Moose Abundance and Moose Hunting in the McGrath Region, Interior Alaska2001 Review

Gordon C. HaberMay 2001

State-sponsored predator control is widely viewed as a drastic, last-resort manage-ment action that should be used only rarely after passing rigorous standards of review. Thereare biological, ethical, and other reasons why high standards are appropriate for wolf andbear control in particular (Haber 1996). In Haber (2000, 2001), I concluded that an “adaptivemanagement” wolf-bear control program being proposed by the Alaska Department of Fishand Game (ADF&G) and others for GMU 19D east (19De), Interior Alaska – also referred toas the “McGrath” region – had not met minimum scientific standards and was not warrantedbased on existing information. Control is being proposed in response to an alleged moosedecline and related moose hunting problems.

If and when the alleged problems are demonstrated beyond reasonable scientificdoubt, it will be appropriate to address important questions about (a) their causes and (b) thealternatives for any remedial action and respective biological as well as dollar costs/benefits.Adaptive management (Walters 1986) provides a way to address resource problems in theface of uncertainty about system responses. However it does not provide a scientific licenseto proceed with such controversial and potentially serious, long-lasting actions as wolf andbear control when there is still major uncertainty as to whether a serious problem even exists.

The McGrath proposal has yet to clear this first hurdle – demonstrating there is a se-rious, solvable problem - primarily because of deficient, contradictory information aboutmoose abundance and moose harvests:

Moose abundanceThree moose censuses have been conducted in the McGrath region to date, all by

ADF&G. In Haber (2000), I considered some of the problems with the way the first two, Feb-ruary 1996 and 1999, have been interpreted. A third census was undertaken in November2000. This differed from the previous two not only in its timing (November vs. February) butalso its larger size – 5,200 miles2 vs. 2-3,000 miles2 – and different, probably less reliablemethod for deriving a sightability correction. A problem noted briefly in Haber (2000) meritsmuch more attention for all three censuses: Because of the migratory behavior of moose and

2

positioning of the census grid, all three censuses – especially in November 2000 – are likelyto have excluded significant, varying migratory portions of the pertinent moose populationsand/or subpopulations. Moreover, the results were probably applied to the wrong total areasto determine densities. For these reasons alone there can be little confidence in the use ofthe three censuses to estimate current abundance and trends or to measure responses toany future control actions.

Moose, including in foothills and lowland areas north of the Alaska Range, migrateseasonally as a function of snowfall and other factors in a highly variable way for distances upto 30-40 miles or more (e.g., LeResche 1974; Haber 1977, 1988; Gasaway et al 1983; Ballardet al 1991). Little is known about moose migrations in the McGrath region except that theyare significant (T. Boudreau, M. Fleagle, pers. commun. 1999, 2001) and probably closelyresemble what the foregoing and other studies have reported. Seasonal migrations and shiftsare especially prominent along major rivers and between foothills and lowlands. A censusthat excludes major segments of key drainages and/or covers a lowland area or adjacent up-lands but not both becomes highly vulnerable to error and misinterpretation.

The McGrath moose censuses are subject to this uncertainty because of the way theoverall census grid was delineated (the same grid [or central portions thereof] was used for allthree censuses; the sampling quadrats for each census were randomly selected from withinthis grid). The census grid, indeed GMU 19De itself (the south boundary of which the gridfollows), excludes more than half of most major drainages in the region – notably the entireupper (50%+) portions of Big River, Middle Fork, South Fork, Big Salmon Fork, TonzonaRiver, and Slow Fork, all of which flow into the East Fork and mid-lower North Fork of theKuskokwim in the Nikolai-Telida area. Almost the entire upper half of the North Fork is ex-cluded. All of the Takotna drainage is excluded, even though this constitutes about a thou-sand square miles of the total management area. These exclusions are of particular rele-vance because it is in the Nikolai-Telida-North Fork and Takotna areas where it is claimed themoose problems are most serious. It should also be noted that even though the Takotnadrainage and some nearby areas have become major components of the 19D east wolf-bearcontrol proposal they are not located within 19D east.

Moose typically concentrate more in upland areas during late summer-fall, thus theNovember 2000 census is the most vulnerable of the three to the upstream exclusions. Thisfurther emphasizes the unreliability of the 2000 census - despite its larger size – for deter-mining whether or not the current management goal of 3,000 moose has already been met.

3

Given the variable timing and extent of moose seasonal migrations, not even the two Febru-ary censuses are immune from this problem, although they are probably less affected.

In short, ADF&G has censused undetermined, varying proportions of one or moremigratory McGrath-area moose populations and/or subpopulations that use undeterminedyear-round ranges. From this, ADF&G argues that numbers declined from about 1,900moose in 1996 to 1,000 in 2000 and that to generate an increase to 3,000 moose within anarea of only vaguely specified size and delineation requires wolf and bear control across an8,000 mile2 area which, like the census area, excludes upstream areas that many of themoose in question probably use on a seasonal basis. And this is happening adjacent to the8,000-mile2 Nowitna area, where 25 years ago ADF&G initiated wolf control based on a simi-lar moose story. ADF&G claimed that Nowitna moose numbers had declined from 2,000 to1,000 only to determine shortly thereafter from the first bona fide, drainage-wide censusing ofthe Nowitna that the actual number was ~3,500-5,000.

