* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download the Moose Management Report
Survey
Document related concepts
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Wildlife corridor wikipedia , lookup
Source–sink dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
Private landowner assistance program wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Pleistocene Park wikipedia , lookup
Conservation movement wikipedia , lookup
Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Habitat destruction wikipedia , lookup
Wildlife crossing wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
P R E PA R E D F O R Moose Enhancement and Recovery Strategy 1 TM TM Moose Enhancement and Recovery Strategy July 2016 | Project #0356276-0001 CITATION GOABC. 2016. Moose Enhancement and Recovery Strategy. Prepared for Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia. EX EC U T I VE SU MMARY The goal of this paper is to raise the profile of moose by demonstrating their integral value across the landscapes of British Columbia. When the full value of moose is taken into account, decisions made will result in enhanced moose habitat and recovered moose populations. This will in turn provide social and environmental benefits across large areas in the province. Considering the historic management of moose and moose habitat in British Columbia, and the resulting decline moose populations have experienced is some regions of British Columbia, immediate action is required to recover moose populations. All available management levers need to be used to enhance and recover moose populations. The following recommendations should be implemented as soon as possible: • Establish moose density and composition objectives for each moose game management zone (GMZ) of the province. The density range should be between 0.75 to 3.0 moose/km2. For example, the Omineca Region has established a moose density objective of 1.35 moose/km2 and a composition ratio of greater than 30 bulls per 100 cows. A balanced age structure of bulls is also a key composition objective. • Moose populations are more difficult to estimate than some other species. Wildlife managers should incorporate hunter harvest questionnaire information and guide outfitter declarations to help estimate moose populations in combination with standardized aerial inventory. • While hunting mortality is one of the lowest causes of moose mortality, stricter hunting regulations, including elimination of the antlerless moose seasons, need to be invoked until the moose population and composition objectives within each GMZ are met. • Encourage First Nations to take a leadership role in moose recovery. Collaborative management would include improving the harvest reporting of their people. Better data on moose harvest will result in a more accurate annual allowable harvest (AAH). • The predator prey relationship is out of balance. High predator populations are having a significant impact on ungulate populations, including moose. Population density objectives need to be established for all predators. Wolves should be managed to a density of less than 0.003 wolves/km2. • The expansion of the natural resource sector over the last decade has resulted in the new construction of thousands of kilometers of resource roads. These roads are having significant and unintended consequences on the moose population. This access needs to be managed through the development of clear access management 4 objectives and procedures. The maximum road density should be 0.6 km/km2 moose habitat with an objective of maintaining road density less than this depending upon regional plans. • Provide incentive for forest companies to enhance moose habitat. This would include relaxing free-to-grow regulations and limiting liability from habitat burns. • Conserve and manage sufficient habitat to maintain the moose population at 50% to 75% of carrying capacity as determined from the quality and quantity of winter habitat, and the productivity associated with nutritional /biological carrying capacity. • Complete and release the Cumulative Effects Framework report on moose. • Each provincial region needs to develop specific moose objectives, within the provincial ranges, to enhance or recover moose within their region. Application of these recommendations should be accompanied by rigorous monitoring to ensure that they are effective and that we learn as much as possible from these actions, so that they can be improved on over time. The challenge for British Columbian wildlife managers is they do not have enough control over the moose management levers. The provincial government is encouraged to use all management levers at its disposal to recover moose populations and set a course where moose (and all wildlife) values are considered when land use decisions are made. Decisions to support wildlife and their habitat are an important investment that will benefit all British Columbians. ACK NO WLEDGE MEN TS This report was prepared for the Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia (GOABC) with contributions from many individuals. The report was prepared by Shaun Freeman (B.Sc., Dipl. T., R.P.Bio.) of ERM Consultants with technical contributions provided by Olin Albertson, Brian Harris, Doug Heard, Glen Watts and Shane Mahoney under direction of the GOABC moose committee. The Moose Committee members include Mark Werner (Chair), Ken Watson (Co-Chair), Marc Hubbard, Ken Robins, Colin Niemeyer, Brian Glaicar, Darwin Cary, Bruce Ambler, Al Madley, Dave Hooper, Stuart Maitland and Scott Ellis. 5 TAB LE OF CON TE NTS Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 List of Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1 Moose Management Levers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2 Causes Of Moose Mortality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3 Historic Moose Management in British Columbia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.4 Regions of the Province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.4.1 Recommendations for Regions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.5 Hunting Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.5.1 Recommendations for Hunting Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.6 First Nations Harvest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.6.1 Recommendations for First Nations Harvest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.7 Predator Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.7.1 Recommendations for Predator Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.8 Access Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.8.1 Recommendations for Access Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.9 Habitat Enhancement and Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.9.1 Recommendations for Moose Habitat Enhancement and Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.10 Environmental Assessment And Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.10.1Recommendations for Environmental Assessment and Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Moose Mortality from a FLNRO Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1. Ecology and Key Habitat Requirements of Moose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6 1 I NTR ODUC TION This paper is solely focused on moose (Alces americanus) enhancement and the actions needed to recover moose in British Columbia. Some areas of the province the moose populations are stable, but it is well documented that in several areas of the province moose populations have declined between 50% and 70%. The current management is very limit in scope because the tools needed for the recovery of moose are beyond the authority of wildlife managers. This paper neither assessed the impacts of the potential changes to the other resource industries nor the political sensitivities regarding moose recovery. The shortfalls are identified and recommendations are made that should be taken to recover the moose to benefit all British Columbians. While acknowledging that a provincial framework for management has been initiated by the ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO), this paper provides a position on moose management as seen through a stakeholder lens. While the stakeholders are in general agreement with much of the FLNRO framework and objectives, there are areas where the stakeholders recommend the use of existing management levers to encourage additional and/or alternative actions as discussed in FLNRO (2015) to achieve the moose management objectives. 7 2 P R O V INC IA L MA NAGEM ENT OBJ EC T IV ES FLNRO has committed to manage moose for the people of British Columbia and maintains a fiduciary responsibility to ensure healthy moose populations to accommodate First Nations aboriginal rights. As identified in FLNRO (2015) the provincial goal for moose management is to ensure moose are maintained as integral components of natural ecosystems throughout their range, and maintain sustainable moose populations that meet the needs of First Nations, licensed hunters and the guiding industry in British Columbia. The objectives for moose management in British Columbia as established in this framework are to: • ensure opportunities for consumptive use of moose are sustainable; • maintain a diversity of hunting opportunities for moose; • follow provincial policies and procedures (e.g. provincial moose harvest management procedure) as guidance for regulatory options and management objectives; and • foster development of regional moose action plans where appropriate. Management going forward is to be directed by six moose management levers identified in the Provincial Framework for Moose Management in British Columbia which define potential actions the province suggests may be used for moose management. 2.1 M O O S E MA NAGEM ENT LE V ER S The province has identified six key levers for moose management in BC. These include: • Hunting regulations • First Nations harvest • Predator management • Access management • Habitat enhancement and Protection • Environmental assessment and Mitigation 2.2 C AU S ES O F M O O S E M O R TA LIT Y It is important to understand the causes of moose mortality to know where to focus moose recovery resources. While the mortality will vary from region to region, the on-going cow moose study by FLNRO, Determining Factors Affecting Moose Population Change in BC: Update April, 2016 provides insights into moose mortality (Figure 1). Similar studies should be conducted in other regions in future as conditions differ, and this information is important for informing management recommendations. 