900 Moose Tags in one zone to help 80 Caribou

[M shooter]

Just did the math based and based on the 2012 draw summary results WMU 353 has 900 moose tags up for grabs this year. I contacted F & W and asked why so many tags. The response was to try and help with the little smokey caribou herd. I did some quick research and according to the U of A study I found they say there are only 80-90 individuals. They did a wolf cull in the area a couple of years ago so now they want to get the ulgulate numbers down and hopefully displace more wolves.

(http://www.ualberta.ca/~rbchrist/lit...es/Page326.htm)

I wanted so see what members thought of issueing 920 tags in one zone so they could micromanage for one species. I thought it was good timing to bring this up since there was at least 3 mentions of caribou in the last magazine issue.

[Matt L.]

Caribou are way more high profile than moose pr-wise. That's all there is to it.

[steve]

Now the wolves will have no moose to eat and have to eat the bou. Wonder how many inactive traplines in 353?

[Huntnut]

Our AFGA club has put forth resolutions to stop this but srd has shot it down. We are putting forth those resolutions again this yeaar but I'mnot holding my breath.

[Jamie Black R/T]

i know a few guys going up in mid november for moose camp.....6 or 7 guys and 5 bull moose draws.

unreal the pressure on the animals up there. Between quads before noon and the number of tags they give out. That zone is getting pounded!

[Sooner]

In the zone i hunt, 516, it is apparently the southern tip of a cariboo migration route. Years ago when we first started hunting there, the undersubscribed draws for nov were commonly 200 plus and not always used up. This year, 37 online and 16 ish by phone in. A few years ago they doubled the tags and made it real easy to get drawn. Reason I heard from guides and one F&W officer, knock down the moose and deer so the cariboo have more habitat. I have been all over that zone by sled in the last 15 plus years, never seen one and nobody i talk to has either. I think its two fold, money grab and thin out the other ungulates. In this zone if they cut back the tags, i think the moose numbers would actually increase. But what do I know.

[Craddosk]

The purpose of it is that wolf populations and moose populations are linked. As moose populations rise, so do wolf populations. These leads to more wolves in the Little Smoky Caribou area, which translates into a greater probability of caribou-wolf interactions, which don't usually favour the caribou. As a result, more moose tags hopefully decreases the local moose population, which in terms reduces the wolf population, and ideally reduces the predatory stress on caribou.

[Clancy]

Originally Posted by Craddosk

The purpose of it is that wolf populations and moose populations are linked. As moose populations rise, so do wolf populations. These leads to more wolves in the Little Smoky Caribou area, which translates into a greater probability of caribou-wolf interactions, which don't usually favour the caribou. As a result, more moose tags hopefully decreases the local moose population, which in terms reduces the wolf population, and ideally reduces the predatory stress on caribou.

[surface2feather]

Supposing the moose to wolf population are the only thing effecting population ... What makes the caribou void from this equation? You can make statistics say whatever you want but at the end of the day it really comes down to predators vs. prey.

[st99]

Used to like 353, don't go anymore because of that. Those bios aren't too smart, the government didn't cut back on logging permit, even if the caribou don't end up as meal, there habitat is disapearing and they won't get anything to eat. There's simply no futur for the caribou.

[duffy4]

Originally Posted by Craddosk

The purpose of it is that wolf populations and moose populations are linked. As moose populations rise, so do wolf populations. These leads to more wolves in the Little Smoky Caribou area, which translates into a greater probability of caribou-wolf interactions, which don't usually favour the caribou. As a result, more moose tags hopefully decreases the local moose population, which in terms reduces the wolf population, and ideally reduces the predatory stress on caribou.

That is exactly right!

But as you can see there are guys on here that just do not understand the concept.

[duffy4]

Originally Posted by st99

Used to like 353, don't go anymore because of that. Those bios aren't too smart, the government didn't cut back on logging permit, even if the caribou don't end up as meal, there habitat is disapearing and they won't get anything to eat. There's simply no futur for the caribou.

