Is there any truth to this stupidity!?!?!

[curt]

So I was talking with a co worker who used to hunt in 7-13 Bear lake area north of PG. Apparently some professor at the university of Northern BC had an amazing idea to introduce woodland Caribou to the area , so he convinced the idiots in the ministry of his ridiculous plan!! His thought was they needed to eliminate the wolves in the area before introducing the caribou so the best way to do that was eliminate the food source the MOOSE!!!! So they have been giving out huge numbers of moose draws to kill off the moose in hopes that the wolves would move on!?!?!?WTF My co worker was asking some students that were wondering around taking data and filling in surveys on the moose kills. This was the rationale my co worker was given for the plan of eliminating the moose in the area. Ok if this is true I have to say not only is this professor the stupidiest SOB I have heard of in awhile, whom ever agree to this idea in the wildlife branch should be fired OMG. Rather than killing off a healthy moose population in a great area how about putting out a wolf cull and eliminating the problem wtf is wrong with these so called professionals!?!?!?

[st99]

They're doing that here in alberta, they didn't introduce caribou, but to try to save the 80 remaining, hunters can shoot 4 deers, on the draw they gave out 1000+ cow moose tag while the population for the area is about 2500, 300 cow elk tag while the population is less than 300, the season last 3 months. On top of that they shoot them with an helicopter and than use them as bait station with poison to kill the wolves. A BIG F.....G MESS !!!

Those unit used to be great for deer and moose, now they're not worth going in. Bio's are idiots, to much time in an office in front of a computer, not enough outdoors.

[barry1974w]

To preserve the native (not introduced) caribou in the area they are trying to reduce the moose numbers so that the wolves will move on. They also increased grizz tags to help reduce predation on caribou calves. There has been several threads on the topic, but I'm not an expert on using the search function....

[yukon john]

They hand out lots of moose tags around revelstoke on the same premise, knock the moose out ot the high valleys and then the wolves have no reason to be there. Caribou get to winter in peace. Makes sense to me.

[jml11]

I think you mean area 7-23? 7-13 is Vanderhoof. Regardless, the Parsnip area already has Caribou but it's no secret that they are not doing well and some bios are looking at management options to help them. The moose management model in the Omineca and in particular the Parsnip area does consider Caribou and Wolf ecology as well. Someone else may be able to explain it better but the model has an element of predator control by harvesting cows and calves. In essence by maintaing moose numbers at a certain level through the harvest of X many bulls, X cows and X calves, wolf populations are also controlled (in theory) by limiting their primary food source...which (in theory) minimizes predation on the Caribou. I believe there was a statment about this in the regs a couple years ago to explain the increased cow/calf seasons in 7-16 and 7-23 specifically. Some may argue that that this is ass backwards as less moose may mean more pressure on the Caribou as the wolves focus on them more (i.e. with more moose, perhaps wolves wouldn't need to venture into the alpine for the Caribou)...regardless I think we can all agree that managing to increase wolf numbers has a lot of risk, which is essentially a side effect of curtailing moose hunting opportunities if no predator control is instituted along with those changes.

[kootenayelkslayer]

So I was talking with a co worker who used to hunt in 7-13 Bear lake area north of PG. Apparently some professor at the university of Northern BC had an amazing idea to introduce woodland Caribou to the area , so he convinced the idiots in the ministry of his ridiculous plan!! His thought was they needed to eliminate the wolves in the area before introducing the caribou so the best way to do that was eliminate the food source the MOOSE!!!! So they have been giving out huge numbers of moose draws to kill off the moose in hopes that the wolves would move on!?!?!?WTF My co worker was asking some students that were wondering around taking data and filling in surveys on the moose kills. This was the rationale my co worker was given for the plan of eliminating the moose in the area. Ok if this is true I have to say not only is this professor the stupidiest SOB I have heard of in awhile, whom ever agree to this idea in the wildlife branch should be fired OMG. Rather than killing off a healthy moose population in a great area how about putting out a wolf cull and eliminating the problem wtf is wrong with these so called professionals!?!?!?

Not too sure about the introduction of caribou that you're talking about. But reducing moose numbers as a method of reducing wolf predation on caribou has been going on for years. It's a pretty well known management technique. It's been happening north of PG for years, and was used in Revelstoke heavily in the past as well.