8 Proportions of Probable Causes of Mortality 18% Predation UnlicensedHunting 2% LicensedHunting 45% 9% ApparentStarvation Natural 2% Health-Related 5% UnknownHealth-Related Unknown 9% 9% Figure 1. Moose Mortality from a FLNRO Study 2. 3 HISTORIC MOOSE MA NAGEM ENT IN BRITISH COLU M BIA Moose are one of the most widely distributed ungulates in British Columbia. Moose populations were likely low or non-existent in much of the province prior to the late 1800s and have increased significantly since then, moving from northeastern British Columbia, and Alaska southwards in the last 100 years (Peterson 1955 in Kelsall and Telfer 1974; Cowan and Guiget 1978). Shackleton (1999) identifies three subspecies occurring in British Columbia: Alaskan moose (A.a.gigas) in the most northwestern area of the province; northwestern moose (A.a. andersoni) through the interior and northeast; and Shiras moose (A.a.shiras) in the southeast. While the biology of these species is similar, differences in their physiology, use of local habitat and behavior occur reflecting the bio-geography of their distributions. FLNRO (2015) states that regional and provincial moose population estimates are updated every three to five years, based on regional surveys, density extrapolations and expert opinion. The most recent compilation (2014) indicates a provincial estimate of 120,000 to 205,000 moose (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/index. html#ungulate_pop), and suggests that provincial moose numbers have declined by approximately 27,500 moose since 2011. From information in FLNRO (2015) this includes population declines of greater than 50% between inventories in sampled wildlife management units (WMUs) of Region 3 (Thompson-Nicola), Region 5 (Cariboo) and Region 7A (Omineca). 9 2. 4 R EGIONS OF TH E P R O V INC E It is important to understand the regional differences that are used to estimate and manage moose throughout the province. These processes have been developed over time and if the moose population currently meets the regional moose objective, no changes are needed. Moose mortality will likely vary from regions to region but the causes can be addressed with the management levers identified. The key to effective management is to understand the moose environment and develop regional moose objectives. These should include: • moose densities (between the provincial range from available inventory of 0.75-3.0 moose/km2). • sustainable herd composition (i.e. 30 bulls to 100 cows and 25 calves to 100 cows) with a balanced age class structure within the population. • As an example, Region 7A (Omineca) established a moose density of 1.35 moose/km2 and a composition ratio of greater than 30 bulls per 100 cows for most of the region. This density objective was agreed to in a stakeholder meeting with Government, First Nations, British Columbia Wildlife Federation and the Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia on July 25, 2012. PHOTO FRONT COUNTER BC - MINISTRY OF FOREST LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS 2.4.1 Recommendations for Regions • Develop regional moose objectives that include density and composition. 10 2. 5 HUN TING RE GUL AT IO NS Annual allowable harvest (AAH) of moose is developed based on the estimated harvestable surplus of moose a population can sustain each year. Setting harvest objectives requires knowledge of the population, productivity and influences that effect annual survival such as predation rates, habitat quality and environmental conditions. Integrating the subtle differences in physiology, behavior and habitat selection of the three subspecies of moose that occur in British Columbia is also an important aspect of setting harvest rates and regulations. FLNRO (2015) states that the goal of effective management is to ensure opportunities for consumptive use of moose are sustainable, and maintain a diversity of hunting opportunities for moose. Managing for this harvest over a long period is represented by the maximum sustained yield (MSY). Many regions in British Columbia, as with other jurisdictions, use hunting regulations based on principles of maximum sustained yield (MSY). Probably the most controversial aspect of managing for MSY is the harvest of cows and calves and determining when it is appropriate or not appropriate to include antlerless harvest in the AAH. Many wildlife managers implementing liberal antlerless harvests in past decades have relied on management philosophy in Scandinavia where harvest of cows and calves were being increased to cope with increasing moose numbers and reduce nutritional status (Lavsund et al. 2003). However, Scandinavian systems were largely free of large predators, and experiencing relatively mild winters at the time, differing substantially from abundant multiple predator systems in North America (Young and Bojertie 2011). The prevailing belief by some wildlife biologists is that calf harvest is not additive but compensatory, i.e. that the calves harvested by hunters would have died from natural causes prior to being recruited into the population (Euler 1983). However, several North American studies indicate that calf harvest is likely additive to natural mortality in multiple predator systems. These studies have documented that calves experience the highest mortality rates (27-82%) in the first 5 months of life, most (75-96%) of which occurring in the first 4-6 weeks. The data also showed that predators accounted for the majority of calf mortality, and generally indicated that the lower the calf survival rate, the higher the predator species richness and density (ADF&G 2015, Ballard et al. 1991, Bertram and Vivion 2002, Gasaway et al. 1992, Patterson et al. 2013, Young and Bojertie 2011, Van Ballenberge and Dart 1982). A recent Ontario study also found that in an area where calves are hunted, they experienced the greatest instantaneous mortality risk during the first month of life, and another pronounced increase in mortality risk during the autumn hunting season, indicating that many of the calves harvested during calf seasons may have otherwise survived and been recruited into the breeding cohort in following years (Patterson 2012). Additionally, calves generally predominate among moose predated by wolves in winter (Nilsenet al. 2005, Gervasi et al. 2012, Sand et al. 2012). By reducing the proportion of calves in the pre-winter population of moose, hunting of juveniles may shift predation pressure to more important segments of the population such as mature cows and bulls (Patterson 2012). 11 Probably the most controversial aspect of managing for MSY is the harvest of cows and calves and determining when it is appropriate or not appropriate to include antlerless harvest in the AAH. Several studies indicate that liberal antlerless harvest is only prudent in abundant multiple predator systems when moose numbers are increasing. Furthermore, several studies indicate that liberal antlerless harvest is only prudent in abundant multiple predator systems when moose numbers are increasing, and long term low nutritional indices indicate that high moose densities may be impacting forage availability and quality (Boertje et al. 2007, 2010, Young and Boertje 2011). Results from recent surveys in British Columbia indicate moose numbers have declined substantially, as much as 50-70% in parts of the central interior of the province (FLNRO 2015, Kuzyk et al. 2015). Although studies are currently underway to determine the causes of the moose declines in British Columbia, there are no obvious indicators that historic moose densities have negatively impacted forage availability and quality (Kuzyk et al. 2015). With these factors in mind, the harvest of cow and calf moose is not reasonable at a time when populations are substantially reduced (and probably declining) in many areas of the province. PHOTO GORDON HUNTER PHOTO LYNN BYSTROM In any case, management based on the principle of maximum sustained yield requires detailed information on moose population (including composition), density targets and ongoing population monitoring to ensure management involving the setting of harvest rates is successful. This requires regular inventory and monitoring to Provincial Resource Inventory Standards Committee (RISC) standards. Collecting absolute abundance data at a reliability level 1 (i.e. attaining an error of ± 15% of the count at a 90% confidence interval) as described by RISC (2002) is accomplished by sample-based counts (e.g. random stratified block) or full counts with the use of helicopter aerial survey techniques. These data are optimal for understanding moose population, setting moose density targets, harvest rates and monitoring the results of harvest strategies employed. There is substantial local knowledge that could provide valuable data for population inventories. A review of the provincial Species Inventory Web Explorer (http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/siwe/jsp/ search.jsp) identified relatively few moose inventory projects that were of appropriate intensity for density estimates, or which were repeated on a regular basis to monitor population trends. Of the reports available, there were also few instances where inventories were repeated to allow for the monitoring of populations and/or the assessment of the effectiveness of hunting regulations on population management. Further, there does not appear to be an attempt to integrate citizen science in inventory, there is substantial local knowledge that could provide valuable data for population inventories. This observation echoes Morris (2015) which recommends that greater inventory is required to enable effective population management, and to harness the knowledge of British Columbian wildlife practitioners. A historic lack of inventory very likely exacerbated the current moose decline by not providing managers information in a timely fashion, and thus slowed the response. 