And that is also part of the problem that has to be addressed. And maybe is to some extent.

[Craddosk]

Originally Posted by st99

Used to like 353, don't go anymore because of that. Those bios aren't too smart, the government didn't cut back on logging permit, even if the caribou don't end up as meal, there habitat is disapearing and they won't get anything to eat. There's simply no futur for the caribou.

Unfortunately, the biologists have significantly more pull on managing wildlife numbers than being able to influence the logging quotas when they come up for review. While they will often fight to keep south facing slopes in their natural state (deciduous or coniferous), the foresty companies will still put in requests to change the ecotype present thought planting/silviculture. ANC (Alberta Newsprint Company) has a huge amount of the FMA in the Little Smoky/A La Peche caribou manage areas, but has to manage that, with profits, with pine beetle kill, with oil and gas, and hundred of other factors.

I do agree that caribou habitat needs to be better preserved, though better management practices, and controlling oil and gas development in key areas. Do I think it's going to happen? Unfortunately not.

[Craddosk]

Originally Posted by surface2feather

Supposing the moose to wolf population are the only thing effecting population ... What makes the caribou void from this equation? You can make statistics say whatever you want but at the end of the day it really comes down to predators vs. prey.

Habitat is a major influence on caribou populations as well, there's numerous peer reviewed studies that indicate that that's a huge limiting factor. However, with higher wolf/caribou interactions, the extra habitat isn't there. Caribou choose the 80+ year old pine forests because they try to isolate themselves from predator populations, but if the predators have access into the habitat through logging, oil and gas, roads, etc, then any extra habitat is not very useful.

[iceman99]

For a number of years I was in the bush for over 8 weeks in the fall. At least a couple of wolves were shot every year and there was never a wolf that didn't have moose or moose hair in its stomach.

The caribou in that area were limited but did exist.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by duffy4

That is exactly right!

But as you can see there are guys on here that just do not understand the concept.

I can see that there are Obediant and Stuffy guys on here that don't understand that this concept is a Predator-Prey management THEORY that has never been successfully executed.

This THEORY has been UNsuccessfully implemented several times. The end result was the same in each trial. The wolves consumed the Caribou before starving or dispersing.





Why is it socially acceptable by the Politically Correct crowd to Slaughter Moose, Elk and Deer to save Caribou, but it is wrong to kill wolves for the same purpose?

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

The end result was the same in each trial. The wolves consumed the Caribou before starving or dispersing.

this.

[Huntnut]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

I can see that there are Obediant and Stuffy guys on here that don't understand that this concept is a Predator-Prey management THEORY that has never been successfully executed.

This THEORY has been UNsuccessfully implemented several times. The end result was the same in each trial. The wolves consumed the Caribou before starving or dispersing.





Why is it socially acceptable by the Politically Correct crowd to Slaughter Moose, Elk and Deer to save Caribou, but it is wrong to kill wolves for the same purpose?

Pretty much says it all.

[elkhunter11]

This THEORY has been UNsuccessfully implemented several times. The end result was the same in each trial. The wolves consumed the Caribou before starving or dispersing.

So the result is that you wipe out the moose in an area for nothing.

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So the result is that you wipe out the moose in an area for nothing.

yes. wipe out the moose so there is nothing left but bou for the wolves.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Craddosk

The purpose of it is that wolf populations and moose populations are linked. As moose populations rise, so do wolf populations. These leads to more wolves in the Little Smoky Caribou area, which translates into a greater probability of caribou-wolf interactions, which don't usually favour the caribou. As a result, more moose tags hopefully decreases the local moose population, which in terms reduces the wolf population, and ideally reduces the predatory stress on caribou.

Agreed, in addition, caribou tend to herd in old growth areas, and as logging increases, moose move towards the lesser habitat for them, bringing wolves with them. The real issue is habitat, we all know that, but economic forces win over conservation everytime, even though our caribou are a listed species.

[Rackmastr]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

I can see that there are Obediant and Stuffy guys on here that don't understand that this concept is a Predator-Prey management THEORY that has never been successfully executed.