I'm not sure what you're problem with this is... can you propose some better, realistic ways to try to save some of these vulnerable caribou populations? How do you suppose the gov't will ever get approval to do an effective wolf cull? Because I don't see it happening.

[steel_ram]

Anywhere there's a healthy food source and a predator, the predators going to flourish. Reduce the food source and you reduce the predators. No magic, it's really that simple. In most cases wolf culls are ineffective and actually slow their own natural population crash.
Since there seems to presently be a booming wolf population and a low game population, we may very well be on the midst of nature sorting itself out. You can't have one without the other. A cull now may only help what wolves are left to stay healthy through the winter.

[angus_83]

Pretty sure this is happening in 7-23 and 7-16, and has been for a few years. There is an extended calf season and more cow LEHs are given out to reduce moose and subsequently the wolves. There is a reason Biologists make these decisions...as others have mentioned this is a common management technique.

[roymil]

So if the moose are reduced why wouldn't the wolves eat the caribou that are hanging around ?

[ianwuzhere]

So if the moose are reduced why wouldn't the wolves eat the caribou that are hanging around ?

if your neighbours cat craps in your flower pot consistantly and you remove your flower pot- the cat will crap someone else..
wolves will eat whatever meat they can get.
if the caribou are doing crappy in certain areas- maybe them certain areas are just not good enuf habitat to hold x amount of caribou.
i highly doubt there will ever be a GOS or stable population on bou in these regions.
i do not agree with the biologists way of doing things sometimes.
they remind me of managers that have never done the job they are trying to manage...
-my 2 cents...

[NitwiT]

It sounds brilliant to me, we should start dropping dynamite or small tactical nuclear devices into the Georgia Strait, if we kill allllllllllllllllll the salmon, what are the seals gonna eat??!! Problem solved!

[ianwuzhere]

It sounds brilliant to me, we should start dropping dynamite or small tactical nuclear devices into the Georgia Strait, if we kill allllllllllllllllll the salmon, what are the seals gonna eat??!! Problem solved!

haha, good one. just dont swing that idea by any "biologists"
-how bout lets snare all the moose so then there is absolutely none, then there would be caribou EVERYWHERE!

[gcreek]

Add in the fact to this rediculous management tecnique that some of these areas have livestock that the wolves naturally turn to.

What a bunch of bullshit.

[finngun]

ianwuzhere (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/member.php?1418-ianwuzhere)
if your neighbours cat craps in your flower pot consistantly and you remove your flower pot- the cat will crap someone else..

or another idea is put chickin wire in the pot connected 110v -- that worked my neighborg cat really good...:mrgreen: never seen cat around my floverbed ..moved very fast:wink:

[Walking Buffalo]

WOW!

I am surprised at how many people are being sucked into this management THEORY! The concept of Altrnative Prey Reduction for increased Caribou survival is a THEORY, a Theory that has never worked.




Yes, may jurisdictions are using alternative prey reduction as a hopeful means to reduce caribou mortality caused by wolves. This is a THEORY that was dreamed up in Europe, and brought to Canada as a potential "NON LETHAL" way to control the Wolf population.



Am I the one with "head up ass" to believe that culling wolves is a better approach to dealing with wolf induced mortality than to kill moose to save 'Bou?



Read this study, see how the theory has not, and likely will not ever work.
In a "Perfect" scenario the concept has potential.
In the Real World, Wild Caribo do not live in Disneyland.

Interactions of Wolvs, Mountain Caribo and an Increased Moose Hunting Quota
http://web.unbc.ca/~michael/Pubs/Steenweg%202011.pdf

[Buckzilla]

[Theres salmon in the straight????

UOTE=NitwiT;1225053]It sounds brilliant to me, we should start dropping dynamite or small tactical nuclear devices into the Georgia Strait, if we kill allllllllllllllllll the salmon, what are the seals gonna eat??!! Problem solved![/QUOTE]

[magnumjeff]

well there doin there job wolf pop is up and moose pop is down, just came back from there wolves every where. sad

[The Dude]

Walking buffalo, I read that PDF you posted, and I guess I read it differently, but it seemed to suggest that Wlves were indeed dispersed from the PRSA due to a smaller Moose pop, and incidental caribou kills also declined. Did I miss something?
As Goat Guy once said, and I paraphrase, : Too many people confuse 'Conservation' with their own personal hunting agenda.
If it works and it's necessary to ensure an endangered population is not extirpated, then so be it. Suck it up.

