Public Registry: Archives

This is the Lutsel K'e Dene First Nations' response to question #6 of the Round No. 2 of information requests.

This is additional correspondence from E. Bongelli to the WRRB providing comment on the 2020 Wolf Management Proceeding.

This is a response from TG and GNWT regarding the WRRB's 2019 Bluenose-East Reasons for Decision Report.

This is a response from TG and GNWT regarding the WRRB's 2019 Bathurst Reasons for Decision Report.

This is a response from TG and GNWT regarding the WRRB's 2016 Bluenose-East Reasons for Decision Report, Part B.

This is a response from TG and GNWT regarding the WRRB's 2016 Bluenose-East Reasons for Decision Report, Part A.

This is a response from TG and GNWT regarding the WRRB's 2016 Bathurst Reasons for Decision Report, Part B.

This is a response from TG and GNWT regarding the WRRB's 2016 Bathurst Reasons for Decision Report, Part A.

This is a response from TG and GNWT regarding the WRRB's 2010 Reasons for Decision Report.

In December 2015, the Tłı̨chǫ Government (TG) and ENR submitted the Joint Proposal on Management Actions for Bluenose-East Caribou 2016-2019 to the Board, which proposed new restrictions on hunter harvest, predator management and ongoing monitoring.  More specifically, TG and ENR proposed implementing a herd-wide total allowable harvest of 950 bulls-only and allocation for the Bluenose-East caribou herd and conducting a feasibility assessment of a full range of dìga (wolf) management actions.  The WRRB considers any specific restriction of harvest or component of harvest as the establishment of a total allowable harvest (TAH).  After review and analysis of the proposal, the WRRB complied with Section 12.3.10 of the Tłı̨chǫ Agreement and held a public hearing in Behchokǫ̀, NT on April 6-8, 2016.

The WRRB concluded, based on all available Aboriginal and scientific evidence, that a serious conservation concern exists for the Bluenose-East ɂekwǫ̀ herd and that additional management actions are vital for herd recovery.  As the Bluenose-East ɂekwǫ̀ herd situation is so dismal, the Board feels that it would be irresponsible to limit its discusison to harvest management as there is a real risk that the herd will follow the same path as the Bathurst ɂekwǫ̀ herd and face extirpation.  Therefore, this second report, Part B, will deal with self-regulation, additional predator management actions, biological and environmental monitoring, and cumulative effects.

This report describes the results of calving ground composition surveys of the Bathurst and Bluenose-East caribou herds conducted in June of 2019 near Bathurst Inlet and west of Kugluktuk in Nunavut (NU). The main purpose of the surveys was to estimate the proportion of breeding females (cows that gave birth as a proportion of all cows) which indicates the initial calf productivity on the two calving grounds. In addition, the surveys estimated the relative distribution of breeding caribou on each calving ground as well as relative abundance of predators.

The Bathurst herd’s winter range in some years overlaps the winter ranges of its neighboring herds (Bluenose East, and Beverly/Ahiak herds). The overlapping winter distribution between the herds has complicated monitoring, assigning harvests and possibly affects potential switches of cows between calving grounds. In the 2019 Reasons for Decision report for the Bluenose East caribou herd, the Wek’èezhìı Renewable Resource Board (WRRB) noted that the lack of analyses for winter distribution which contributed to the WRRB’s uncertainty about the reliability of harvest information (WRRB 2019b).
To increase understanding of the overlapping winter ranges, the WRRB initiated analyses of the caribou distribution using the Government of the Northwest Territories collared caribou. We have measured the extent of overlap at the herd and individual caribou scales which will be useful in the context of, for example, harvest and predator management and also land-use management such Caribou Mobile Measures.

1. A robust test of ecological theory is to gauge the predictive accuracy of general relationships parameterized from multiple systems but applied to a new area. To address this goal, we used an ecosystem-level experiment to test predator–prey theory by manipulating prey abundance to determine whether predation was density dependent, density independent, compensatory or depensatory (inversely density dependent) on prey populations.
2. Understanding the nature of predation is of primary importance in community ecology because it establishes whether predation has little effect on prey abundance (compensatory), whether it promotes coexistence (density dependent) and reduces the equilibrium of prey (density independent) or whether it can be destabilizing (depensatory).
3. We used theoretical predictions consisting of functional and numerical equations parameterized independently from meta-analyses on wolves (Canis lupus) and moose (Alces alces), but applied to our specific wolf–moose system. Predictions were tested by experimentally reducing moose abundance across 6500 km2 as a novel way of evaluating the nature of predation.
4. Depensatory predation of wolves on moose was the best explanation of the population dynamic – a mechanism that has been hypothesized to occur but has rarely been evaluated. Adding locally obtained kill rates and numerical estimates to the independent data provided no benefit to model predictions, suggesting that the theory was robust to local variation.
5. These findings have critical implications for any organism that is preyed upon but that also has, or will be, subject to increased human exploitation or perturbations from environmental change. If depensatory predation is not accounted for in harvest models, predicted yields will be excessive and lead to further population decline.

Key-words: adaptive management, Allee, caribou, conservation, depensatory, limitation, moose, predation, regulation, wolves

Terrestrial large carnivores are in rapid global decline, with consequences for ecosystem structure and function. Among drivers of these declines, legal hunting is unique because it is intentional and thus relatively easily controlled. Although regulated carnivore hunting potentially reduces conflict and provides revenue for conservation, it can also drive population declines (1–5). Some policies regulating carnivore hunting address negative effects on demography and population dynamics, but others do not. Here, we use wolf harvesting in the western United States to illustrate four aspects of policy that do not align well with ecological theory and data, and we suggest resolutions.

Long-term wolf (Canis lupus) research programs have provided many insights into wolf population dynamics. Understanding the mechanisms controlling responses of wolf populations to changes in density,  environmental conditions, and human-caused mortality are important as wolf management becomes increasingly intensive. Competition with humans for ungulate prey has led to large-scale wolf control programs, particularly in Alaska, and although wolf populations may sustain relatively high (e.g., 22–29%) rates of conventional harvest, control programs are specifically designed to have lasting population-level effects.
Understanding the broader impacts of wolf control efforts on the surrounding area is of particular concern for conservation agencies such as the United States National Park Service, whose mandates generally preclude the artificial reduction of populations of native predators, particularly for the primary purpose of increasing available prey biomass for human harvest. Detailed assessments of the factors influencing population vital rates (i.e., survival, natality, dispersal) and population trajectory in the context of control efforts are critical for understanding complex ecological relationships between wolves and their prey and informing management of each. Using a long-term dataset and a powerful new integrated modeling approach, we assessed the effects of wolf control on the dynamics of a monitored wolf population residing primarily within an adjacent protected area where wolf control activities were prohibited.

KEY WORDS Alaska, Canis lupus, density dependence, harvest, individual heterogeneity, integrated model, known-fate,
natality, N-mixture, population dynamics, predator control, survival, wolf.