This THEORY has been UNsuccessfully implemented several times. The end result was the same in each trial. The wolves consumed the Caribou before starving or dispersing.





Why is it socially acceptable by the Politically Correct crowd to Slaughter Moose, Elk and Deer to save Caribou, but it is wrong to kill wolves for the same purpose?

Now theres some common sense WB.....thanks!

[Matt L.]

Sometimes I think it would do this province good to have green type party in charge for a term.

[pickrel pat]

when all the steak is ate up in my house, i will then eat the hamburger. when thats gone, i will go out and look for work. wolves are no different.(well.... wolves prolly dont drink beer in the morning.) (much).

[surface2feather]

Originally Posted by duffy4

That is exactly right!

But as you can see there are guys on here that just do not understand the concept.

It's not that I, or probably any other of the members do not understand the concept. It's simple. I just think that it won't work.

My theory is that wolves in general will take the path of least resistance. It's the nature of the planet. It's how it works. If you are talking about a creek flowing through a mountain pass, or a lightning bolt striking the ground, or a raccoon digging through a garbage can they all are surviving by taking the path of least resistance. I don't think a wolf cares about wether it is a moose or caribou that it eats... It's going to go for the easiest meal, it's survival instinct.

I made a comment on another thread that some of you may or may not have read... But in my case if I go to the pantry looking for sun chips and there are none, but there is a bag of doritos instead, I will just eat the doritos... Not go to somebody else's pantry looking for sun chips.

I think the wolves will do the same thing. If there is a food source for them they will stay, wether its caribou or moose. But then again I'm not an educated biologist... So what do I know. I guess I just apply logic where others apply theory.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

This THEORY has been UNsuccessfully implemented several times. The end result was the same in each trial. The wolves consumed the Caribou before starving or dispersing.

That is what happening in the Deadwood area this past winter. And it is what I predicted would happen a couple of years ago when I first heard of this theory.

Most trappers and many hunters could have told them it would happen that way. So just how smart are those wildlife researchers and Biologists?


Wildlife Researchers and Biologists have their place, but they are not and never will be, the only ones with knowledge about wildlife and the wilderness.

Too bad they won't accept that. If they would, we would all gain.

[Dark Wing]

Originally Posted by steve

Now the wolves will have no moose to eat and have to eat the bou. Wonder how many inactive traplines in 353?

I don't know how many inactive lines there are but the GC local trappers association is really pushing for bounties on wolves and strongly against the poisoning of them. It's also known that the helicopter gunships are shooting moose to use as wolf bait as well.

If your still looking to be a partner on a line I may know a few guys.

[Cal]

Untill they want to stop oilfield developement any attempt at helping the caribou is just a good PR move at best, plain old useless at worst. We havnt been hunting caribou for a long time now and the situation hasnt got any better, they are simply a creature that can not addapt to a changing ecosystem very well. Untill we stop changing their ecosystem they are doomed. Killing the moose off wont help that, its been tryed befor and has failed. The old moose/wolf cycle is pretty much obsolete with whitetail deer moving into these areas. The moose population anywhere near a native reserve around here is about as bad as the caribou population, even with these two species almost eradicated the wolves still do ok.

[JohninAB]

Originally Posted by st99

Used to like 353, don't go anymore because of that. Those bios aren't too smart, the government didn't cut back on logging permit, even if the caribou don't end up as meal, there habitat is disapearing and they won't get anything to eat. There's simply no futur for the caribou.

Anyone else see the irony in this post?

[Traps]

Logging practices and oil and gas has contributed to poor habitat. Logging of old growth where their food grows and logging in small cutblocks instead of large ones. We went back in time when environmentalists forced us into harvesting small cutblocks because they were perceived as bad. Small cutblocks in the checkerboard pattern you see from the air doubles the area as if you could clear cut in large blocks. Seismic, leases, oilfield roads and pipelines do the same for us as they do for wolves...... increase access to resources.