Now go kill some Wolves boys, and quit talking about it.

[afflicted 1]

walking buffalo nailed this one.. this is so ******ed its not worth talking about. to reduce wolf poulations directly would cost $$, but increasing draws and hunting opportunities makes money this isnt about giving a $hit about our wildlife its money plain and simple

[curt]

Not too sure about the introduction of caribou that you're talking about. But reducing moose numbers as a method of reducing wolf predation on caribou has been going on for years. It's a pretty well known management technique. It's been happening north of PG for years, and was used in Revelstoke heavily in the past as well.

I'm not sure what you're problem with this is... can you propose some better, realistic ways to try to save some of these vulnerable caribou populations? How do you suppose the gov't will ever get approval to do an effective wolf cull? Because I don't see it happening.

Well in reality IMO they are doing a moose cull to reduce wolf numbers???? Im sorry I'm no expert at much but that is the biggest ass backwards thing I have ever heard of! It would only take a few wolves to come back in the area and notice the moose or caribou coming back and they will move back in to the area, sorry this is the stupiest thing I have ever heard of (lets kill off 1 species to kill off another ) are you freaking kidding me!?!?!? How about we manage the predators instead that seems like a way smarter idea to me. If the general public has an issue with it or a concern then the ministry needs to put the same spin on it they have done to justify killing off the moose. This is stupid sorry!

[curt]

Pretty sure this is happening in 7-23 and 7-16, and has been for a few years. There is an extended calf season and more cow LEHs are given out to reduce moose and subsequently the wolves. There is a reason Biologists make these decisions...as others have mentioned this is a common management technique.
Well no disrepect intented but this is completely f***ed up I would fire any biologist that would promote this stupid idea manage the predators better thats it!! put a bounty on them give out free moose tags deer tags whatever for X amount of wolf tails anything, but killing off our game animals to impact the predators............ stupid.

[curt]

So if the moose are reduced why wouldn't the wolves eat the caribou that are hanging around ?

yup exactly what will happen then you will have no moose or caribou well isnt that wonderful!?!? what a joke honestly these so called experts make some absolutely f***ed decisions just goes to show in many cases they dont have a freaking clue wtf they are doing!

[Mr. Dean]

Walking buffalo, I read that PDF you posted, and I guess I read it differently, but it seemed to suggest that Wlves were indeed dispersed from the PRSA due to a smaller Moose pop, and incidental caribou kills also declined. Did I miss something?
As Goat Guy once said, and I paraphrase, : Too many people confuse 'Conservation' with their own personal hunting agenda.
If it works and it's necessary to ensure an endangered population is not extirpated, then so be it. Suck it up.

Now go kill some Wolves boys, and quit talking about it.

*IF* it works, where do the wolves go and what happens next?
It's not like they die off.

IMO its the problem that needs to dealt with - Cull The Culprits and reel in extraneousious killing of other species.


I see a program that shifts killing from the publics eye (helicopter wolf shoot) and under ground, drowned in bureaucracy.
And when the Moose #'s plummet, that blame will fall on us.

Sounds good to me. :neutral:
All I'm seeing is a PC infused way of dealing with self professed conservation groups of "The Day" and not much thought to the future....

[Nimrod]

walking buffalo nailed this one.. this is so ******ed its not worth talking about. to reduce wolf poulations directly would cost $$, but increasing draws and hunting opportunities makes money this isnt about giving a $hit about our wildlife its money plain and simple

once you get around all the smoke and mirrors that's what it's really about IMO, but also add the fact that it does seem like a pansy ass way to avoid the massive negative international publicity a large scale wolf cull would generate with the greenpeace crowd.

[curt]

Well yrs ago the Americans managed to kill off the wolves almost completely so if they figured out how to eliminate the predator pressure then why cant our "experts"!! I'm sorry wild life management theories in this province are so f***ed its shameful!