12 Available data suggests that while there is some moose inventory information available, it is not consistent across regions or sufficiently complete to support effective harvest management in British Columbia. The shortfall requires that the density targets (the assessment of the success of regulation and the impact hunter harvest has on the moose population) have to be supplemented by additional data sources such as kill per unit effort (KPUE) from hunter harvest statistics, or from the professional judgment of senior bureaucrats. From available reports on the Species Inventory Web Explorer, it appears that neither of these methods has been adequately indexed to population inventory, or any measure of carrying capacity/moose density and sustainability of the landbase. This leaves substantial uncertainty (and risk), as well as a lack of transparency regarding the effectiveness of management decisions including the harvest of antlerless moose as a component of MSY. To further improve moose inventory information, hunter harvest questionnaires and guide outfitter declarations need to be incorporated. These data are being effectively utilized in Region 5 (Cariboo) and this methodology should be shared with other regions. 2.5.1 Recommendations for Hunting Regulations • Limiting antlerless season until population is in excess of 75% biological carrying capacity as determined from quantity and quality of habitat and discussed in the habitat section to follow. Initially 75% of carrying capacity is recommended, as this is the point where productivity begins to flatten and quality of the herd and impact to habitat may start to occur, suggesting population control becomes a management action. The rationale for this recommendation is discussed with habitat objectives in section 2.9 below. • Include the resident hunter harvest questionnaires and the guide outfitter declarations in estimating moose popula–tions in combination with standardized aerial inventory. 2. 6 F IRST NATIONS H A R V ES T For indigenous people in northern British Columbia, moose were a key source of raw material for clothing and tools as well as meat, and some First Nation communities starved when moose were scarce (Blood, 2000). Where available, moose were preferred prey because they represented a very high return for the time and energy invested (Reeves and McCabe, 1998). Moose continue to be an important part of the diet of many northern British Columbian First Nation people (Blood, 2000). Moose are now distributed throughout most of British Columbia, but that is a relatively recent development. Prior to 1900, there were virtually no moose south of Hazelton and Prince George (Shackelton, 1999, McTaggart Cowan and Guiget, 1965) and prior to the 1920s some First Nation languages in south and central British Columbia did not have a word for moose (Shackleton 1999). First Nations have a constitutional right to access and harvest moose to meet their food, social and ceremonial needs. These rights are respected and the 13 future management of the moose resource must be therefore being cooperative and strive to meet the goals of moose recovery and to maintain a healthy moose population for all British Columbians. British Columbia boasts some of the highest densities of large predators in North America. Management of moose in British Columbia is the responsibility of the ministry of FLNRO. One of the management principles of the British Columbia Moose Management Framework is that “First Nations harvest needs are to be considered and accommodated prior to calculation of the Annual Allowable Harvest (AAH) for resident and commercially guided hunters in BC.” However, that document also recognizes that actual First Nation harvest is unknown (FLNRO, 2015). The ministry annually monitors the regulated harvest of moose by resident hunters via the hunter sample questionnaire and by non-resident hunters through the guide declarations. The harvest of moose by resident hunters “although substantial, is regulated and is not a major conservation concern. However, uncontrolled harvesting from illegal poaching and legal First Nations hunting is a major concern in some areas” (Blood, 2000). Having knowledge of First Nations harvest of moose is critical to ensure sustainable use of moose for First Nations, recreational hunting and guide outfitting. To establish sustainable harvest regulations, wildlife managers must be able to reasonably estimate this harvest. In order that the cumulative moose harvest by the three consumptive user groups (First Nations, resident hunters, guide outfitters) is sustainable, it is imperative that all users participate and cooperate in moose management. A major gap in information is a reliable estimate for First Nation’s requirements and harvest. It is also important that all users share in the harvest and abide by sustainable management practices, including harvest allocations, including sex and age components, and restrictions when harvest objectives are exceeded. 2.6.1 Recommendations for First Nations Harvest • Working with First Nations to accurately document and report harvest and integrating this information to inform the AAH. • Promote the development of hunting regulations administered by First Nations for their community members. 2.7 P R EDATO R MA NAGEM ENT It is imperative that all users participate and cooperate in moose management. Predators are an important component of a functioning ecosystem. British Columbia boasts some of the highest densities of large predators in North America with an estimated 15,000 grizzly bears, 120,000–160,000 black bears, and 8,500 wolves (FLNRO 2012, MELP 2001, and FLNRO 2014). It has been well documented that all three species prey on moose. Previous studies of moose have shown that typical annual survival rates of adult females and bulls are quite high varying from 85-94% (Bangs et al. 1989, Larsen et al. 1989, Ballard et al. 1991). Recently Kuzyk et al. (2015) found similar adult survival of collared cow moose in the interior of British Columbia with rates of 92 ± 8% in 2013/14 and 92 ± 5% in 2014/15. Predator density and habitat condition are key variables influencing predation on moose, and increased road density has been identified as reducing 14 habitat quality for moose while enhancing predation on this species as well as other ungulates (Beazley et al. 2004, Antiouk et al 2007, and Environment Canada 2014). These interactive factors are discussed in more detail in separate sections of this position paper. While adult survival is generally high, numerous studies have shown that predation on calves can be a major limiting factor on moose population rate of growth, with calf survival ranging from 18 73% (ADF&G 2015, Ballard et al. 1991, Bertram and Vivion 2002, Gasaway et al. 1992, Larsen et al. 1989, Patterson et al. 2013, Young and Boertje 2011, Van Ballenberge and Dart 1982). In multiple predator systems like British Columbia, grizzly bears, black bears, and wolves are responsible for the majority of predation on moose (ADF&G 2015, Ballard et al. 1991, Bergerud and Elliot 1992, Bertram and Vivion 2002, Gasaway et al. 1992, Larsen et al. 1985, Patterson et al. 2013, Young and Boertje 2011, Van Ballenberge and Dart 1982). One study in Alaska documented that calves in that multiple predator (i.e. grizzly, black bear and wolf) system experienced less than 20% survival in their first year of life, with predators accounting for up to 90% of all mortalities (ADF&G 2015). In the boreal forest of northern Canada and Alaska where bears (either black, grizzly or both) and wolves are major predators on moose and have little hunting pressure, densities of moose are forced to exist well below habitat carrying capacity (ADF&G 2008, Gasaway et al. 1992). Winter surveys of calf to cow ratios in many multiple predator systems ranged from 10 to 55 calves per 100 cows (ADF&G 2012, FLNRO 2015). In contrast, on a large predator-free Island (Kaligan) in Alaska’s Cook Inlet the winter moose calf to cow ratios can be as high as 89 calves per 100 cows (Alaska 2012). Recent surveys conducted by Kuzyk et al (2015) in the winter of 2014/15 identified rates of 8 to 37 calves per 100 cows suggesting high calf mortality in the interior of British Columbia as well. Many First Nations and residents of Canada and Alaska consider moose as a subsistence necessity. In addition, they are a substantial economic driver for many families and businesses in rural communities who, for a living, guide and service non-resident hunters (ADF&G 2014, Responsive Management 2013, Pacific Analytics 2002). Not surprisingly, therefore, many jurisdictions have historically carried out predator reduction programs to increase moose populations for the benefit of these families and communities (ADF&G 2014, Bergerud and Elliot 1992, Demarchi and Hartwig 1998, Russell 2010). In British Columbia and Yukon, certain First Nations have themselves traditionally located wolf dens and killed pups for this purpose. In Alaska, predator control programs continue to be carried out by the Department of Fish and Game which is mandated by the Alaska State Constitution to manage wildlife on a sustained yield basis “sustained yield.” The Alaska Statute is defined as “the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of the ability to support a high level of human harvest of game, subject to the preferences among beneficial uses…” (ADF&G 2014.) In recent times, such programs have been intensively criticized and resisted by animal rights advocates. When implemented correctly many of these programs have been successful in increasing ungulate populations (ADF&G 2014, 15 Many jurisdictions have historically carried out predator reduction programs to increase moose populations for these families and communities. Demarchi and Hartwig 1998, Russell 2010). For example, following a number of years of wolf removal in the Muskwa area in northern British Columbia the moose population increased from an estimated 18,500 in 1982 to 26,800 in 1989 (Bergerud and Elliot 1992). In Alaska’s Unit 13 a targeted wolf reduction program in the recent 2000s was successful in increasing moose populations from an estimated 12,000 at the low to 17,000 following approximately 8 years of wolf removal. As a result, the legal harvest of moose eventually doubled (ADF&G 2014). In addition to habitat protection, predator control was identified as a step required to maintain herds, while habitat recovery took place. Because of the highly controversial nature of predator reduction programs, the government in British Columbia has elected to conduct predator removal only when a threatened or endangered species, such as southern populations of mountain caribou, are at risk of extirpation (FLNRO 2014). Much of