The artificial boundaries of the “19De” moose census grid and of GMU 19De itself donot suffice for either research or management purposes. They preclude scientific use of theavailable census results in determining if wolf and bear control should proceed. At minimum,until good information is obtained on seasonal movements, censusing and managementboundaries should be revised to include entire contiguous watersheds or other ecologicalunits that delineate the year-round distribution of moose populations and subpopulations.

Appendix A (bracketed portion – pp. 38-43) addresses this longstanding problem ofmoose censusing in greater detail, using results from stratified random sampling moose cen-suses in northwestern British Columbia. These examples emphasize a series of questionsrelating to distribution that should be asked before and after a census. They are taken from areview (Haber 1988) of a major wolf control program that also featured other moose-relatedmistakes being repeated at McGrath. Hence I include the entire 14 pages (29-43) of themoose section and ungulate introduction.

Moose harvestsInformation about resident moose harvests in the McGrath region is sketchy. It is

derived primarily from interviews with locals and voluntary reporting (per references in Haber2000; see also ADF&G 2000, 2001). Recent discussions have focused primarily on claimsabout major 1984 to 1995 moose harvest declines in the Nikolai-Telida and Takotna areasand assumptions about related human population declines in these areas. There are also

4

samples of hunter success rates since 1992 (Haber 2000), but these are rarely if ever men-tioned.

The conclusions about declining moose harvests generally ignore a key point:These are only the reported harvests. As across much of bush Alaska, the unreported annualMcGrath-area resident moose harvest is known to be substantial and variable (T. Boudreau,pers. commun. 1999). With no way to determine the extent of underreporting or its year-to-year variability, there is no reliable way to use the harvest information to determine muchabout trends. This becomes all the more difficult in view of the likelihood of increased delib-erate underreporting. For example, in at least one area villagers prefer to hunt moose duringwinter rather than in the fall, because it is more difficult to keep the meat from spoiling in thefall. Winter moose harvests are now illegal, but this deters the reporting more than the hunt-ing. Increased underreporting is also to be expected as a consequence of the passionate lo-cal drumbeat that has developed for wolf and bear control. A resident of this area now goesagainst a strong social grain if he or she claims anything but a moose hunting hardship.

Additionally, the relatively high, statistically stable hunter success rates (Haber 2000)are contradictory. There are pitfalls in interpreting this kind of harvest information (e.g., Haber1988: 75-88); nonetheless it provides more reason to question than to agree with the asser-tions about steeply declining total harvests. Hunter success, like depensatory predation, canremain temporarily high in the face of declining prey numbers with increased search efficiencyand other adjustments. However a lag of 7-8+ years seems unlikely for the severity of themoose and harvest declines being alleged in this case.

The possibility of a harvest decline of lesser severity cannot be discounted entirely.Suppose more moose were harvested in the mid 1980s. Was this from a sustainable yield,against which current harvests (whatever they are) can be judged as too low? The hidden as-sumption is that the earlier yields were sustainable and hence provide a standard for whatshould be expected at present. Given the well-known importance of generally holding mooseharvests in Alaska to a maximum annual rate of 4-7% (see discussion in Haber 2000) butvirtual absence of past or present information with which to determine rates in the McGrathregion, this assumption is not warranted. It is least of all warranted for the two areas wheremost of the concern is focused - Nikolai-Telida and Takotna - because of their vulnerability tooverharvest. In the Nikolai-Telida area large expanses of relatively open terrain and majorrivers allow easier hunter access. In the Takotna area poor moose habitat probably meant alow-density population to begin with, one that was capable of sustaining a rate only at thelowest end of the 4-7% range, if that.

5

If there were prolonged higher yields in the past they would not necessarily be sus-tainable at present for another reason: There are fundamental differences between the pastand proposed wolf control. The only reason some Alaskans are willing to consider the pro-posed control is that advocates have led them to believe it can regenerate comparable mooseyields on a long term basis with only temporary application. However in the past “control” wasmore-or-less ongoing, via widespread public land-and-shoot aerial hunting. This kind ofhunting is now illegal and is unlikely to be permitted ever again. ADF&G may assume it canfacilitate some form of ongoing control through locals after the formal control effort ends.Apart from whether this is possible it would amount to deception, given ADF&G’s marketing ofthe McGrath control proposal as short term (vs. ongoing). Wolves and bears end up just asdead from control when ADF&G helps others to do the killing as when it does the killing itself.

Moose are probably a recent addition to the McGrath-area fauna. As sometimeshappens with new biological arrivals, they may have substantially overshot the area’s habitatcapacities one or more times. Skinner suggested this happened in the mid 1980s (Skinnerletter of 2/01 to McGrath adaptive management task force; see also Appendix A, esp. p. 37,for a likely example in northwestern B.C). If this was the case in the McGrath area, the higheryields that would have been available at that time would not have been sustainable regard-less of predation or the harvest rate, nor would anything comparable be sustainable now.

Literature citedADF&G. 2000. Moose in 19D. Background information on local subsistence harvests (and

related 2pp 1/30/01 memo from M. Pete to R. Bosworth). Report to Alaska Board ofGame, March 2000. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Fair-banks. 8 pp.