[st99]

Caribou are going down primarily cause of lost of habitat, even if that would work, it still does nothing to restore habitat, new roads are getting done and new cut block are taking away cover and food needed for the bou. Even if they don't end up as meal, they still gonna starve to death.

[ThinAir]

When your not allowed to cull wolves I guess you have to resort to ass backwards solutions.

[Husky7mm]

Another thing, why is it politically correct to be non-lethal to these wolves and their exploding populations, yet lethal means is used and expected for the "prey " reduction? Do bunny huggers only care about wolves and grizzly? Why this bias? A bais is also present for native hunters vs "whity" much more exceptance towards natives hunting. Why are these biases excepted ?

Steel ram has an excellent point though about a cull actually allowing the remaining wolves to prosper, that being said plenty of culls have happened in the past and they resulted in the "prey" rebounding. Why would we not expected similar results? Another thing settlers almost wiped out the "prey" by shooting every animal (for meat), only after they implemented some management and restrict the havest of females did the wildlife populations rebound. Iirc the game populations were in the toilet at the previous turn of century. That crash was cause by man and "hunting"

[Gr8 white hunter]

I was you there last year and ran into a older fella and his son from the island, and he told me the same thing.

[Gun Dog]

Interesting paper. You can skip straight to Section 4 (p 72) or the discussion on page 85:

In this study we have no evidence for a change in mortality rate, but neither is there any evidence for any mechanism for an increase in mortality rate. Decrease in food availability can lead to increases in wolf mortality through either malnutrition or increased intra-specific strife. Neither of these scenarios seem likely in our treatment area. ... We conclude, therefore, that mortality rate probably has not changed following the increase in hunting quotas of moose

There's more in the conclusions (p 92) but I can't cut text from the document.

[Gun Dog]

Another thing, why is it politically correct to be non-lethal to these wolves and their exploding populations, yet lethal means is used and expected for the "prey " reduction? Do bunny huggers only care about wolves and grizzly?Wolves and Grizzlies have better PR. Opposing hunting for food (deer, moose) is a non-starter so the anti-hunting crowd sticks to "trophy" animals like wolves, cougars & grizzly.

[The Dude]

*IF* it works, where do the wolves go and what happens next?
It's not like they die off.

IMO its the problem that needs to dealt with - Cull The Culprits and reel in extraneousious killing of other species.


I see a program that shifts killing from the publics eye (helicopter wolf shoot) and under ground, drowned in bureaucracy.
And when the Moose #'s plummet, that blame will fall on us.

Sounds good to me. :neutral:
All I'm seeing is a PC infused way of dealing with self professed conservation groups of "The Day" and not much thought to the future....

Did you read it all?

[Husky7mm]

Anti-hunters loving predators to "death"!

[The Dude]

And, for the record, I'm the guy that's struggling to start a canine target database, and I have almost zero interest, so I have no tolerance for bitching.
Everyone says "Something has to be done" but I'll tell you here and now: here will be NO Helicopter gunning, and most likely NO 1080, so suck it up, and let's make a plan.

[Husky7mm]

Dude, it's not a bad idea, however many, I for one am reluctant to give up zipper lip creek and no tell um mt so people who don't go out much can kill a wolf and stumble right into things that have taken me yrs to figure out.

[The Dude]

Well then, we're screwed.

[Wild one]

Wolves eat a lot more than just moose and big game animals. Lowering game numbers will just cause wolves to change to a different food species. Wolves also eat a lot of beaver maybe there should be a beaver cull as well :roll:

Here is a thought if you want to lower wolf numbers why not kill wolves instead of there prey

[The Dude]

Lowering prey numbers lowers predator numbers. A population of 2000 opportunistic Moose can withstand predation, a population of 160 indigenous Caribou cannot.

[Husky7mm]

Wolves and Grizzlies have better PR. Opposing hunting for food (deer, moose) is a non-starter so the anti-hunting crowd sticks to "trophy" animals like wolves, cougars & grizzly.

Perhapes it needs to have a different light shone upon it. As a hunter they are my competitor, and each to themselfs.... It's a conflict of interest to have them around large numbers, I am sure the wolf feels the same about the grizzly and the cougar the same of the wolf. If giving a chance any competing predator would kill another competitor . Why should it be any different for man. Not just trophy hunting but, "natural management" in simple form, nature is cruel !
If the wolves are just starting to eat themselves out of house and home and are threatening the extinction of another species , what's a better death for them a bullet, or "malnutrition and internal strife"????