the recent focus on predator reduction in the province, particularly of wolves, has been a result of recommendations in the ECCC Caribou Recovery Strategy (Environment Canada 2014). In addition to habitat protection, predator control was identified as a step required to maintain herds, while habitat recovery took place. The ECCC strategy recommends reducing wolf density to 0.003 wolves/ km2 within caribou matrix habitat to allow herds to recover. There are a number of predator related strategies being implemented for protection of caribou including wolf reduction and penning of maternal caribou (http://www.westmo. org/news/klinse-za-caribou-maternal-release). Obviously, efforts to reduce predators for protection of caribou could lead to increases in moose numbers as well. Of concern to those with a stake in the moose resource, however, is the additional ECCC recommendation for implementation of alternate prey management to help limit predator numbers and predation on caribou. Environment Canada (2014) states that “This threat (risk of predation) can be mitigated through coordinated land and/or resource planning, and habitat restoration and management, in conjunction with predator and alternate prey management where local population unit conditions warrant such action”. Section 6.1 of the recovery program also identifies that there are activities underway that include predator and alternate prey management projects in some ranges where subpopulations of southern mountain caribou are declining. The theory of “apparent competition” or “prey subsidy” described in Wilson (2009) which is the basis of a recommendation for moose reduction, has not been tested empirically in mountain caribou but has been explored theoretically by Lessard et al. (2005). Wilson (2009) provided no empirical evidence of success of this strategy from any study of predator/prey systems in British Columbia or any other wild predator prey system from any jurisdiction. This suggests there is no guarantee of success and an unquantifiable risk of not meeting the objectives of limiting predation on caribou by reducing moose numbers. Currently there are two small pilot projects (the Parsnip River and Revelstoke) being undertaken to evaluate the theory in British Columbia. It is acknowledged in the ECCC caribou recovery strategy (Environment Canada 2014) that habitat recovery is the long-term objective but predator control is required in the short term to support recovery. 16 2.7.1 Recommendations for Predator Management • Initiate and maintain active predator control that reduces wolf population to densities of 0.003 wolves/km2 in moose winter habitat. This metric is based on target predator densities within areas identified as caribou matrix habitat by Environment Canada (2014). • Management of other predators including cougar, black bear, and grizzly bear must also be considered as these species also impact moose, particularly calf survival. This requires density objectives be established for all predators. 2. 8 ACCESS MAN AGE M ENT Access to wilderness areas has increased substantially in the past decade; facilitated by industrial oil and gas development in the northeast, exploration in the north, and road construction to support the harvest of mountain pine beetle impacted timber throughout much of the interior of British Columbia. The linear extent of roads was reported to have doubled between 1988 and 1999, and as of 2007 there were a reported 110,000 km of seismic lines mostly in the northeast of British Columbia (Gayton 2007). The province of British Columbia had mapped road densities confirming that as of 2003 a substantial portion of the central interior and northeast British Columbia currently had road densities that exceed 0.7 km/km2 (https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/mr/mr112/ page19.pdf). This was prior to the extensive development that has occurred in the past decade. Daigle (2010) suggested that resource roads for industrial activity were between 400,000 km to 550,000 km in cumulative length. Daigle (2010) also cited studies for forest lands associated with Quesnel (a 2.7 million ha study area) and Kamloops (a 2.0 million ha study area) that indicted that as of 2007, 76% and 89% of watersheds in each study area respectively had road densities that exceeded 0.5 km/km2. These results can be extended to other areas of the British Columbia interior. 17 Road densities exceeding 1.2 km/km2 have been found to impact ungulate habitat value by promoting wolf access and movement. The effects of increased road density on wildlife listed by Daigle (2010) that have the greatest likely impact on moose populations include: • Increased wildlife road kills and injuries • Increased mortality (and injuries) because of expanded hunting pressure and poaching • Loss of habitat from clearing of vegetation • Fragmentation of habitat • Increased wildlife harassment and human–wildlife conflicts • Modified wildlife behavior and condition (such as changes to animal movement, dispersal, or migration; home range shifts; reduced body mass, reproduction, or survivorship; habituation to human presence; road avoidance and altered escape responses) • Altered predator–prey relations, including increased access by wolves The increase in the number and use of off road vehicles in British Columbia is also facilitated by an increase in roads and access and this activity greatly increases opportunity for disturbance and morality of moose. • Contaminant emissions (e.g., road salt, oil, gasoline, metals, or other chemicals), noise and other disturbances may extend into roadside vegetation for varying distances, resulting in changes in species composition and contaminated soil, plants, animals, and water. Road salt may attract animals, increasing their vulnerability to human or predator interactions Road densities exceeding 1.2 km/km2 have been found to impact ungulate habitat value by promoting wolf access and movement (Antiouk et al. 2007) and this metric has been used for impact assessment of industrial developments in British Columbia, as well as directing the caribou recovery strategy (Environment Canada 2014) in habitat enhancement and predator control initiatives. Moose have been found to be negatively impacted when road density exceeds 0.6 km/ km2 and this has been identified as a cautionary threshold for degradation to moose habitat (Beazley et al. 2004). At low road densities (0.16 km/km2) Laurian et al (2012) found moose both avoided and were attracted to roads dependent upon season. The increase in the number and use of off road vehicles in British Columbia is also facilitated by an increase in roads and access and this activity greatly increases opportunity for disturbance and mortality of moose. Daigle (2010) cited numerous calls to develop a strategic plan to reduce access but to date a province-wide plan to reduce road and seismic line access has not been initiated. Of additional concern is the increased access with the use of river boats for accessing moose along river systems. There is no information on the extent of this harvest but it is important that this method be monitored. PHOTO RON TECH2000 2.8.1 Recommendations for Access Management • Develop a provincial access management strategy to provide direction to decision-makers road density, types of deactivation, screening cover, where and when to reclaim roads to natural conditions • Reduce road (including trails, seismic and other linear structures) densities to below 0.6 km/km2 (lower densities as low as 0.16 km/km2 18 may be required to meet regional objectives) in moose winter habitat and calving habitat. Only revegetation and obliteration as defined by Daigle (2010) will be sufficient to reduce predation and human disturbance to a point where excessive access no longer negatively impact moose. Strategically manage future access working with industry to maintain road densities well below the 0.6 km/km2 threshold (targeting densities as low as 0.16 km/km2 may be reflective of some regional objectives). This should include complete reclamation to natural conditions of “in-block” or spur roads to enhance moose habitat. • Monitor the extent of river boat access for facilitating moose harvest. 2. 9 HABITAT E NH AN C EM ENT AND PR OTEC TION Habitat is key to sustaining a healthy moose population and moose require a diversity of forage and cover types throughout the year. Appendix 1 details moose ecology and key habitat requirements in British Columbia. Kelsall and Telfer (1974) attribute climate as the most likely general factor limiting moose distribution, with high winter snowfalls and high summer temperatures specifically determining the extent of moose range. In general, winter range is considered to be the most limiting habitat. Winter habitat includes low elevation areas associated with valley bottoms that receive low snow pack relative to the rest of the landscape. Good winter range also provides moose abundant woody browse and include common forage species such as willow (Salix sp.), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera sp. trichocarpa), red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), Douglas maple (Acer glabrum), birch (Betula sp.), and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) (Ehlers, Bennett, and Corbett 1998; United States Forest Service 2006). Moose will browse bark off larger aspen, and conifer regeneration, particularly subalpine-fir (Abies lasiocarpa), may also be browsed in winter. While browse availability has been identified as the major factor determining habitat suitability in winter (Yazvenko et al. 2002), security cover and thermal (snow) interception are also important, enabling moose to avoid predators, primarily wolf and wolverine in winter; these species as well as black bears and 19 Habitat is key to sustaining a healthy moose population and moose require a diversity of forage and cover types throughout the year. grizzly bears in spring and summer; and all species, as well as human hunters, in fall. Cover and forage are thus important throughout the year. Spring range must provide abundant, early- greening forage essential for moose recovery after winter, while security cover and connectivity across the landscape is important for calving and calf rearing. Higher elevation lakes and wetlands with abundant emergent and submergant vegetation are key habitat components for moose in summer, providing thermal relief and nutritious