ADF&G. 2001. ADF&G commissioner endorses wildlife plan for Nikolai, McGrath, Telida,Takotna area. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game news release, March 2, with attached“Commissioner Frank Rue talking points,” Juneau. 2pp. + 4pp.

Ballard, W.B, J.S. Whitman, and D.J. Reed. 1991. Population dynamics of moose in south-central Alaska. Wildl. Monogr. 114. 49 pp.

Gasaway, W.C., R.O. Stephenson, J.L. Davis, P.K. Shepherd, and O.E. Burris. 1983. Inter-relationships of wolves, prey, and man in Interior Alaska. Wildl. Monogr. 84. 50 pp.

Haber, G.C. 1977. Socio-ecological dynamics of wolves and prey in a subarctic ecosystem.Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of British Columbia. 817 pp. Special Report, 1978, Joint Fed-eral-State Land Use Planning Commission For Alaska, Anchorage (available from Arctic

6

Environmental Information and Data Center, Univ. of Alaska, Anchorage). Haber, G.C. 1988. Wildlife management in northern British Columbia: Ketchika-Muskwa wolf

control and related issues. Wolf Haven International, Tenino, WA. 194 pp. (availablefrom Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, Univ. of Alaska, Anchorage).

Haber, G.C. 1996. Biological, conservation, and ethical implications of exploiting and con-trolling wolves. Conservation Biology 10: 1068-1081.

Haber, G.C. 2000. Moose hunting and wolf control in GMU 19D east, Interior Alaska. 2000review. Report, available from Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Juneau. 48 pp.

Haber, G.C. 2001. Letter to T. Knowles, dated Feb. 13, 2001. 6 pp. (available from AlaskaDept. of Fish and Game, Juneau).

LeResche, R.E. 1974. Moose migrations in North America. Naturaliste Can. 101: 393-415.Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan, New York.

320 pp.

7

Appendix A

Distribution-related problems in moose censusing (excerpt from Haber [1988] - seeespecially pp. 38-43)

i .S Zi l ' r

ystcri

pt fil

ued t ,

rc ia l l r

r t h i

Wef i

)c?1]Sr

nm0l l

S , &n t :

ght t,

l ishc, :

velo1r

b, anr i

:dato '

S ? t ; ,

ariou,

C onlr'ollarr

suall ' ,

&t at'r

v f o r t

l u i r

rsivel:

I wol

e d o l

recen l

3r ant

lssibir

r r isk

[:'Rsnr laoea(rrsg)2 9

fbr any reasoning process. Direct observation of predation - via prolonged sampling of

wolf pack activity - should be given much more emphasis in evaluating predation

irnpacts. Detailed studies by Peterson (1977) and Haber (7977) have demonstrated that

lhis approach is feasible and can yield a more comprehensive understanding of

ivolf-ungulate interactions. Direct information on predation, as well as on ungulate

rlensities, production, and related variables, can be used via simulation to determine

lrredator funct ional responses and apply "exper imental components" analyses(Holl ing, 1965). Long ago, Pimlott (1967) recognized that wolf-ungulate analyses were

stagnat ing and speci f ical ly recommended that Hol l ing's approaches of fered a

y:romising alternative. Haber et al (1976), Haber (1977), and Walters et al (1981)

successfuliy used this approach in one major wolf-ungulate fieid study, but it

lemains to be tried in others.

!,ingulate population status

Major wolf control programs were init iated in Alaska during the 1970s to

reverse "disasterous" ungulate declines that later proved to be non-existent or much

less serious than had been claimed (Haber, 1987). On this basis alone it is healthy to

cxamine other wolf control programs by first questioning underlying claims about

ungulate problems. The Kechika-Muskwa programs raise immediate questions in

t,iris regard simply by their failure to suppress wolf numbers except for short periods:

lJnder such intense control plessures, how could/why would wolves sti l l rebound so

cluickly and maintain such high densities if the major prey populations were so

seriously and broadly depleted as alleged?

The follor,ving sections will consider information regarding population status

and trends only for the ungulates that BCWB has emphasized in the recent

northeastern management controversies - i.e., moose, sheep, elk, and caribou. There

are also substantial populations of mountain goats, scattered small groups of mule

cleer, and (in the southern Muskwa) smal1 but increasing numbers of whitetailed

deer and -400-500 bison. In addition, most of the 15 or so guide-outfitters and some of

the packers of the Kechika-Muskwa regions typically range (unconfined) 30-50+

irorses year-round within their areas, and in some cases as many as 200-400. One of

Lire guide-outfitters currently keeps about a dozen cattle as we11, although these are

{'enced and fed near his main camp.