[horshur]

Well then, we're screwed.

what exactly do you envision this database of yours accomplishing??? so people who rarely spend much time can burn gas in their truck looking at tracks?

We need to motivate and enable people who are or could be good at it, to kill wolves.....like paying trappers or hunters.... maybe a competition with big prizes like a truck or guns.

not a database so some hunter from the island can surmise where some other hunter has been hunting in the interior...or wonder whether they are bullshitin or not.

[The Dude]

what exactly do you envision this database of yours accomplishing??? so people who rarely spend much time can burn gas in their truck looking at tracks?

We need to motivate and enable people who are or could be good at it, to kill wolves.....like paying trappers or hunters.... maybe a competition with big prizes like a truck or guns.

not a database so some hunter from the island can surmise where some other hunter has been hunting in the interior...or wonder whether they are bullshitin or not.

There are those that make a change, and those that shake their fists at the sky and cry WHY?.
Up to you, Buddy, you can be a critic, or help me out.
Pretty self-explanatory here.

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?88087-Wolf-and-Coyote-Database-Mainland-BC

[Husky7mm]

Well then, we're screwed.

I wouldn't say that..... People have to get out there in the winter instead of hanging up the rifle for the year. Skip the snowmobiling and ice fishing once in a while. And we need nbl no closed season and a bounty so all the wolves that are chanced upon get shot instead of stared at!

[The Dude]

I wouldn't say that..... People have to get out there in the winter instead of hanging up the rifle for the year. Skip the snowmobiling and ice fishing once in a while. And we need nbl no closed season and a bounty so all the wolves that are chanced upon get shot instead of stared at!

BINGO! (Although a bounty is unlikely, I agree with the rest.)

[Wild one]

Lowering prey numbers lowers predator numbers. A population of 2000 opportunistic Moose can withstand predation, a population of 160 indigenous Caribou cannot.


The problem is you would have to kill off a lot more than moose and would have to really screw up the whole ecosystem to have an effect.

Is this really worth it instead of focusing on lowering predator directly?

[The Dude]

Then Target the preds.......but no-one will do it.

[Wild one]

Then Target the preds.......but no-one will do it.


I will be out starting Nov 15 and won't stop till Feb 15

You seen my post in your other thread

[The Dude]

I wish you well, with many posts of success, you know I do.

[Mr. Dean]

Did you read it all?

Some, not all.
From what I can tell, it *may* work in helping the caribou but doesn't do much for the problem.

Nip it in the bud and drop all the suger coating, is my look at things.
Eliminate all the ambiguity by culling off the root cause. :wink:

[Jagermeister]

I think you mean area 7-23? 7-13 is Vanderhoof. Regardless, the Parsnip area already has Caribou but it's no secret that they are not doing well and some bios are looking at management options to help them. The moose management model in the Omineca and in particular the Parsnip area does consider Caribou and Wolf ecology as well. Someone else may be able to explain it better but the model has an element of predator control by harvesting cows and calves. In essence by maintaing moose numbers at a certain level through the harvest of X many bulls, X cows and X calves, wolf populations are also controlled (in theory) by limiting their primary food source...which (in theory) minimizes predation on the Caribou. I believe there was a statment about this in the regs a couple years ago to explain the increased cow/calf seasons in 7-16 and 7-23 specifically. Some may argue that that this is ass backwards as less moose may mean more pressure on the Caribou as the wolves focus on them more (i.e. with more moose, perhaps wolves wouldn't need to venture into the alpine for the Caribou)...regardless I think we can all agree that managing to increase wolf numbers has a lot of risk, which is essentially a side effect of curtailing moose hunting opportunities if no predator control is instituted along with those changes.

It really boils down to supply and demand.
All we have to do is look to the south in Region 5 to see the effect of a once expanding moose population and the subquential dramatic increase in the wolf population. Moose populations were allowed to expand with little human predation. All the while, the wolf populations were increasing exponentially, replacing the human predation and then some in a totally un-controlled state.
Wolf populations are driven by their food source, just like the lynx are driven by the rabbit or hare populations.
By reducing the prey, only the alpha female pups will survive as she will kill the pups of the other females in the pack.
Much as we don't like to see our beloved moose take a hit, the professors theory makes sense to me.