forage. Moose habitat is currently provided some protection in British Columbia, however habitat management is not consistent and objectives can change with industry priorities and land status. While parks, ecological reserves and recreation areas offer protection for habitat in some specific locations, the majority of the province is non-protected Crown land, and the most important moose habitat is associated with lower elevations typically within the timber harvest landbase (THLB). This suggests that the two provincial Acts that can provide the most protection for moose habitat are the Forest and Ranges Protection Act, (FRPA; 2004) and the Oil and Gas Activities Act (OGAA; 2008). FRPA regulates forest development and under Government Act Regulations (GAR) areas may be designated as an ungulate winter range (UWR) or as a more general wildlife habitat area (WHA) for a range of wildlife species, including moose. To be designated a moose UWR the area must be identified as being necessary for the winter survival of moose. Furthermore, the total area of habitat designated for all species must not exceed a specified area of the timber harvesting land base, which the current policy identifies as 1% of mature timber harvesting land base with the impact tied to Timber Supply Review (TSR). This includes UWR and WHA for all species not just moose. Within an area delineated as a UWR there are general wildlife measures (GWMs) identified to integrate industrial development and habitat management. Areas designated, as UWR are not necessarily protected, as industrial activities may occur under GWM constraints. To date it appears that the 1% THLB “budget” of UWR has not been applied, and there is little else providing for protection of moose habitat during forest development. The salvage logging triggered by the mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic brought about large-scale change in forest utilization practices in British Columbia that had significant consequences across the THLB. This included a shift to volume-based tenure and the abandonment of the fiveyear development plans, which were replaced by the more generalized forest stewardship plans (FSPs) managed under professional reliance guidelines by Registered Professional Foresters (RPFs). The majority of these plans have little detail or substantial commitment to manage moose habitat, and there are often no requirements to manage for movement corridors, free-to-grow, reforestation, or any integrated natural resource management approaches that would maintain the ecological function of the landbase. During the period of MPB salvage logging there has not been sufficient oversight from non-industryrelated expertise, as FSPs and development are managed based on the expertise of RPFs, which have clear shortfalls when integrating the non-timber values into the forest ecosystem. 20 The result is large swaths of deforested area across many of the most productive biogeoclimatic zones in the interior of British Columbia, and a substantial increase in access afforded by new roads used to extract the timber, exceeding the 0.6 km/km2 threshold road density identified as generally detrimental to moose (Beazley et al 2004). The resulting impact is that much of the forest lands in the interior no longer function as natural forest ecosystems capable of providing moose habitat, an observation echoed by Morris (2015) in his report to FLNRO. The biological carrying capacity of the landbase for moose has decreased as a result, and there is currently no large-scale program in place to recover habitat function. While the nutritional carrying capacity of the land for moose based on the digestible energy intake and energy requirements as calculated by Dungan et al. (2010) or Crete (1989) may recover as the cutblocks succeed to shrub seral stage, the lack of cover (and thus availability/accessibility of these food resources to moose) will have substantial impact for many years. When managing for ungulate production in other systems, an optimum moose density for ensuring MSY harvesting has occurred between 50% and 75% of the nutritional carrying capacity (K). This interval represents the population phase of greatest productivity and occurs at or above the inflection point of a sigmoidal numeric growth curve (representing density) and its relationship to K. For some other ungulates this interval is believed to occur at lower densities, perhaps 50% of K (Mentis 1977). Most importantly, above 75% of K productivity begins to flatten and quality of the moose herd can decline and impact to habitat increase. This clearly suggests that habitat recovery for moose in British Columbia will need to account for the relationship between moose density and the available area of suitable habitat. In areas where the mountain pine beetle epidemic was not a driving influence in salvage logging, and within some FSPs, management of the forest resource does include procedures to reforest harvested areas. The reforestation is directed, however, at rapid growth of conifer to meet free to grow requirements with a focus on rapidly producing conifer forest for the next rotation, consistent with objectives mandated by FRPA. As woody deciduous shrubs are seen as competition for regenerating conifers, this results in silviculture activities that are not compatible with browse production and the enhancement of the landbase for recovering moose carrying capacity to historic habitat values. This 21 In areas where the mountain pine beetle epidemic was not a driving influence in salvage logging, and within some FSPs, management of the forest resource does include procedures to reforest harvested areas. approach reduces potential availability of moose browse through herbicide application, brushing and weeding, and by generally promoting rapid conifer regeneration is not conducive to moose production and it is contrary to an approach that integrates the value of all natural resources on the forests lands. Similar objectives of rapid reforestation and reducing browse production have also been legislated as general wildlife measures (GWMs) of caribou ungulate winter ranges (UWRs). Recently (May 24, 2016) legislated northern caribou UWRs 7-025 and 7-026 affect a combined area over 1.3 million ha with GWMs directed at limiting moose winter browse in cutblocks on winter range to less than 8% of the area. Of additional concern in some regions is the impact of livestock grazing on moose browse, Lewis (2015) identified grazing pressure by cattle as having substantial influence on the quality of habitat in the Thompson Okanagan Region. Access and management of Crown range is FLNRO responsibility and is regulated by FRPA. With respect to the oil and gas industry, the OGAA Environmental Protection and Management Regulation, Section 6, referring to “Wildlife & Wildlife Habitat”, does differ from the FRPA, but similarly requires UWRs and WHAs GWMs to approach similar forest development strategies. Thus there are no provisions in either FRPA or OGAA that manage for consideration of road density or access management from the perspective of their potential impact on moose. Mining activity in British Columbia currently has no legislated requirement to follow the UWR/WHA GWMs, unless such activities require forest cutting permits, where FRPA regulations apply. Wildlife burns are well known to create habitat for wildlife, including moose. Historically the maintenance and promotion of moose habitat has taken a lower priority to forest and industrial development resulting in decreases in landbase capability to sustain moose, which has potentially reduced the moose carrying capacity of provincial lands for decades to come. Another method to create wildlife habitat is through wildlife burns. Unfortunately, wildlife burns have reduced in recent years for a variety of reasons. Wildlife burns are well known to create habitat for wildlife, including moose. Government needs to reduce the “red-tape” to allow more wildlife burns and to encourage forest companies to conduct wildlife burns by limiting that liability of fire escapement. 22 2.9.1 Recommendations for Moose Habitat Enhancement and Protection • Replace on professional reliance model with a natural resource practice board that would bring resource extraction, planning, and harvest practices back to provincial jurisdiction. • • Habitat capability (i.e., the carrying capacity (K)) will vary among game management zones (GMZ) but assuming most will support a density of between 0.75 and 3.0 moose/km2 then that should be the habitat management objective. The moose population should then be managed to maintain moose density at or above 75% of K. Intensive habitat enhancement will be required to meet those targets. Detailed assessments of each GMZ will be required to determine what specific sites should be addressed and how best to modify them to reach and maintain maximum capability over time. • Additional areas of UWRs and WHAs must be identified and managed for moose regardless of impact to THLB and that the GWMs associated with these areas must be modified to effectively protect and enhance moose habitat features. The GWMs must involve all industrial activities that occur on the landscape equally and support protecting moose habitat as an equivalent objective and not secondary to industrial interests. The GWMs must be enforceable and contravention must have legal penalty consequences applied. • Reducing use of herbicides within moose habitat, and incorporating silviculture prescriptions that prolong the availability of moose browse through forest rotation. This may require regionally specific lengthening of forest rotation, reduced stocking rates and flexibility from free-togrow requirements in sensitive areas, such as area with high winter range capability. • Promote wildlife burns by reducing “red-tape” and remove the liability of forest companies from fire escapement 2. 