-,--

3 0

1. Direct information on abundance

The most direct and reliable way to determine ungulate population sizes and

trends is through censusing, using a sampling procedure (e.g., stratifred random

sampling for moose - Gasaway et al, 1981, 19BG) or, if possible, by direct counting

throughout the area to which the resulting estimate will be applied (Haber, 7977,

1987). Censusing general ly has not been emphasized by wi ld l i fe managers -

including in Brit ish Columbia, largely because it is expensive and other indices

usually have been considered adequate for monitoring abundance. Some of these

indices wil l be considered later. The purpose of this section is to examine "direct"

measures of abundance for the Kechika-Muskwa ungulates, inciuding availabie

censuses but also the rough "counts," re lated observat ions, and impressions of

iongtime users, to determine if this can provide a basis for the specific ciaims that

have been made as to population sizes and trends. The user accounts, which sketch

out a history of key events from as far back as the early 1900s and before, are also

intended to provide broader perspective for the review as a who1e.

(a) Moose

Mountain sheep and other ungulates are usually valued more highiy than

moose as t rophies and have typical ty captured more management at tent ion.

Nevertheless, moose are l ikely to be a much more important part of the prey base in

sustaining current wolf populations throughout most of the Kechika-Muskwa, as in

regions where similar multi-prey systems have been studied intensively (e.9., Haber,

1977;Gasaway et al, 1983; Ballard et al, 1987). This means that a major moose decline

could trigger a predation shift and correlated declines in the sheep and,/or other

associated ungulates (Haber et a l , 7976; Haber, 7977; Walters et a1, 1981). I

emphasized this point in recommending high moose research./management priority

for the Spatsizi region of northern B.C. (Haber, 1979). The same argument holds for

the Kechika-Muskwa regions, and dictates special emphasis in reviewing their

moose information.

Moose are a relatively recent addition to the fauna of northern B.C., and to the

province as a whole (e.g., Hatter, 1950; Macgregor and Child, 1981; see esp. Hatler,

1988 for an overview and re-evaluation of earlier information). However, it appears

that moose establ ished a strong presence in the lowlands of northeastern B.C'

(westward to the Rocky Mountain foothil ls) much earlier than most authors have

fT,

and

dom

ting

9 7 7 ,

: I S -

l ices

hese

rect"

Iable

rs o{'

that

:etch

aiso

than

t ion.

se in

as in

aber,

:cline

cther

) . I

ioritl'

ls for

their

lo the

atler,

pears

B . C

have

3 1

concluded, and weil before they increased in most mountain regions. This distinctionshould be emphasized before considering the Kechika-Muskwa information.

According to George Behn (pers.comm) and Glen Gul lackson (pers.comm.

from Behn and other Indian elders of the region), moose have remained "common"

and generally "plentiful" in the lowlands and certain east slope (of the Rockies)watersheds - including the Toad-Liard area, for most of the 1800s and 1900s "and

since way before that." Behn, who was born in old Fort Nelson in 7924 and laterbecame Chief of the Fort Nelson Indian band for 26 years, stressed to me that moosehave long occupied a central position in the subsistence and cultural history of hispeople and of other lowland bands, by providing them with meat, clothing, moccasins,shelter, tools, etc. (see also Brody, 1981). He recalls that his grandfather and otherelders spoke often about the established importance of moose in the region. He notesthat moose were the main, yedr-round staple - of much greater importance thancaribou - in the "early days" when, according to what his grandfather told him, theIndian population was much larger and thus required much more meat and rawmaterials. He points out that the historical importance of moose in this region isreflected by the prominence with which they are featured in the stories and legends ofhis people, which he heard commonly as a youth from his eiders, and which they hadheard from their elders.

In contrast, while there were "always some" moose in mountain regions to

the west, prior to the 1930s-early 1940s they were generally at low enough abundance -

including over much if not ali of the Kechika watershed and in at least some eastslope vaileys (though apparently at higher densities in much of the upper Peace) - sothat Indians, trappers, prospectors, early guides, etc. considered it a big event to seeone and tended to remember places by these experiences - e.g., "Once I saw a moosethere . " (E .McCook, J .VanSommer , L .Rut ledge, L .Ca l l i son , B .Groat , pers .comm. ;Hatler, 1988). The same apparentiy was true for much of northwestern B.C. well intothe 1940s. Frank Cooke (pers.comm) recails that on a 1g45 pack (horse) trip withSkook Davidson -460 miles from Fort St.James to Teslin Lake, "we never sar,v 20moose." George Behn's (pers.comm) mother- in- law, whose ( Indian) fami ly huntedthe lower Kechika-Lower Post-Toobally Lakes region, spoke about such a moose (and

other game) scarcity in the "early 1900s" that there was much starvation among theIndians of that t ime. Buster Groat, Lash Cal l ison, and Leo Rut ledge (pers.comm)

described similar Indian accounts of relative scarcity and periodic starvation prior to

3 2

the 1920s-1930s. Hatler (1988) notes that in the early 1820s Samuel Black saw only

fhree moose and a few tracks at three other locations while traveling in the Thutade

Lake-Stikine R.-Pitman R.-Turnagain R. region of northern B.C., and that although

Black's Indian guides and hunters from this region were familiar with moose, he

reported that they seldom encountered them.

Johnny Rasmussen and Ron Campbel l (pers.comm) were with Skook

Davidson in 1939 when they first arrived in the Kechika valley, on a railroad survey.

iSkook recognized the Terminus Mountain area as ideal for wintering horses for his

packing operations throughout northern B.C. and northward, and thus settled there

in 19391. Ludwig Smalsluat and Fred Forsberg, who were trapping the neighboring

Rabbit valley then, told Johnny they had intended to trap the Kechika valiey in winter

1934-35 but gave up and moved east to the Rabbit because of the scarcity of moose and

caribou for winter meat; at least there was an abundance of caribou in the Rabbit.