[steel_ram]

We seem rather selective and self serving on the biologist we do and don't trust.

[st99]

what's sad about hunting wolves, is all the north west is overloaded with wolves, there's a few with the know how, but they don't want to share. On the alberta forum, there's dude with 11 wolves killed in the last 2 months. Every body ask for advice on his thread, but he doesn't say anything. I've been hunting wolves for 3 yrs in winter, but got only 2 so far, obviously I need to improve, but nobody wants to share.

[kootenayelkslayer]

Well no disrepect intented but this is completely f***ed up I would fire any biologist that would promote this stupid idea manage the predators better thats it!! put a bounty on them give out free moose tags deer tags whatever for X amount of wolf tails anything, but killing off our game animals to impact the predators............ stupid.

Do you reckon hunters can kill ~40% of the wolf population annually (approximately the number necessary just to maintain the numbers of wolves)? Most hunters are lucky to even see a wolf or two during the year.

Believe me, I know it feels nice to kill the odd wolf or coyote, but a lot of people on this site need to forget the idea that hunters are going to make a significant impact on predator populations, and in turn, boost ungulate populations.

That is why educated biologists come up with alternative ideas to try to help us manage our wildlife.

[kootenayelkslayer]

It really boils down to supply and demand.
All we have to do is look to the south in Region 5 to see the effect of a once expanding moose population and the subquential dramatic increase in the wolf population. Moose populations were allowed to expand with little human predation. All the while, the wolf populations were increasing exponentially, replacing the human predation and then some in a totally un-controlled state.
Wolf populations are driven by their food source, just like the lynx are driven by the rabbit or hare populations.
By reducing the prey, only the alpha female pups will survive as she will kill the pups of the other females in the pack.
Much as we don't like to see our beloved moose take a hit, the professors theory makes sense to me.

You're right, the theory makes good sense, but many people struggle to wrap their heads around it. Whether or not it is working to save caribou populations is still up for debate. But it's worth a try in my opinion.

[Walking Buffalo]

Walking buffalo, I read that PDF you posted, and I guess I read it differently, but it seemed to suggest that Wlves were indeed dispersed from the PRSA due to a smaller Moose pop, and incidental caribou kills also declined. Did I miss something?
As Goat Guy once said, and I paraphrase, : Too many people confuse 'Conservation' with their own personal hunting agenda.
If it works and it's necessary to ensure an endangered population is not extirpated, then so be it. Suck it up.

Now go kill some Wolves boys, and quit talking about it.




You must have read it differently. It's like reading Penthouse Forum, do you really believe what happened after she walked into the bathroom?

One must read the details in this study. The results showed that reduced alternative prey populations DID NOT induce a greater dispersal or starvation rate in the wolf population.

The document is password protected, so no copy/paste possible, I'll write out some of the details that need to be absorbed to understand that while the author wishes the management practice can potentially under ideal circumstances prove fruitful, it does to work in actual practice.




pg.85
"Based on 95% confidence intervals, there was NO statistical difference among mortality rates of dispersal rates in treatment or control areas (table 4.3)."

pg.86
"There is little evidence of a high propensity of malnutrition and even less evidence of an increase in malnutrition resulting from the declining moose density"

pg.87
"We conclude, therefore, that mortality rate probably has NOT changed following the increase in hunting quotas of moose"


See, despite the Penthouse story line, the guy did not actually get laid. :wink:




Many jurisdictions are trying this technique. It is NOT working. Refer to what happened in the Koots and in Alberta, helicopters were eventually brought in to save the caribou from the wolves once the moose were wiped out.

[curt]

well again sorry but this alternative idea is bullshit, stupid and shameful

[kootenayelkslayer]

Walking Buffalo,

The quotes that you gave from this paper are slightly misleading to those that haven't read the paper, and misrepresent Robin's findings during his study. Right in the abstract of the paper, where the overall findings are presented, he stated that the study found higher wolf dispersal rates following the moose decline, and suggested that reduction of moose numbers may help facilitate caribou recovery.