10 EN VIR ONMEN TA L A S S ES S M ENT AND MITIGATION In British Columbia industrial developments may or may not require a review of their potential environmental impacts before the project is permitted to proceed. Reviewable projects are determined from criteria identified by the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) Environmental Assessment Act (EAA 2002) Reviewable Projects Regulation. In addition, some projects may require review by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) based on federal criteria identified in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA 2012). In British Columbia forest harvesting is exempt from environmental assessment, with the exception of some wood processing activities. With respect to moose conservation, if moose occur in areas associated with a project that is in the environmental assessment process, moose are typically 23 included as a wildlife valued component (VC). This requires collection of baseline data on population, distribution and habitat use within a study area affected by the project. The level of intensity of baseline work is variable and dictated by the EAO and regulators and is laid out in the application information requirements (AIR) prior to the assessment being conducted. The information may range in detail, but large projects often include a winter survey to RISC absolute abundance / level 1 intensity and habitat suitability mapping using standardized RISC procedures (RIC 1999) for 1:20,000 scale ecosystem mapping. Small projects may rely on habitat mapping alone for assessment. This information is used to evaluate the impacts from various effects (disturbance, habitat loss, human activity, pollution etc.). These effects are then evaluated and mitigation is proposed to reduce impacts. The project is generally required to develop a wildlife mitigation and management plan that identifies how impacts will be reduced and often includes plans for moose habitat restoration and reclamation of disturbed areas during or after operation. Mitigating and managing for access and human interactions are also included in these plans. In area where caribou may be influenced, a caribou mitigation and management plan (CMMP) is often required. The actions associated with CMMPs can be contrary to moose management objectives and effort is needed to ensure objectives for both species are met. In the short term both species will benefit from active predator control. No obligation to mitigate cumulative effects. In addition, recommendations for mitigation of impacts and for appropriate management for moose often provide few details, and there is no obligation to mitigate cumulative effects. In 2016 the Cumulative Effects Framework completed a Grizzly Bear — Value Summary. The Moose — Value Summary needs to be completed and released. As industrial development increases on the landscape, we need to better balance the resource extraction authorization with effective moose management. 2.10.1 Recommendations for Environmental Assessment and Mitigation • The environmental assessment process must remain robust and effort directed at defining moose baseline information and mitigation. • Moose management and mitigation plans need to have quantifiable objectives that include habitat goals, population objectives and effort directed at mediating cumulative effects (e.g. access reductions). Monitoring and adaptive management need to be a consistent and mandated component of the moose MMP. • CMMPs that are directed for mitigation of projects where caribou recovery is an objective must also have mitigation that is compatible with maintaining moose management objectives. In the short term this will require an emphasis on active predator control, abandonment of alternate prey theory as a management objective and on longer-term goals for recovering both moose and caribou habitat. • Complete and release the Cumulative Effects Framework report on moose 24 3 CONCLUSION The challenge for British Columbian wildlife managers is they do not have enough control over all the moose management levers. Now that the moose declines have received provincial attention, resources are being applied to recover the moose populations. The provincial government is encouraged to use all management levers at its disposal to recover moose populations and set a course where moose (and all wildlife) values are considered when land use decisions are made. Decisions to support wildlife and their habitat are an important investment that will benefit all British Columbians. 25 REFEREN CES 2012. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. S.C. C. 19 S. 52 Operations (MFLNRO). 2015. Provincial Framework for Moose Management in B.C. Victoria, B.C. 2002. Environmental Assessment Act, SBC.C.43 B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, BC. British Columbia Grizzly Bear Population Estimate for 2012. (Accessed June 2016). http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/docs/Grizzly_ Bear_Pop_Est_Report_Final_2012.pdf 2004. Forest and Range Practices Act, SBC. C. 69. 2008. Oil and Gas Activities Act, SBS.C. 36 ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2015. Operational Plan for Intensive Management of Moose in Game Management Unit 16 During Regulatory Years 2015-2017. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/research/ programs/intensivemanagement/pdfs/2015_gmu_16_ intensive_management_operational_plan.pdf (Accessed (June 2016). Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2008. Overview of the relationships of bears, wolves and moose in Alaska, Division of Wildlife Conservation. (Accessed June 2016). http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index. cfm?adfg=intensivemanagement.predatorprey Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Moose management report of survey-inventory activities 1 July 2009–30 June 2011, P. Harper, editor. Species Management Report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2012-5, Juneau, Alaska. (Accessed June 2016). http://www.adfg. alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/mgt_rpts/ moose_12.pdf Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2014. Stories of Success — Alaska’s intensive management programs incorporate science and action to benefit Alaskans. Alaska, Division of Wildlife Conservation. (Accessed June 2016). http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/research/ programs/intensivemanagement/pdfs/intensive_ management_stories_of_success.pdf Antoniuk, T., T. Raabis, D. Culling, B Culling, A. Creagh. 2007. Snake-Sahtaneh Boreal Caribou Study: Cumulative Effect Component. Prepared for Science and Community Environmental Knowledge Fund. August 2007. Ballard, W. B., J. S. Whitman, D. J. Reed. 1991. Population dynamics of moose in South-central Alaska. Wildlife Monographs 114. Bangs, E. E., T. N. Bailey, and M. F. Portner. 1989. Survival rates of adult female moose on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 53: 557-563. BC Ministry of Forests Lands and Natural Resource B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO). 2014. Management Plan for the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) in British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, BC. 48 pp. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. 2001. Black Bears in British Columbia – Ecology, Conservation and Management. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Victoria BC. 6 pp. Beazley, K., Snaith, T., Mackinnon, F., & Colville, D. (2004). Road density and potential impacts on wildlife species such as American moose in mainland Nova Scotia. Proceedings of the Nova Scotian Institute of Science, 42(2), 339-357. Bergerud, A.T. and J.P. Elliott. 1992. Wolf predation in a multiple ungulate system in northern British Columbia. Can. J. Zool. 76: 1551 – 1569. Bertram, M. R., and M. T. Vivion. 2002. Moose mortality in eastern Interior Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management Blood, D.A. 2000. Moose in British Columbia. Habitat Conservation Trust Fund publication. BC Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks. Victoria, B.C. Boertje, R. D, M. A. Keech, T. F. Paragi. 2010. Science and Values influencing predator control for Alaska moose management. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:917-928.66:747–756. Boertje, R. D, K. A. Kellie, C. T. Seaton, M. A. Keech, D. D. Young, B. W. Dale, L. G. Adams, and A. R. Aderman. 2007. Ranking Alaska moose nutrition: signals to begin liberal antlerless harvest. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1494-1506. Boertje, R. D, M. A. Keech, D. D. Young, K. A. Kellie, C. T. Seaton. 2009. Managing for Elevated Yield of Moose in Interior Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(3):314-327. 26 Boertje, R. D, M. A. Keech, T. F. Paragi. 2010. Science and Values influencing predator control for Alaska moose management. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:917-928. Child, K.N. 1983. Selective Harvest of moose in the Omineca: Some preliminary results. Alces 19: 162-177. Child, K.N. and D.A. Aitken. 1989. Selective harvests, hunters and moose in central British Columbia. Alces 25:81-97. Crete, M. (1989). Approximation of K carrying capacity for moose in eastern Quebec. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 67(2), 373-380. Cowan, I. M. and C. G. Guiget. 1978. The Mammals of British Columbia Handbook No. 11. 7th printing ed. Victoria, B.C.: Provincial Museum of British Columbia Daigle, P. 2010. A summary of the environmental impacts of roads, management responses, and research gaps: A literature review. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 10(3):65–89. www.forrex.org/publications/ jem/ISS52/vol10_no3_art8.pdf Dungan, J., Shipley, L. A., & Wright, G. R. (2010). Activity patterns, foraging ecology, and summer range carrying capacity of moose (Alces alces shirasi) in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Alces: A Journal Devoted to the Biology and Management of Moose, 46, 71-87. Elliot, J. P. 1985. Kechika Enhancement Project of Northeastern B.C. Annual Report. BC Ministry of Environment. Environment Canada. 2014. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain population (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. viii + 103 pp. Euler, D. 1983. Selective harvest, compensatory mortality and moose in Ontario. Alces 19:148–161. Gasaway, W. C., R. D. Boertje, D.V. Grangaard, D.G. Kelleyhouse, R. O. Stephenson, and D. G. Larsen. 1992. The role of predation in limiting moose at low densities in Alaska and Yukon and implications for conservation. Wildlife Monographs 92. Gayton, D. 2007. Major impacts to biodiversity in British Columbia (excluding climate change). Forrex report to the Biodiversity BC technical subcommittee. Gervasi, V., E. B. Nilsen, H. Sand, M. Panzacchi, G. R. Rauset, H. C. Pedersen, J. Kindberg, P. Wabakken, B. Zimmermann, J. Odden, O. Liberg, J. E. Swenson, and J. D. C. Linnell. 