Wolves, too, were scarce in the Kechika at that t ime (and perhaps before), except

when passing through with migrat ing car ibou (see "Car ibou") . Smalsluat and

Forsberg told Rasmussen they saw so little wolf sign in 1934 that they felt confident in

leaving their 12 horses to range near Terminus Mountain, while they trapped the

Rabbit in winter 1934-35. However, when they returned in spring 1935 expecting to

fetch their horses to pack their winter's catch to Fort Ware, "all they found were 12

piles of bones and lots of scuffed-up ground." Smalsluat and Forsberg concluded that

a wolf pack normally associated with caribou in the Rabbit had ventured over to the

Kechika, found the horses and discovered they could kil l them, and thus stayed

awhi le.

Moose began increasing noticeably in the Kechika in -1937-1938, "seemed to be

getting abundant" there by 1939-1940, and likewise in the Rabbit region by a few years

later (Rasmussen, Campbei l , L.Cal l ison, T.Mould, pers.comm). Wolves remained

relatively scarce and not resident to the Kechika valley in noticeable strength unti l

-1946, a f te r the moose bu i ldup was we l l underway (Rasmussen, F .Cooke,

pers.comm). A similar example of a rapid buildup of moose in the Muskwa region at

about the same time is described later.

Large wildfires in the late 1930s and early 1940s were probably a major factor

in triggering the 1940s Kechika-Muskwa moose increases, directly in some cases and

via irruptions in and later dispersals from adjacent burns in other cases. For

example, the upper Buckinghorse burned " just before" Wes Brown (pers.comm)

rnly

ade

ugh

he

ook

/ey.

his

Iere

ing

nter

and

rbit.

:ept

and

Lt in

the

g t o

z 1 2

bhat

the

ryed

;o be

ears

ined

rntil

oke ,

n a t

rctor

and

For

mm)

3 3

began hunting there in 1937, and he noted that substantial numbers of moose were

beginning to move into the area at that time. Construction of the Alaska Highway

brought thousands of U.S. Army troops to northeastern B.C. in 7947-f942, and with all

of this activity came a rash of forest f ires. One huge fire burned from Mile 101(Blueberry) of the Highway northward -320 miles to Fort Simpson, bypassing Fort

Nelson somewhat to the east. Within two years moose had increased noticeably in

this region (L.Call ison, pers.comm). Sometime between -1935-1940 a frre burned the

entire region from the Red River (lower Kechika) northwest -40 miles to the Dease

River. When Skook Davidson and Johnny Rasmussen (pers.comm) traveled through

this burn in 1941, they saw "lots" of moose, even though this was "deep snow country"

and, amidst the moose, there were about a half dozen wolf dens that had been used

earlier in the season.

[The Indian people of northern B.C. (and elsewhere) were the f i rst to

recognize the importance of f ire. As with guide-outfitters and others in subsequent

years (see "Elk"), they did l imited habitat burning in the spring, to regenerate

foraging opportunities for wildiife populations and (for those Indians who had them)

their horses (G.Behn, L.Rutledge, L.Call ison, pers.comm.; Brody, 1981). In 1944, an

old Ware Indian who had just l i t a fire in Sifton Pass told Frank Cooke (pers.comm)

that, "I make moose country." Thirty years later, another Ware Indian was arrested

for setting a nearby moose habitat fire, which ended up (accidentally?) burning a

large area from Weissener Lake to the South Gataga (R.Campbell, pers.comm)1.

Buster Groat provided me with detailed obervations of moose responses to

burned areas; I heard the same basic pattern described, repeatedly, by almost all of

the longtime users.I interviewed. Referring to a large -1951 fire in the middle and

lower Kechika and Turnagain, Groat observed that moose invaded the burned area"within weeks, while it was sti l l black." The area burned in June, but there were"large" numbers of moose using it by that fall and winter, which attracted Indian

hunters. "They were the fattest moose I ever saw." He explained that they were

eating the dead, dried strips of bark that were hanging everywhere on the large,

fire-kil led poplars. The heat of a fire often causes the bark to peel, and moose are

attracted to this "immediately." Soon afterward, new browse emerges and can

ensure good eating for at least 15-20 years.

Hatler (1988) suggests that harsh weather associated with the "Litt le lce

Age," which extended into the mid-1800s, could have much inhibited wildfires and

A AJ +

other conditions conducive to a moose increase during that period and somewhat

afterward. This would help to explain a greater abundance of moose in the adjacent

northeastern lowlands then - i.e., harsh weather would exert its most severe impacts

at the higher elevations of mountain regions. But why did it apparently take another

80-100 years for the mountain populations to establish densities comparable to those of

the lowlands? Predation (human and wolf/bear) could easily prevent a low density

populat ion f rom increasing for a long per iod - perhaps via the k ind of

tightly-aiternating predator-prey fluctuations described later (p.103, "Recruitment

data"), unti i the moose were finally able to "escape" via some major intervention'

such as the series of large 1930s-1940s wildfires described above. Low moose and

(resident) wolf abundance appears to have generaliy characterized the Kechika and

other mountain regions of northern B.C. during the 1800s and early 1900s. However,

there are a few hints of a somervhat more complex moose-predator pattern, which

seem pertinent to the above hypothesis. For example, Lash Call ison told me that in

the 1980s the older Indians spoke about "10-year cycles" between wolves and moose;

and, George Behn suggested that the Indian people sometimes overhunted certain

areas, causing moose populations to "go up and down."

