GoatGuy
06-01-2010, 03:20 PM
Imminent Extinctions of Woodland Caribou from
National Parks
Conservation Biology
Volume 24, No. 2, 2010
Mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) have
been critically endangered in Banff National Park (BNP)
for at least 15 years, and their extinction from the area is
not surprising (Hebblewhite et al. 2010). This situation
is disheartening because national parks are supposed to
provide refugia for threatened species and to safeguard
them for future generations. Inaction has failed both caribou
and concerned citizens. It is critical, therefore, to
understand why the system failed because no amount of
hard work researching the ecosystem will save species if
suggested recovery strategies are not implemented.
Hebblewhite et al. (2010) provide three hypotheses
as to why mandated actions under Canada’s Species at
Risk Act (SARA) proceeded more slowly on national park
lands than the provincial land in British Columbia and
Alberta, which also support mountain caribou: (1) recent
consensus among scientists of the pervasiveness of
top–down predator–prey interactions and the large areas
over which they may occur, (2) stakeholders and
managers were unaware or did not accept these findings
as reliable scientific knowledge, and (3) senior wildlife
managers perceived no political consensus for caribou
conservation within national parks.
We tested the universal nature of these hypotheses in
Mount Revelstoke and Glacier National Parks (MRGNP),
located 90 km west of BNP. Unlike BNP, which is part of
a 29,232-km2 block of protected areas but is still too small
to contain an intact predator–prey system of large mammals
(Hebblewhite et al. 2010),MRGNP covers only 1609
km2. Also unlike BNP, a coordinated Parks Canada and
Province of British Columbia telemetry-based research
project on caribou was initiated in the MRGNP area in
1992 (in BNP there was little effort to learn about caribou
until there were only five animals left in 2002; Hebblewhite
et al. 2010). The population that includes MRGNP
was estimated to have 121 (90% CL 106–161) caribou
in 1994, of which 71 were observed within MRGNP.
Over the course of nine censuses, the number of animals
steadily declined to 13 by 2009, eight of which were
seen inside MRGNP (Furk & Flaa 2009). Parks Canada is
well aware of the rate of decline and knows that unless
management actions are applied the extinction of these
animals is imminent.
We reject Hebblewhite et al.’s (2010) first hypothesis
because the implications of apparent competition on
woodland caribou have been documented for decades
(e.g., Bergerud 1974; Seip 1992; Wittmer et al. 2005). On
the basis of available evidence, conservation actions have
been implemented on public land in British Columbia and
Alberta (B.C. Ministry of Environment 2009). Hypothesis
2 can, for the most part, be rejected. Parks Canada managers,
like their provincial counterparts, were aware of
apparent competition and the impact it was having on
caribou. For example, Parks Canada managers were involved
in developing the initial recovery plan for mountain
caribou in British Columbia (Hatter et al. 2002), and
this plan recognized apparent competition as a proximate
factor in their decline. We agree with hypothesis 3. Senior
park managers perceived no political consensus for
caribou conservation within national parks because of
the difficulty of integrating caribou conservation, which
requires active population management, with the less interventionist
approach often usedwithin protected areas.
Mountain caribou recovery will involve actions that
will be highly unpopular with some people. Actions to
conserve caribou will include reducing forest harvesting,
mechanized recreation, and the numbers of alternative
prey and predators until after the early-seral stage of
succession. Currently early-seral conditions are abundant
National Parks
Conservation Biology
Volume 24, No. 2, 2010
Mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) have
been critically endangered in Banff National Park (BNP)
for at least 15 years, and their extinction from the area is
not surprising (Hebblewhite et al. 2010). This situation
is disheartening because national parks are supposed to
provide refugia for threatened species and to safeguard
them for future generations. Inaction has failed both caribou
and concerned citizens. It is critical, therefore, to
understand why the system failed because no amount of
hard work researching the ecosystem will save species if
suggested recovery strategies are not implemented.
Hebblewhite et al. (2010) provide three hypotheses
as to why mandated actions under Canada’s Species at
Risk Act (SARA) proceeded more slowly on national park
lands than the provincial land in British Columbia and
Alberta, which also support mountain caribou: (1) recent
consensus among scientists of the pervasiveness of
top–down predator–prey interactions and the large areas
over which they may occur, (2) stakeholders and
managers were unaware or did not accept these findings
as reliable scientific knowledge, and (3) senior wildlife
managers perceived no political consensus for caribou
conservation within national parks.
We tested the universal nature of these hypotheses in
Mount Revelstoke and Glacier National Parks (MRGNP),
located 90 km west of BNP. Unlike BNP, which is part of
a 29,232-km2 block of protected areas but is still too small
to contain an intact predator–prey system of large mammals
(Hebblewhite et al. 2010),MRGNP covers only 1609
km2. Also unlike BNP, a coordinated Parks Canada and
Province of British Columbia telemetry-based research
project on caribou was initiated in the MRGNP area in
1992 (in BNP there was little effort to learn about caribou
until there were only five animals left in 2002; Hebblewhite
et al. 2010). The population that includes MRGNP
was estimated to have 121 (90% CL 106–161) caribou
in 1994, of which 71 were observed within MRGNP.
Over the course of nine censuses, the number of animals
steadily declined to 13 by 2009, eight of which were
seen inside MRGNP (Furk & Flaa 2009). Parks Canada is
well aware of the rate of decline and knows that unless
management actions are applied the extinction of these
animals is imminent.
We reject Hebblewhite et al.’s (2010) first hypothesis
because the implications of apparent competition on
woodland caribou have been documented for decades
(e.g., Bergerud 1974; Seip 1992; Wittmer et al. 2005). On
the basis of available evidence, conservation actions have
been implemented on public land in British Columbia and
Alberta (B.C. Ministry of Environment 2009). Hypothesis
2 can, for the most part, be rejected. Parks Canada managers,
like their provincial counterparts, were aware of
apparent competition and the impact it was having on
caribou. For example, Parks Canada managers were involved
in developing the initial recovery plan for mountain
caribou in British Columbia (Hatter et al. 2002), and
this plan recognized apparent competition as a proximate
factor in their decline. We agree with hypothesis 3. Senior
park managers perceived no political consensus for
caribou conservation within national parks because of
the difficulty of integrating caribou conservation, which
requires active population management, with the less interventionist
approach often usedwithin protected areas.
Mountain caribou recovery will involve actions that
will be highly unpopular with some people. Actions to
conserve caribou will include reducing forest harvesting,
mechanized recreation, and the numbers of alternative
prey and predators until after the early-seral stage of
succession. Currently early-seral conditions are abundant