2012. Predicting the potential demographic impact of predators on their prey: a comparative analysis of two carnivore-ungulate systems in Scandinavia. Journal of Animal Ecology 81:443–454. Hatter, I. W. 1999. An evaluation of moose harvest management in central and northern British Columbia. Alces 35:91-103. Kelsall, J. P. and E. S. Telfer. 1974. Biogeography of moose with particular reference to western North America. Naturaliste Canadien 101 117-30. Kuzyk, G., S. Marshall, M. Klaczek, and M. Gillingham. 2015. Determining factors affecting moose population change in British Columbia: testing the landscape change hypothesis. Progress Report: February 2012-July 2015. B.C. Minist. For., Lands and Nat. Resour. Operations. Victoria, BC. Wildl. Working Report. No. WR-122. 9pp. Larsen, D. G., D. A. Gauthier, and R. L. Markel. 1989. Causes and rate of moose mortality in the southwest Yukon. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:548–557. Larsen, D. G., R. Markel, and R. Hayes. 1985. Management of Moose and their Predators in Southwest Yukon – A Summary of Current Information. Government of Yukon. Lavsun, S., T. Nyrgren, and E. J. Soleburg. 2003. Status of moose populations and challenges to moose management in Fennoscandia. Alces 39: 109-130. Laurian, C., Dussault, C., Ouellet, J. P., Courtois, R., & Poulin, M. (2012). Interactions between a large herbivore and a road network. Ecoscience, 19(1), 69-79. LeBlanc, J.W., McLaren, B.E., Perieral, C., Bell, M., and Atlookan, S. 2011. First Nations Moose Hunt in Ontario: a Community’s Perspectives and Reflections. Alces Vol. 47:163-174 Lessard, R. B. 2005. Conservation of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in west-central Alberta: a simulation analysis of multi-species predator–prey systems. Dissertation, Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton. Lewis, D. 2015. Cumulative Effects Assessment Procedure for Moose in the Thompson Okanagan Region. Presentation to the Moose & Watershed Stewardship Pilot Tripartite Working Group–March 11th, 2015 Kamloops, BC 27 McTaggart Cowan, I, Guiguet, C. J. 1965. The Mammals of British Columbia. BC Provincial Museum Handbook No. 11. Victoria BC. 376-381 Mentis, M. T. (1977). Stocking Rates and Carrying Capacities for Ungulates on African Rangelands. Natal Parks Board. Morris, M. 2015. Getting the Balance Right; Improving Wildlife Habitat Management In British Columbia Strategic Advice To The Minister Of Forests Lands And Natural Resource Operations http://www.env.gov. bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/docs/getting_ the_balance_right_improving_wildlife_habitat_ management_in_british_columbia.pdf Russell, D. 2010. A Review of Wolf Management Programs in Alaska, Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta, and Northwest Territories. Shadow Lake Environmental Consulting. Sand, H., C. Wikenros, P. Ahlqvist, T. H. Stromseth, and P. Wabakken. 2012. Comparing body condition of moose (Alces alces) selected by wolves (Canis lupus) and human hunters: consequences for the extent of compensatory mortality. Canadian Journal of Zoology 90:403–412. Shackleton, D. 1999. Hoofed Mammals of BC. Royal BC Museum Handbook. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. 120-135 National Research Council. 1997. Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management. 224 pp. Stewart, R.R., MacLennan, R. R. 1977. Saskatchewan Moose Harvesting Program. Department of Tourism and Renewable Resources, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Responsive Management. 2013. Expenditures of British Columbia Resident Hunters. Telfer, E. S., & Scotter, G. W. (1975). Potential for game ranching in boreal aspen forests of western Canada. Journal of Range Management Archives, 28(3), 172-180. Nilsen, E. B., T. Pettersen, H. Gundersen, J.M. Milner, A. Mysterud, E. J. Solberg, H. Andreassen, and N. C. Stenseth. 2005. Moose harvesting strategies in the presence of wolves. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:389–399. Pacific Analytics Inc. 2002. The Guide Outfitting Industry in BC: An Economic Analysis of 2002. Peterson, R. L. 1974. A review of the general life history of moose. Naturaliste Canadien 101 (9-21): Reeves, H.M., McCabe, R.E.1998. Of Moose and Man. In: Ecology and Management of the North American Moose, Franzmann, and Schwatz, editors. Wildlife Management Institute. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington and London. 1-75 RIC. 2002. Aerial-based Inventory Methods for Selected Ungulates: Bison, Mountain Goat, Mountain Sheep, Moose, Elk, Deer & Caribou. Standards for Components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 32. Victoria, BC: Prepared by Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch for Terrestrial Ecosystem Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee (RIC). RIC. 1999. British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings Standards. Version 2.0. Victoria, BC: Prepared by Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch for Terrestrial Ecosystem Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee (RIC). United States Forest Service. 2006. Alces alces. Biological Data and Habitat Requirements. http://www.fs.fed.us/ database/feis/wildlife/mammal/alal/all.html. (accessed May 26, 2006) Van Ballenberge, V., and J. Dart. 1982. Harvest yields from moose populations subject to wolf and bear predation. Alces 18:258-275. Wilson, S.F. 2009. Recommendations for Predator-Prey Management to Benefit the Recovery of Mountain Caribou in British Columbia, BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/speciesconservation/mc/ files/Recommendations_Predator-Prey_Management_ Final.pdf Xu, C. and Boyce, M. 2010. Optimal harvesting of moose in Alberta. Alces 46: 15-35. Yazvenko, B. S., G. F. Searing, and M. W. Demarchi. 2002. Wildlife Habitat Assessment in the Nass Wildlife Area. Smithers, BC: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Young, D. D., Jr, and R.D. Boertje. 2004. Initial use of moose calf hunts to increase yield. Alces 40: 1-6. Young, D. D., Jr, and R.D. Boertje. 2011. Prudent and imprudent use of antlerless moose harvests in interior Alaska. Alces 47: 91-100. 28 APPENDIX 1 Ecol ogy a nd Ke y H a bitat R eq u irem ent s o f M o o se 29 APPEND IX 1. ECOLOGY AND K E Y HAB ITAT RE QUIRE M E N TS OF M OOS E G E N ER AL Moose utilize a variety of different habitats depending on the season. Moose are generalist herbivores and are described as “browsers”, obtaining their food from aquatic plants, grasses, lichens, bark, twigs, and young shoots of trees and shrubs. Common browse species throughout their range include willow (Salix sp.), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera sp. trichocarpa), redosier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), Douglas maple (Acer glabrum), birch (Betula sp.), and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) (Ehlers, Bennett, and Corbett 1998; United States Forest Service 2006). Browse, an important component of their diet, varies depending on the availability, palatability and nutritional value of other available plant species. Kelsall and Telfer (1974) attribute climate as the most likely limiting factor to moose expansion, with high winter snowfalls and high summer temperatures determining the extent of moose range. Winter is the critical season for moose and the presence of forest cover adjacent to foraging areas is essential. In winter, moose exist on woody, low-quality, difficult to digest browse; however, when snow cover allows, they may consume non-woody vegetation and succulent species (LeResche and Davis 1973). Moose are adapted for high snowfall areas, having long legs and low foot loads (Coady 1974; Kelsall and Telfer 1974), and can usually use areas where snow depths are high (Kelsall and Prescott 1971; Coady 1974; Kelsall and Telfer 1974). Snow density and crusting has an effect on the depth of snow that a moose can use, with higher density snow allowing for deeper snow use (Kelsall and Prescott 1971; Coady 1974). Moose will also feed on the bark of deciduous trees, especially aspen in late winter. The availability of woody food plants and snow conditions (especially snow depths greater than 1 m), limit moose winter distribution. In winter, moose move towards valley bottoms and into more mature stands of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). These forest stands provide security, protection from deep snow, bedding, and adequate forage in the understory (Halko, Hebert, and Halko 2001; Serrouya and D’Eon 2002). Other habitats utilized by moose during the winter include: riparian habitats, floodplains and other shrub dominated habitats such as shrub lands, wetlands and their edges, burns, cutovers, and other open areas (Demarchi 1986; Sopuck, Ovaska, and Jakimchuk 1997). During the summer, moose may move to higher elevation ranges to utilize forest stands for cover from heat and predation, and food resources (Sopuck, Ovaska, and Jakimchuk 1997). Moose are attracted to cool water features in the summer months, spreading out along ponds, lake shores, and swamps. Other summer habitats utilized by moose consist of the same type of habitat as the winter range: floodplains, riparian habitats and adjacent forests. Wetland habitats are used extensively for spring, summer, and fall foraging. Sedge meadows are important habitats in spring, as sedges are among the first plants to emerge from dormancy. Graminoids and forbs are preferred in spring and early summer as they become less nutritious in fall and winter (Himmer and Power 1999). Riparian areas along rivers and lakes are also favoured habitats but are not used as heavily as the spruce and shrub wetlands. Moose are easily heat stressed even at temperatures as low as -5°C. In the summer, extreme panting occurs at temperatures from 14°C to 20°C (Renecker and Hudson 1986). Areas with climates having temperatures that exceed 27°C for long periods and lack of shade do not support moose (Kelsall and Telfer 1974). Lakes, ponds, bogs, wetlands and the forests associated with these habitats are important in the summer to alleviate heat stress and provide abundant forage (Kelsall and Telfer 1974; Schwab 1985; Renecker and Hudson 1986; M. W. Demarchi and Bunnell 1993, 1995). Moose migrate seasonally from high elevations in the summer, to elevations below 1,300 m in the winter (Sopuck, Ovaska, and Jakimchuk 1997). The extent of seasonal migrations may vary depending on topography, snow