Much of the moose abundance information given to me by longtime users of

the Kechika-Muskwa for the next period - late 1940s-early 1970s - is contradictory,

unlike the case for their information about sheep, elk, and caribou. Perhaps this is

because moose are less apt to be found in open-terrain aggregations and are thus

more diff icult to evaluate via ground observations; similar problems with ground

evaluations of moose are well known for other regions (e.g. Denali National Park -

Haber, 1g87). Moreover, in many areas (especially in the Kechika) moose were of

relatively low importance as a trophy species unti l recently, and hence guides,

biologists, etc. expended iittle effort in trying to monitor them.

Based on what I have heard, about all that I would conclude for the late

1g40s-early 1920s is that there were periodic moose fluctuations in both regions.

There was almost always a noticeable increase after a frre and at least a recruitment

increase following many of the numerous bouts of legal and il legal wolf poisoning

(fire and poisoning frequently coincided or came in close sequence, complicating

cause-effect assessments). There does appear to be a near-consensus of a fairly

general moose "high" during the 1960s, related to heavy government wolf poisoning,

followed by a signiflrcant decline in many areas in the early 1970s. Again, though,

Fg

rat

)nt

cts

ler

: o f

itvof

:nt

O l '

rnd

rnd, Q T ,

ich

, i n

)se ;

ain

s o f

)rY'

s i s

nus

,rnd

r k -

a o f

Ces,

late

lns .

rent

ring

bing

rirly

i.g,

rgh,

3 5

there are contradictions. All of my Kechika sources told me of a relative abundance of

moose in the 1960s; this included Frank Cooke and Buster Groat, who lived there.

Yet, Skook Davidson, who also cal1ed the Kechika home, wrote to Moira Farrow in

1965 (Farrow, 1975:15) that, "The wolves have cleaned the lKechika] valley of moose ...

Not a damn one ieft ..."

Three formal moose censuses have been conducted in two areas of the

Kechika region, all by BCWB, r,ia stratifred random sampling procedures. The first

trvo censuses, in "mid-late'rvinter" 1979 and 1980, covered the same 600 sq.mile area of

the Horseranch Range; the Horseranch Range was added to the Kechika project in

1985 as a caribou-evaiuation supplement, although it l ies well outi ide the core wolf

control-moose area of the project - i.e., -60 miles northwest of it. The Horseranchmoose censuses were undertaken as a secondary objective to help interpret theinfluence of 1978-1980 wolf removals on caribou status in that area (Bll iot et al, rg}4;

Ell iot, 1985c; Bergerud and Ell iot, 1986; Wildiife Management Section, 1983, 1987; see"Caribou") . These censuses produced mean est imates and 90 percent conf idencelimits of .78+77o/o and 1.24+75c/o moose/sq.mile for 1979 and 1980, respectively. The

third - "Middte Creek" - moose census u'as conducted in March 1984 within the core

moose-sheep area of the Kechika project, covering 161 sq.miles along the east side of

the Kechika va11ey between Terminus Mountain and Horneline Creek (Ell iot, 1984a).

The resul t ing mean est imate and 90 percent conf idence l imi ts were 1.8t I9Vomoose/sq.mile. (BCWB has calculated 90Va hrntts in giving census results, as have

wildlife biologists elsern'here in recent years [e.g., Gasaway et al, 1983]; however, g5 or

99Vo are the usual standards in science and should be used in wildlife reporting if

only in the interest of consistency, even though the estimates might not look quite asgood).

Five moose censuses have been conducted in three areas of the Muskwa

region (Ell iot, 1985b), three via stratif ied random sampling and two (1982 and 1985

Core) via random sampling without stratif ication. The "Core" moose censuses were

conducted in February-Malch 1982 and 1985, within the southwestern, and probably

most important, moose-sheep-elk area of the Muskwa project, covering 531 sq.miles

from Kluachesi Lake north to Chlotapecta Creek (including the central Tuchodi and

Gathto valleys), north and west of the Muskwa River. The resulting mean estimatesand 90 percent confidence limits were 2.59+33.IVo and 2.07X33.37o rnooselsq.mile for

3 6

1982 and 1985, respectively (these and the Pink Mountain estimates, below, correct

moose/sq.km to moose/sq.mi le conversion errors and other minor ar i thmet ic

mistakes in Ell iot, 1985b). One "Tierney Creek" moose census was conducted, in

February-March 1985, covering 157 sq.miles from the south boundary of the Core

census to the Muskwa River, likewise within the main portion of the Muskwa project

area. The resulting mean estimate and 90 percent confrdence limits were 4.3+27.3%

moose/sq.mile. The "Pink Mountain" moose censuses were conducted in February

1979 and December 1984, but the area involved lies outside (south ofl the core wolf

control-ungulate area of the Muskwa project. It was regarded as a transition area

between the higher wol f densi t ies of the Muskwa and iow woif densi t ies of

agricultural areas further south. The Pink census covered 355 sq.miles in 1979 and

522 sq.miles in 1984; no information is given as to how much the two areas

overlapped. The resulting mean estimates and 90 percent confidence limits were

4.5 4!29 .\Vo and 2.7 2+ 19c/o mo o s e/s q. mil e, re sp e ctively.

