caribou.

But the big problem we have talked about for years has been funding, and I wont be surprised if we some
more money someday soon, but I think the government is more than glad to make us "pay for it"
IT will show up in tag prices going up, and maybe some eco fees, and we will bare the brunt of that.

The BIGGEST problem that is see:
NO ONE IS LISTENING TO US.
(nor do they really care because in part, we have been "well behaved" for far too long)
Got to raise a little hell first.
That's the first step!

[Rob Chipman]

"NO ONE IS LISTENING TO US.
(nor do they really care because in part, we have been "well behaved" for far too long)
Got to raise a little hell first.
That's the first step! "

You're correct. All kidding aside, if saving caribou (or wildlife in general) was as important and supporting trans-gender people, stopping bullying or building a pedestrian foot path in the GVRD we'd see way more progress.

[Bugle M In]

I just had discussions with some that were part of the salmon closure rally in N.van.
I told them, no one is listening, and they are starting to understand it.
I think they are actually planning a "lawsuit" against the government, FYI.

I already gave them my ideas about what to do once the "nets" hit the river.
And they get that too.
(Although this issue is not just about one group being the issue, as that isn't the whole story by a long shot, but does show the "inequality" that has been created by our governments)
If the courts don't start to get it, than we have some real problems coming next.

[Wild one]

Your minds made up so be it. Yes you brought forward an example I personally would not use but yes under those conditions there was results. If invasive pig/fox success story on an island is good for you ok

I much prefer to acknowledge the failed results when this has been applied to ungulates here in Canada

Yes I get you want to support the scientist and yes they probably do believe what they are saying. But I have also been there to watch them realize they were wrong and something has been done wrong for years.

Remember this is not invasive pigs you’re dealing with either but instead native ungulates and ones also in decline here in BC. 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?

Myself I say 0% because of the lack of success this theory has had with ungulates in Canada

[Foxton Gundogs]

Had this emailed to me Re, Cariboo Recovery. Apparently wolves are worth more than moose to the Gov't. and their Greeny friends. A hunting FB group is urging their members put in for the cow draws and eat their tags.

The Person that presented the info the the hunting public on social media was a Chad Dueck

Here is his post

Government Caribou meeting Tonight in Cranbrook
Our useless government has already opened up almost 50 moose cow & calf leh hunting draws in the Revelstoke
Caribou area.
They want to kill off all the moose and elk population in and around the caribou.
They think that if all the elk and moose are killed off the grizzlies and wolves won't eat the caribou!
Let's kill off ungulates instead of the problem predators.
Our wildlife management is non existent.
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.

[Wild one]

Don’t sound like growing more wildlife to me

[bearvalley]

Been a busy 6 month holiday from here...the powers that be lifted my ban so here’s my 2 bits on the caribou recovery plans.

Firstly, Mountain Caribou in BC are seeing population drops in many areas and some of these caribou herds are minimally affected by habitat degradation.

Southern Mountain Caribou even tho no longer in areas they previously occupied are not going extinct.
We need to remember that caribou from northwestern BC were fine to use in the failed transplant to the Purcell Mountains.

Competitive ungulate species are not what’s causing the caribou declines...in fact the other species numbers are dropping as well.

Predation is the declining factor and everyone “cries wolf” but bears and wolverines do damage as well.
BC has had zero management plan for ungulates other than how to eradicate them.
We’ve done a super job of growing predators....in the last 30 years grizzlies pretty much tripled, wolf control went sideways when the tools went out of the tool box and trapping went to a fraction of the past.

So now we’ve got an overload of predators chewing on a handful of caribou trying to stay alive in unsuitable habitat.
Whats gonna happen...all the levers are gonna get pulled....but the habitat one is gonna take 50 years to heal.

Maybe we need to look at how viable these caribou recoveries are going to be until after we have suitable habitat.

So a “Primary prey” reduction of moose is to take place to move the wolves away from the caribou trying to be recovered.
The moose numbers get whacked...in past schemes like these current proposals it wasn’t unheard of to remove 70% of the moose in the prescribed area.
So the moose are gone...dead.
Where are the predators....they’re still eating.

Since “wolf” is the predator most refer to...the wolves are still there eating an alternative food source to moose...caribou, elk, deer, livestock......they sure aren’t going to starve out because if the alternate prey source runs low their canine legs will pack them to another “happy hunting grounds”.

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”?
All that happens once wolves are displaced into a new area, the ungulates in that “happy hunting ground” are subjected to a higher level of predation.