fall patterns, and forage availability in certain areas. Seasonal home ranges average 2 to 10/km2 in size and vary depending on the season, although further migration occurs between seasons (Stevens and Lofts 1988). Moose seasonal habitat use varies depending on the area studied, sex, age, social status and reproductive status of the animal. General seasonal use patterns are difficult to predict and quantify due to the differences in migratory 30 patterns (LeResche, Bishop, and Coady 1974) and food preferences (Peek 1974) described by various authors. During the winter, moose are severely restricted in their movements when snow levels are greater than 90 cm, are relatively mobile if the snow levels are less than 60 cm, and prefer areas where snow depths are less than 40 cm (Coady 1974). In general, more open habitats such as burns, shrublands, and cutblocks are used during early winter or when snow levels are low and more closed canopy coniferous forests are used when snow levels increase (Coady 1974; Eastman 1974; LeResche, Bishop, and Coady 1974; Peek, Urich, and Mackie 1976; Eastman 1977; MacCracken, Ballenberghe, and Peek 1997). Spring, summer, and fall habitats tend to be open types such as cutblocks, burns, shrublands, and wetlands that have abundant browse species and aquatic habitats such as ponds, which provide aquatic browse plants (Eastman 1974; Peek 1974; Peek, Urich, and Mackie 1976; Doer 1983; MacCracken, Ballenberghe, and Peek 1997). The life span of moose is variable but estimated to last approximately 20 years. Full maturity is reached at approximately 5 or 6 years of age, and maximum fecundity occurs at the age of 10 or 11 (Peterson 1974). REPR OD UC TION Moose mate in late September to early October during the rutting period, which is a time of intense social interaction between males and between males and females (Lent 1974). The rutting period begins in mid to late September and usually lasts for approximately three weeks, but may last longer. Habitat requirements for rutting appear to be varied with respect to vegetation, topography, and proximity to human disturbance (Stevens and Lofts 1988; Sopuck, Ovaska, and Jakimchuk 1997). Usually one calf is born in late May and early June although two calves are not uncommon, especially when habitat quality is high (Franzmann and Schwartz 1985 in MacCracken, Ballenberghe, and Peek 1997). Calves stay with the female moose until the next spring and sometimes on into the fall (Stringham 1974). Female moose can become sexually mature after the first year but consistent reproductive success is not usually established until they are over 2.5 years (Simkin 1974). The most important habitat requirement in the summer is security cover for cows with young calves. This is required in order to minimize predation (Sopuck, Ovaska, and Jakimchuk 1997). Such sites are often found in large forest stands with dense cover of shrubs and forest canopy. The primary predators of moose are wolves, black bears and grizzly bears. LIT ER AT U R E C IT ED Adair, W., P. Jordon, and J. Tillma. 1991. Aquatic forage ratings according to wetland type: modifications for the Lake Superior moose HSI. Alces 27 140-49. BC CDC. 2010. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer: Search Criteria — Species Group “Vertebrates” BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC http://a100.gov. bc.ca/pub/eswp/. (accessed) Bechtold, J. P. 1996. Chemical characterization of natural mineral springs in northern British Columbia, Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24 649-54. Belovsky, G. E. and P. A. Jordon. 1981. Sodium dynamics and adaptations of a moose population. Journal of Mammalogy 62 613-21. Blood, D. A. 2000. Moose in British Columbia, ecology, conservation and management. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch. Cederlund, G. and H. Sand. 1994. Home-range size in relation to age and sex in moose. Journal of Mammalogy 74 (4): 1005-12. Coady, J. W. 1974. Influence of snow on behavior of moose. Naturaliste Canadien 101 417-36. Cowan, I. M. and C. G. Guiget. 1978. The Mammals of British Columbia Handbook No. 11. 7th printing ed. Victoria, B.C.: Provincial Museum of British Columbia. Darimont, C. T., P. Paquet, T. E. Reimchen, and V. Crichton. 2005. Range expansion by moose into coastal temperate rainforests of British Columbia, Canada. Diversity and Distributions 11:235–39. Doer, J. G. 1983. Home range size, movements and habitat use in two moose, Alces alces, populations in southeastern Alaska. Canadian Field Naturalist 97 (1): 79-88. Eastman, D. S. 1974. Habitat use by moose of burns, cutovers and forests in north-central British Columbia. Transactions of the North American Moose Conference and Workshop 8 185-207. 31 Eastman, D. S. 1977. Habitat Selection and Use in Winter by Moose in Sub-Boreal Forests of North-Central British Columbia, and Relationships to Forestry. Ph.D. thesis diss., University of British Columbia. Eastman, D. S. and R. Ritcey. 1987. Moose habitat relationships and management in British Columbia. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1 101-18. Environment Canada. 2014. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain population (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. viii + 68 pp. Fraser, D., E. R. Chavez, and J. E. Paloheimo. 1984. Aquatic feeding by moose: selection of plant species and feeding areas in relation to plant chemical composition and characteristics of lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 62 80-87. Hatler, D. F. 1988. History and Importance of Wildlife in Northern British Columbia. In The Wildlife of Northern British Columbia. Ed. R. J. Fox. p10-11. Smithers, B.C.: Spatsizi Association for Biological Research. Karns, P. D. 1998. Population Distribution, Density and Trends. In Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. Ed. A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Kelsall, J. P. and E. S. Telfer. 1974. Biogeography of moose with particular reference to western North America. Naturaliste Canadien 101 117-30. Klaus, G. and B. Schmid. 1998. Geophagy at natural licks and mammal ecology: a review. Mammalia 62 481-97. Lent, P. C. 1974. A review of rutting behavior in moose. Naturaliste Canadien 101 307-23. LeResche, R. E., R. H. Bishop, and J. W. Coady. 1974. Distribution and habitats of moose in Alaska. Naturaliste Canadien 101 143-78. LeResche, R. E. and J. L. Davis. 1973. Importance of nonbrowse foods to moose on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 37 (3): 279-87. MacCracken, J. G., V. V. Ballenberghe, and J. M. Peek. 1997. Habitat relationships of moose on the Copper river delta in coastal south-central Alaska. Wildlife Monographs 136 54. McIntyre, E. G. 1972. Bark stripping — a natural phenomenon. Journal of the Royal Scottish Forest Society 26 43-50. McNicol, J. G. and F. F. Gilbert. 1980. Late winter use of upland cutovers by moose. Journal of Wildlife Management 44 (2): 363-71. Miquelle, D. G. and V. Van Ballenberghe. 1989. Impact of bark stripping by moose on aspen-spruce communities. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:577-86. Peek, J. M. 1974. A review of moose food habits studies in North America. Le Naturaliste Canadien 101:195-215. Peek, J. M. 1998. Habitat Relationships. In Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. Ed. A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Peek, J. M., D. L. Urich, and R. J. Mackie. 1976. Moose habitat selection and relationships to forest management in northeastern Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs 48 65. Peterson, R. L. 1974. A review of the general life history of moose. Naturaliste Canadien 101 (9-21): Renecker, L. A. and R. J. Hudson. 1986. Seasonal energy expenditures and thermoregulatory responses of moose. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64 322-27. Renecker, L. A. and C. C. Schwartz. 1998. Food Habits and Feeding Behaviour. In Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. Ed. A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. RIC. 1999. British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings Standards. Version 2.0. Victoria, BC: Prepared by Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch for Terrestrial Ecosystem Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee (RIC). Risenhoover, K. L. 1985. Intraspecific Variation in Moose Preference for Willows. F. D. Provenza, J. T. Flinders, and E. D. McArthur, ed. Snowbird, Utah: Intermountain Research Station Forest Service. United States Department of Agriculture. Schwab, F. E. 1985. Moose Habitat Selection in Relation to Forest Cutting Practices in North-Central British Columbia. Ph.D. thesis diss., University of British Columbia. 32 Schwab, F. E. and M. D. Pitt. 1991. Moose selection of canopy cover types relative to operative temperature, forage and snow depth. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69 3071-77. Thompson, I. D. and M. F. Vukelich. 1981. Use of logged habitats in winter by moose cows with calves in northeastern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology 59 (11): 2103-44. Schwartz, C. C., M. E. Hubbert, and A. W. Franzmann. 1988. Energy requirements of adult moose for winter maintenance. Journal of Wildlife Management 52 26-33. Tomm, H. O., J. A. Beck Jr, and R. J. Hudson. 1981. Response of wild ungulates to logging practices in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 11 606-14. Simkin, D. W. 1974. Reproduction and productivity of moose. Naturaliste Canadien 101 517-26. United States Forest Service. 2006. Alces alces. Biological Data and Habitat Requirements. http://www.fs.fed.us/ database/feis/wildlife/mammal/alal/all.html. (accessed May 26, 2006). Stevens, V. 1995. Wildlife Diversity in British Columbia: Distribution and Habitat Use of Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals in Biogeoclimatic Zones. Victoria, B.C.: Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests; Wildlife Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Stringham, S. F. 1974. Mother-infant relations in moose. Naturaliste Canadien 101 325-69. Van Dyke, F., B. L. Probert, and G. M. Van Beek. 1995. Moose home range fidelity and core area characteristics in south-central Montana. Alces 31 93-104. Westworth, D., L. Brusnyk, J. Roberts, and H. Veldhuzien. 1989. Winter habitat use by moose in the vicinity of an open-pit mine in north-central British Columbia. Alces 25 (156-166): 33 34