There are basic problems in trying to interpret these estimates. But first, even

considered "as is" - more-or-less as BCWB has done - they would hardly seem to

indicate moose populat ions that are depressed at a l l (e.g. , v is-a-vis est imatesthroughout Bedard et al, 7974), let alone near the bottom of post-1970 declines

anywhere approaching B0 percent sever i ty ( . .g. , El l iot , 1986b:1). The world 's

richest-known (and censused) moose regions, where there are few natural predators

and favorable habitat manipulations - such as in central Sweden, southeastern

Norway, southern Finland, and Newfoundland, have sustained overall densities (vs.

densities in relatively small wintering areas) no higher than about 2-4 moose/sq.mile,

with peaks to about 4-6lsq.mile (Markgren,1974; Lykke, 7974; Wilhelmson and Sylven,

1979; Lavsund, 1981; Sandegren et al, 1982; Mercer and Manuel, 1974; Mercer and

Strapp, 1978). Likewise, the weli known 1960s-early 1970s irruption on the Kenai

National Moose Range reached an overall density of only 3-4 moose/sq.mile, even

though this population had enjoyed 25 years of ideal habitat in the 1947 burn, a series

of mild winters, and a scarcity of both wolves and moose hunters (Bishop and Rausch,

I974; Peterson et al, 1984a). These are only crude comparisons, of course, among

other reasons because of hunting, habitat, and climatic differences. Nevertheless,

they give reason to either question the claim about severe Kechika-Muskwa moose

declines or to accept that these regions may have sustained the highest moose

densities ever reported, even higher than in areas of the world where naturai

F=t . ! .

|rect

ret i cJ ; , .- l , r t l

Corc

oj ect

L . O 7 (

uar)'

wol{'

area

)s o l

and

r f eaS

were

even

m t o

rates

l ines

rr ld 's

ators

stern

; (vs.

mile,

lven,

: and

lenai

even

;eries

usch,

f1ong

: le ss,

100se

noo se

tural

3 7

predators long ago disappeared.

Moreover, the Kechika-Muskwa estimates almost certainly should be higher

than given - and hence the BCWB argument would imply even higher -1970 densities,

because the recent estimates are calculated from the numbers of moose seen on the

sampling plots, not the i ikely higher numbers actually present - i.e., there was no

sightabil ity correction (LeResche and Rausch, 1974; Gasaway et al, 1981, 1986). This

consideration is especially pertinent to the Kechika-Muskwa estimates, due to the

heavy forest cover of these regions and the use of parallel transects instead of

overlapping circles to do the plot searches. Transect searches are l ikely to miss more

moose in heavy forest cover, even when a hel icopter (vs. f ixed wing) is used.(Searching with a smal l , f ixed wing aircraf t would probably also reduce K-M

censusing costs considerably, judging from the low costs I incurred using a

PA-12-180 to census moose in the nearby Spatsizi region - see below).

The possibil i ty of such extraordinarily high 1970 or earlier moose densities

seems remote, except for short periods. Recall that it was probably only 20-30 years

ear l ier that moose f i rst establ ished substant ia l populat ions over much of the

Kechika-Muskwa. With good habitat, low hunting levels, and init ially low predator

populations (depressed again later for short periods, by poisoning), it would be almost

predictable for these moose populations to overshoot carrying capacities and irrupt to

high densi t ies, perhaps more than once. In the upper Muskwa-upper Prophet

region, for example, long-time guides/trappers Leo Rutledge and Lash Call ison(pers.comm) observed an "obvious explosion" of moose in the mid-late 1940s, while

wolves were sti l l scarce. Rutledge feels that there was a clear "overabundance;" he

observed many dead, dlotrg, and weak moose throughout the region at that t ime, and

much evidence of overbrowsing. But these earlier periods of high densities were

short- l ived and do not provide a real ist ic basel ine for establ ishing s ustainablepopuiation goals at present. l\{oose, moose forage, wolves, and humans (and to some

extent elk, as wil l be seen later) are a relatively new interaction at high levels of

abundance over large areas of northern B.C. Much of what has transpired so far

probably represents an init ial "coarse-tuning" of this interaction and thus would be

expected to be somewhat exaggerated and atypical.