Wolves will cover a lot of country when they’re displaced....who’s to say their next residence isn’t in the middle of a distant caribou herd that’s already got its own resident wolf packs.
By shifting predators we’re really just compounding the problem.

Primary prey reduction is a fail...BC isn’t an island full of pigs & foxes.

The biologists involved in this current recovery plan have a pretty good idea of how many wolves are chewing on these caribou.

Lets look at the Itcha Mountain herd that was at 2500+ not many years ago and is now down to 600 or less.

There are presently 10 identified, collared wolf packs in the area of that caribou herd.
Average pack size before pupping was 8.
Each pack will most likely gain 6 pups....maybe more.
Theres a good possibility of 150 wolves chewing on those 600 caribou.
The caribou don’t have a chance.....that’s only 4 each.

Some say a 50% wolf reduction is the ticket.
Too slow this up the wolf population needs to drop 80% or more.
It’s a proven fact that a pack of 4 wolves kills as many animals as a pack of 10...the 4 just move on quicker and kill more often.

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.

[northof49]

Hear Hear! https://www.tnof.ca/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/Pozitive.gif

I am quite aware of the experiments WB notes.
And as a biologist, I STRONGLY concur with his assessment.
This is a ludicrous proposal, and should not have even been slightly entertained.

Rob - you note it may only work if ALL steps are adhered to.
This is BC.
That will NEVER happen.
Tossing the baby out with the bathwater is not what is called for at this juncture.
Nuking 50% plus of the wolves, a decent number of the cats, and reintroducing the girzzly hunt are what is required.
And that is what we should be working towards.
Period. Full Stop.

Nog

^^^THIS
Yes....using all tools at your disposal. The current problem is a result of too many years of inaction for fear of upsetting the vocal minority and potentially losing votes. Need to cut the head off the snake and quit sidestepping the real issues.

[northof49]

Agree with you BV.....100%. Need to deal with the issue head on.

[browningboy]

Put a 1500 bounty on a wolf, cheaper than helicopters etc

[Caribou_lou]

Going by the odds and tentative number of tags given out in the synopsis for 2019-2020. Region 6 moose hunt LEH applications alone raise $26,800 alone. I dont have time to add up what the entire synopsis makes for B.C. But in the hundreds of thousands. Bring back the grizz hunt and it makes a pile more. Along with taking out some preds.

[tigrr]

Why is everyone trying to save the caribou?
If it isn't sustainable for whatever reason let them disappear and move on. Killing off other types of animals to try and sustain caribou is an unworthy exercise.
I would like to see a $500 bounty on wolves.

[northof49]

^^^not really about the caribou. The boo are just another means to an end for those pushing their agenda.

[Walking Buffalo]

"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.




Killing pigs (a predator) to save foxes is Not an example of the Alternative Prey Theory....
It is actually proof that the direct cause of mortality should be removed, pigs/wolves, same thing.


Hebblewhite could also provide you with proof that simply reducing the predators would provide a near guarantee that prey species Will increase.




Rob, the Alternative Prey theory was introduced into Canada as a poor last choice experiment in the Alberta Caribou Commission proposals, offered to politicians to provide them comfort within a conceived social licence while pretending that they were doing something. Biologists from the very beginning stated that this route was not expected to succeed.
The Bio's said, want to save the Bou', kill the wolves until the habitat can regenerate.

I was the first "civilian" to catch wind and expose this experiment to the public. Exposed Alberta F&W's secret plan to kill moose to starve wolves.
Hunters and Hunting group directors initially said I was Crazy, no way F&W would use hunters in such a fashion without consultation.... until I pulled the papers to prove that I was right.


Just like eating Tide Pods, the concept has become a fad.
This theory and experiment has yet to work despite tens of thousands of moose and hundreds of thousands of deer being killed.



It is time to stop pretending that this experiment may work.
Demand that the Alternative Prey theory be eliminated as an option.
Carry on with predator reduction and habitat manipulation.

[bearvalley]

Well said Walking Buffalo!
Primary prey reduction to move wolves off caribou has been and will continue to be a fail.
At one of the Caribou Recovery consultation gatherings, during s break from the crowd I asked the presenters...”How can you stand in front of a bunch of people and blow smoke up their ass?”
After a bit of shuffling and looking at the floor their answer was...”we want to kill wolves”.
Go figure....once again hands are being tied and the right call not made due to political interference.

