IDFG
commissioner calls for common sense on caribou
|
|
January 24, 2012 |
By Tony McDermott
Commissioner
Idaho Fish and Game
Goggle "BC Woodland Caribou Recovery Plan" and
read the first few pages of their recovery plan
... i.e., "Recommendations for Predator-Prey
management to Benefit the Recovery of Mountain
Caribou in British Columbia."
I located it a couple of days ago and it
identifies the problem in spades.
Page 1, Background: "However, the government
appointed Mountain Caribou Science Team was
clear that without immediate actions to reduce
predation losses, some mountain caribou herds
could be extirpated before the benefits of
additional protection, prey management and
recreation management are realized."
It appears to me that the USFWS has done
absolutely nothing to evaluate the impact of
predation or if they have, I could not find it?
Until the USFWS properly evaluates the effect of
predation on the Selkirk Caribou herd, they
should withdraw their habitat plan and evaluate
more realistic options.
Defenders of Wildlife, the Selkirk Conservation
Alliance and the Center for Biological Diversity
petitioned the USFWS to designate critical
habitat for the species and, according to a 2009
court-ordered settlement agreement, the service
must designate critical habitat with a final
rule by November 20, 2012.
The public’s concern about losing access to
federal property for recreation to benefit this
endangered species is real, and must be dealt
with in a transparent, straightforward manner.
Mountain caribou have been listed as an
endangered species since 1984, and despite two
attempted augmentations, and a lot of time,
money and management effort, the Canadian-shared
Southern Selkirk population of caribou has all
but winked out on the U.S. side of the border.
Why has the population failed to respond to
extensive management efforts for the past
25-plus years?
Habitat changes, including the changes brought
about by the Sundance and Trapper Peak burns
back in the 1960s reduced the amount of older
forest stands suitable for caribou.
Additionally, Selkirk caribou is a species
existing in the U.S. at the very southern end of
their range, spending very little time south of
the B.C. border.
The greatest cause of mortality over the past
three decades has been predation, primarily by
mountain lions.
The recent resurgence of wolves as a top level
predator poses a new and significant risk;
wolves are the primary predator of mountain
caribou elsewhere in their range. Designation of
critical habitat provides little if any benefit
to caribou if predation is what drives the
population growth of this herd.
A well-respected trapper from the Priest Lake
area reported last week that he was pursuing six
different packs of wolves on the Priest River
side of the Selkirk Crest.
A hunter doing some preseason scouting for mule
deer in August 2011 from the Upper Pack River
reported observing a pack of 11 wolves harassing
a small band of elk.
Wolves exist on both sides of the Selkirks, and
there’s good reason to believe that 50-plus
wolves, added to the mountain lions, grizzly
bears and lots of black bears, which are all
capable of eating caribou, and you can begin to
understand why the public is howling about more
restrictions on people.
Without public support, the entire ESA process
is doomed to failure.
With respect to caribou, the jig is up. The
public has this figured out, and it’s not
pretty. They are correct in their analysis that
the likelihood of recovering caribou in the U.S.
portion of the Selkirks is slim at best. The
deck is stacked against caribou recovery and
designation of critical habitat is not going to
change that.
If this issue cannot be resolved to the
satisfaction of the majority of our affected
publics, we are all wasting our time.
This exceptionally small population of mountain
caribou has only a slim hope of recovery as it
is, but even less so if the people who live,
work and play in and around their habitat view
this animal as undesirable and problematic.
That’s exactly what will happen if restrictions
that don’t make sense are forced on people in
the name of caribou recovery. The thought of
adding additional restrictions on 300,000-plus
acres in North Idaho for a species that will not
benefit from the designation of critical habitat
appears to me and other folks following the
issue to be foolish.
How do we get out of the current mess that we
are in?
For starters, suggest that the USFWS critically
review what it is that they are attempting to
do, given the status of predators as described
above. If we cannot create an environment in
which this small population (30-50) mountain
caribou, who spend very little time south of the
Canadian border, can be proven to have a hope at
a chance of recovery, it is simply time to look
at other alternatives.
The courts have ordered that critical habitat is
the direction the USFWS needs to take. Given
that direction, it would seem to make sense to
zero in on those areas that research has shown
are most important for caribou, rather than
taking a very “broad brush” approach, as the
current proposal does
If caribou recovery is to have a chance, the
situation suggests that more draconian predator
management practices are needed in the caribou
recovery zone.
Who will pay for that? IDFG has and will
continue to aggressively manage mountain lion
populations, and continue to create liberal
seasons for harvesting wolves, but that may not
be enough. Wolf densities currently present are
unacceptable, and must be dealt if we are going
to save this species.
This will require USFWS agreement and support
for managing wolves differently in the Selkirk
range.
Environmental activists who advocate for caribou
recovery but oppose predator management will
have to realistically assess their positions.
Without the support of the public who live in
and around the caribou recovery zone, it’s a
lost cause.
|
|
|
|
|