You were a bit selective with the results you posted. Right after your quote on pg85, Robin wrote that he did find a significant increase in dispersal by wolves as the moose population declined from 2007 to 2009. By 2009, the dispersal rates were higher in the treatment area than in the control area. The dispersal rates that Robin observed were higher than those documented by wolf biologists under typical conditions...suggesting that the decline in moose was causing wolves to leave the area.

I'm not surprised that there was no significant difference in mortality of wolves between treatments, as I would think most of us would expect that as the moose pop'n declines, wolves would simply disperse before dying of malnutrition.

They eventually concluded that "increasing the moose-hunting quota, therefore, seems to be an effective approach to reducing overall wolf density". Don't get me wrong, this study doesn't necessarily prove the moose reduction is the perfect answer, there are still many questions regarding the effectiveness, but there is strong evidence that this approach can work.



Curt,
This wasn't just the idea of "one stupid professor". If you read through the thesis that Walking Buffalo posted, you'll see that the author referenced many of the world's leading ungulate/carnivore biologists (i.e. Mech, Bergerud, Hayes, etc.) in support of the idea of reducing primary-prey species to cause dispersal of wolves, with the goal of recovering vulnerable caribou populations.

[kootenayelkslayer]

Also, for those that felt that when the moose pop'n declined, that the wolves would start to prey more on caribou (which is the same initial reaction I had to this idea when it was proposed years ago in the Kootenays), this study found that the wolves did not prey-switch...the proportion of caribou in the wolves' diet did not increase.

[roymil]

I believe in the Kootenay the plan was to reduce WT populations not moose. Hell everyone knows WT are alot more prolific than moose and have been termed "cannon fodder" by some bio's. Not enough data points out there for me to be convinced wolves won't switch to caribou.

[angus_83]

I have also heard that unless wolves are culled completely you will end up with nothing but the smartest wolves surviving, and reproducing with the other smart wolves, creating a population of really smart wolves...which is one reason bounties aren't used. Don't get me wrong I hate the predators and love hunting the tasty ones like everyone else and don't want to see reduced harvest authorizations, but in this situation I suggest leaving it to the experts, and why not capitalize on the increased opportunities to take a moose. Not to mention Moose are resilient, Caribou....not so much.

[Walking Buffalo]

Walking Buffalo,

The quotes that you gave from this paper are slightly misleading to those that haven't read the paper, and misrepresent Robin's findings during his study. Right in the abstract of the paper, where the overall findings are presented, he stated that the study found higher wolf dispersal rates following the moose decline, and suggested that reduction of moose numbers may help facilitate caribou recovery.

You were a bit selective with the results you posted. Right after your quote on pg85, Robin wrote that he did find a significant increase in dispersal by wolves as the moose population declined from 2007 to 2009. By 2009, the dispersal rates were higher in the treatment area than in the control area. The dispersal rates that Robin observed were higher than those documented by wolf biologists under typical conditions...suggesting that the decline in moose was causing wolves to leave the area.

I'm not surprised that there was no significant difference in mortality of wolves between treatments, as I would think most of us would expect that as the moose pop'n declines, wolves would simply disperse before dying of malnutrition.

They eventually concluded that "increasing the moose-hunting quota, therefore, seems to be an effective approach to reducing overall wolf density". Don't get me wrong, this study doesn't necessarily prove the moose reduction is the perfect answer, there are still many questions regarding the effectiveness, but there is strong evidence that this approach can work.



Curt,
This wasn't just the idea of "one stupid professor". If you read through the thesis that Walking Buffalo posted, you'll see that the author referenced many of the world's leading ungulate/carnivore biologists (i.e. Mech, Bergerud, Hayes, etc.) in support of the idea of reducing primary-prey species to cause dispersal of wolves, with the goal of recovering vulnerable caribou populations.



My selected quotes are accurate accounts of the study data. The considerations that there MAY be in increase of wolf dispersal was not backed up by the data.

As I've stated, this is a THEORY. I have no issue with trying new techniques, where and when appropriate. IMO, the scale and urgency of the situation demands more pro-active PROVEN techniques.

You mentioned Tom Bergerud. Glad you did. Read what he has to say on over a half century of hands on research. What works to small populations from being extripated due to wolf predation? Lethal Wolf mangement.