[Bugle M In]

Well, it looks like we pretty much put this one to rest.
Hopefully the OP is fully equipped with his meeting with the Bio.

[Cabled]

Going by the odds and tentative number of tags given out in the synopsis for 2019-2020. Region 6 moose hunt LEH applications alone raise $26,800 alone. I dont have time to add up what the entire synopsis makes for B.C. But in the hundreds of thousands. Bring back the grizz hunt and it makes a pile more. Along with taking out some preds.
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....

[Bugle M In]

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....

We have been, and from the sounds of it came very close thru the BCWF and Libs.
Unfortunately the Libs got voted out.
And for what ever reason, nothing seems to be happening thru the NDP.
(not sure what talks BCWF has had with the NDP, if any, which is also concerning as to why not then??)

But yes, if we had that money right now.
The 1st thing I would do is get choppers in the air, regardless of it being pricy and start to remove
packs of wolves especially where they are in high concentration or in area's where we are seeing a
particular species (or many different ones) in big decline.

Then I would start to take a look at our habitat situation, starting with Winter Range being allocated as "untouchable" to any development or resource practice.

Then we have to deal with the logging in BC and how we can do this different and better for everyone
involved as that has gone "too far" and somewhat "out of control"
(And to fix that industry is a big issue beyond my scope of knowledge).

But that's what I think are the first few steps, and in that order.

[Rob Chipman]

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?

[Bugle M In]

It would be nice to know "who is exactly making the final decisions on this"
It always comes out as "the ministry", so no one ever really knows who is at the helm.
Is it the current minister, Heyman (F'n goof)?
Or someone above the bios but below the minister????

I certainly would like that to "come to light".
I want to know who is making this crap of late.

[Wild one]

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

[bearvalley]

Rob, I don’t have time to ramble on but what I’ll say is the corrective lever needs pulled first and that sure as hell is not primary prey reduction.

[northof49]

^^^^this. Some people just want to believe the solution needs to be more complex than it really is.

[northof49]

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.


For clarity the tools I was referring to were all the tools related to “managing predators” including reinstating the grizzly hunt. From my posts you will clearly see my thoughts on what needs to be done and should have been done years ago. I have never wavered in my opinion on what the real problems are. Far too many years of inaction with all the talk about more studies and science.....all the while hungry mouths a chewing.

[IronNoggin]

Follow the science. Make the hard decisions. Pull all the levers. How can that be foolish?


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.

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...

Nog

[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]

^^^^^^^^^^^^:roll::roll::roll:

[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) .

[Walking Buffalo]

Rob,

Look closer at the study you just referenced.

Of the four treatment areas using moose removal, results show a neutral effect on caribou survival.

Up to 80% moose reductions, with associated loss to hunters, for zero net effect towards saving caribou.

Yah, but pull that lever anyways, cause it exists....

I'm reminded of Homer at the control panel during a meltdown.

[northof49]

Rob,

Look closer at the study you just referenced.

Of the four treatment areas using moose removal, results show a neutral effect on caribou survival.

Up to 80% moose reductions, with associated loss to hunters, for zero net effect towards saving caribou.

Yah, but pull that lever anyways, cause it exists....

I'm reminded of Homer at the control panel during a meltdown.

^^^yup....Ass....in....9. ASININE!! Yet some keep selling the “theory” and worse yet, many keep eating it up.

[xlcc]

How many hunters actually hunt for wolves after their freezer has been filled with their favourite game?I don't think very many.Most likely couch potato.
If most hunters would dedicate time to hunt for wolves like they do to put meat in the freezer it would help reduce the predator population.You can't just hunt the ungulates without hunting the predators to keep a balance.
I was at a caribou meeting in Valemount and talked to some of the panel members and suggested a $500 bounty on wolves to help control the population.That would give some incentive to get the couch potatoes out in the bush with their calls and road kills to balance the situation.The response was negative.
I love hunting wolves and coyotes and I do go out in the bush calling and baiting.Last year I got 4 wolves and a couple of coyotes.Some of my neighbours killed wolves too and my trapper friends as well.I hunt the ungulates and the predators.Do you do your part.I know you can't eat them and they stink like hell but it is fun hunting and will make you a better hunter.Wolves are smart.http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7405&stc=1

[guest]

Xlcc...... Good on you and thanks for your dedication to knocking down some preds.
I take yotes at every opportunity try to get my fix of spring or fall bear..... But as for wolves......i hope to some day dedicate more time but so far havent had success. Helped a buddy on traplines for cats and dogs but sure would like a big bad wolf.