The Caribou Conservation Conundrum
http://peachlandsportsmen.com/wolvescariboupreadtors.pdf


Most researchers agree that the Caribou's plight is due to habitat fragmantation. Other issues of alternative prey and wolves are side effects.
With this in mind, we have options.
1) Do nothing, let nature play it's course.
2) Reduce alternative prey through lethal means and hope the Theory works for the first time. Desired goal, a reduced wolf density.
3) Reduce Wolf densities through lethal means, a Proven technique. Desired goal, a reduced wolf density.


Whichever choice is made, the Caribou still need habitat to survive in the future.

Personally, I choose the Proven technique, and as a bonus, there will still be moose for people to eat while the habitat has a chance to recoup, if we let it.

There is another option. Let the present caribou herds die out. When and if in the future the habitat is suitable for the species, we can re-introduce them, or let the species re-establish itself. We have seen repeatedly, even in our own lifetime, just how quickly extripated species can reclaim a landscape when the conditions become favorable to it's survival.

[kootenayelkslayer]

My selected quotes are accurate accounts of the study data. The considerations that there MAY be in increase of wolf dispersal was not backed up by the data.

As I've stated, this is a THEORY. I have no issue with trying new techniques, where and when appropriate. IMO, the scale and urgency of the situation demands more pro-active PROVEN techniques.

You mentioned Tom Bergerud. Glad you did. Read what he has to say on over a half century of hands on research. What works to small populations from being extripated due to wolf predation? Lethal Wolf mangement.

The Caribou Conservation Conundrum
http://peachlandsportsmen.com/wolvescariboupreadtors.pdf


Most researchers agree that the Caribou's plight is due to habitat fragmantation. Other issues of alternative prey and wolves are side effects.
With this in mind, we have options.
1) Do nothing, let nature play it's course.
2) Reduce alternative prey through lethal means and hope the Theory works for the first time. Desired goal, a reduced wolf density.
3) Reduce Wolf densities through lethal means, a Proven technique. Desired goal, a reduced wolf density.


Whichever choice is made, the Caribou still need habitat to survive in the future.

Personally, I choose the Proven technique, and as a bonus, there will still be moose for people to eat while the habitat has a chance to recoup, if we let it.

There is another option. Let the present caribou herds die out. When and if in the future the habitat is suitable for the species, we can re-introduce them, or let the species re-establish itself. We have seen repeatedly, even in our own lifetime, just how quickly extripated species can reclaim a landscape when the conditions become favorable to it's survival.

Not sure how you are reading it, but the data clearly shows a statistically significant increase in dispersal two years after the moose reduction began. Perhaps the dispersal continued to increase after the study, as the author pointed out, there is often a lag period after prey reduction before dispersal takes place. Makes perfect sense.

Hey I'm all for lethal wolf management, trust me. But let's face it, it's not going to happen anytime soon. When you have a wolf biologist as prominent as Bob Hayes clearly stating that lethal wolf management is just unrealistic and unfeasible, it is hard to disagree with him. Too man wolves would have to be killed each and every year (Hayes says ~40% of the pop'n). There is just no money available to do that every year, not to mention the scrutiny a program like that would come under from the general public.

You're right that the caribou habitat is the most important issue. But it will be a long time before we can fix that. Trying to manipulate predator populations is the next best thing, as a short-term method for trying to keep these struggling caribou afloat. I disagree with you about letting them become extirpated, and then assuming they can be reintroduced. Where would we introduce them from? Not many mountain caribou herds in BC could afford to be used as a source pop'n for reintroduction.

[hanna]

Wolves can be trapped. And fairly handily if the trapper is open minded. Used to hunt wolves up north and had a reasonable shoot rate. Bait was important, and getting up early and being patient.

[40incher]

It's time to realize that indirect wildlife management is like a wet dream. Messy and unproductive.

Time to fire the crew and start from a position of reality. Predators are being allowed to decimate prey species while the "experts" put moose on the endangered list by treating them like expendable dog chow.

If I'm not mistaken we now have a moose "crisis" in B.C., according to the media. Perhaps someone should remind the bureaucrats of their silliness once more.

One can only hope someone (like the director of wildlife?!) could possibly recognize the contradiction!!