[xlcc]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/2b_R4npa4_RG8l4NnatmFCN-sQokCuuCDGdy-8C24_bWdGZ89xSMsPO7wEmHKBbYkDQCYtjqcT2l-nUmiNAx_lDpAn-k-qjfkeQTY8NCF4MYgAbwTmw2AxbUBgf8X1xYRWfV3LQAL5NtZm4 MRP68oEd0rddE-QaQKSiXq7rimur_LlilRCaw9Hkdx8lzrtHOJo4-DLTVDi8OXtryGoSo4j7h7fKQKxUXurdBfaUkPhF-q9H7otcdtKx8PabNRJKaO8NtlfmorXJ6pUIPMeKOp-IGMSwJC8eyYpPhCp9g9raPlRvKpBKgag4myq-hp_YgGRuZqRjn7O4p-Qrr6DlWVEhRb-3H1B6ttErVeJB00Innu6e4_75jL_hTZT2frGGUMABYPqaOtyGH 7ctleAmERiig9Et2ZRbZn_oga8lzw-lomY87TR4WAWnl3fXHHztKlb5Krk1Xtojg_oT4ZLV4Tjwr3tTy dLwnrkzCxtOiHfh155N2tGNYvx2U178Xs8AHXLiKkFKW9ZXjGX w0EgfYFFUrZgPe_mLeNlAGzA-2k4EamDF4LZJ9QNtdY40hbRoqEtIAti7CPYG0lsswGemnb3xUv h9VEKjmRBy2vcPuTbmIsTNpqPKmT-OHJ_5Q7YJyzo5rvazDTVkKd1PWwufyQwDK8e-5qYA=w1015-h609-no
Another one

[drakfero]

Can someone post the name of the person who made that stupidest call/invention to kill moose to save caribou? :D If there is no moose they will kill anything else to survive or move from that area to another. Only way to remove wolves is bullet , poison or disease..

[40incher]

Can someone post the name of the person who made that stupidest call/invention to kill moose to save caribou? :D If there is no moose they will kill anything else to survive or move from that area to another. Only way to remove wolves is bullet , poison or disease..


Well, I could name most of the "biologists" in other Regions … but you can just check the gov't website and find out yourself.

One of them was a famous wolf lover from the North Peace before he got punted our way.

They have spent millions flying caribou in from the Sustut herd to pollute the genetics of the Telkwa Mountains population and, of course, "studying" them and "consulting" with a select few to justify banning motorized use while coddling the backcountry skiers and all the other leaf-lickers. The caribou that did not head directly back to the Sustut did OK for the short time it took for the wolves to figure out the Wildlife Branch was acting like a pizza outlet, delivering fresh food to their door.

As the saying goes "Bureaucrats … you can't live with 'em … pass the beer nuts!"

[Bugle M In]

^^^^^the truth is always the funniest.

Out of curiosity, you say the wolf lovin' Bio was punted "our way" from the North Peace.
Where exactly is "our way" mean as far as final destination?

Also, care to share the name of this Bio so we all know and become aware of this character?

[Cabled]

^^^^^the truth is always the funniest.

Out of curiosity, you say the wolf lovin' Bio was punted "our way" from the North Peace.
Where exactly is "our way" mean as far as final destination?

Also, care to share the name of this Bio so we all know and become aware of this character?
Google image search John Horgan or maybe Doug Donaldson? While we may not agree with everything our biologists are saying it’s a mistake to think they are calling the shots. We need to be focused on the real problem not the symptoms of it. If we want to change what’s going on it has to start by making politicians believe they will lose votes and their jobs/pension if they don’t stop #%*king around. Just my 2 cents, rant over

[Bugle M In]

Google image search John Horgan or maybe Doug Donaldson? While we may not agree with everything our biologists are saying it’s a mistake to think they are calling the shots. We need to be focused on the real problem not the symptoms of it. If we want to change what’s going on it has to start by making politicians believe they will lose votes and their jobs/pension if they don’t stop #%*king around. Just my 2 cents, rant over

I think just about everyone agrees that our politicians have always been the biggest problem.
I was just curious since the OP was about Caribou-wolf and the subject of removing prey species came
into it, that I was curious to know which Bio's here in BC support that.

All the government has to do is put money in and also support behind wolf culling and that part of the equation is than solved.