Ell iot (1985b:12) interpreted the 1982 and 1985 Core estimates as indicating a

Muskwa population decline of -27 percent over that short period, which he noted was

consistent wi th his ear l ier predict ions of a cont inuins severe decl ine based on

IIIIttII

IIi

I. l

\ilv

3 B

recruitment data. He arrived at the 27 percent frgure by comparing numbers of adult

cows only - calculated by applying corresponding sex/age samples to each of the mean

population estimates, in order to exclude the effects of annual juvenile recruitment

and hunting. However, the two Core means are subject to +33 percent uncertainty at

the 90 percent confidence level. In other words, while the 1982 and 1985 means of 2.59

and 2.07 might reflect some decline, it can be concluded only that 90 percent of a very

iarge number of samplings of this census area in each of the two years wouid yield a

density fall ing somewhere between 1.71-3.39 and 1.32-2.64 moose/sq.mile, respectively.

The statistical uncertainty in each of the two means is too large to demonstrate a 27

percent difference between the two populations, even based just on cow segments. It

would be almost as (in)va1id to argue, for example, that there had been a -55-60

percent increase, by choosing densities from the low end of the 1982 confidence

interval and high end of the 1985 interval. Comparisons between the 7979 and 1980

Horseranch est imates would be even more fut i le, because of their +75-77 percent

uncertainties. The 1979 and 1984 Pink Mountain estimates are probably widely

enough separated to indicate a significant decline, although it is diffrcult to interpret

them without knowing more about the 355 vs. 522 sq.mile difference in census areas.

Also, Ell iot (p.13) emphasizes that the Pink Mountain area is "atypical" because of the

confounding effects of more cow/caif hunting than in most of the Muskwa.

The foregoing issues are secondary to a more basic question: To what areas

should the existing moose estimates be applied? It is clear from a large body of

research that moose commonly migrate long distances between summer and winter

ranges, and that there can be much variabil ity in the timing and extent of these

movements, especial ly as a funct ion of snow depths (e.g. , LeResche, 1974; Coady,

797 4; Pull iainen , \97 4; Filonov and Zykov, I97 4; Haber, 7977; Sandegren et al, 1982;

Gasaway et al, 1983). Brit ish Columbia is no exception, with some of the longest

seasonal migrations reported anywhere - up to 35-40 miles (Edwards and Ritcey, 1956;

LeResche; 1 ,97 4) . Dens i t ies on some win ter ranges can increase to 40-60

moose/sq.mi le or more dur ing mid- late winter (e.g. , Houston, 1968; Bishop and

Rausch, \974), as a moose popuiation from a much larger summer-winter region

converges on prime wintering areas in years of deep snow. As a result, moose

censuses in the same or nearby areas can produce widely differing density estimates -

and conclusions about trends, depending on how much of the popuiation's year-round

range (summer-winter combined) is censused, when it is censused, and what total

ryt

1u1t

ean

LeI'It

y a r

2.59,gry

l d a'ely

t 2 7

. l t

; -60Y'l np

980

)ent

1e1y

pret

the

"ea-q

y o r

rter

iese

rdy,l R t .

- ^ ^ +H t r D t

156;

) - 6 0

and

fon)o se

,es -

und

ota l

a oV J

areas are used in calculating densities.

Details of a moose census that I conducted in the Spatsizi region of northernB.c. in February 1979 (to date, the only moose census there) can i l lustrate this point.There was an unusually deep snow cover throughout the Spatsizi region and much ofnorthern B.C. that winter (R.Bruns, R.Coll ingwood, pers.comm). I observed earlyFebruary snow depths of 2-3 ft. or more at Cold Fish Lake, in the Eaglenest Range,upper Spatsizi River, Buckinghorse and Beaver valleys, upper Ross River, upperStikine-Chukachida regions, and at Fort Ware, and 3-5 ft. at Teiegraph Creek. Butthere was only 1-1.5 ft. in the lower Spatsizi valley, and moose from large upriverregions had migrated there by early February (I observed similar high rvinteringconcentrations oniy at widely scattered locations at that t ime, notably in Moose Flatsfnorthwest of the Spatsizi Plateau], in the Caribou Hide area of the upper Stikinelfrom Chapea Creek to a few miles be]ow Adoogacho Creekl, and in the Finlay vaileybetween Reef Canyon and the Toodoggone River). Fresh snowfalls enabled me to tracemoose migrations to the lower Spatsizi from areas 20 miles upriver and from most ofthe side drainages, although low-medium densities sti l l remained in some of thelatter areas. It was possible to determine that the entire upper half of the watershed(above Red Goat Mountain) had been vacated of essentiatly all l iving moose. I beganthe census when it was clear that the migration was either over or at least had slowedto a point where counts in closely spaced plots were unlikely to be confounded. First Istratifred the entire 252 sq.miles of the lower watershed that was in use, and thensearched for moose in 10 randomly selected sampling plots therein (mean plot size =4.08 sq.miles; mean search intensity = 5.54 min./sq.mile, via overlapping circles in aPA-12-180 on skiis). The resulting mean estimate and g5c/o confidence limits were2-78+23.7Vo mooselsq.mile; this incorporates corrections for estimated 7S-g0 percentsightabil ity per plot (derived from criteria described in LeResche and Rausch, j,gT4,

Haber, 1977 , and Gasaway et al, 1981).

But 2.78!23.7Vo cannot be considered the "true" 7g7g density of this moosepopulation; it merely estimates the density of a temporarv winter concentration. Thetrue density is calculated on the basis of the much larger region that includes thetypical year-round movements of most of these moose, which leads to another choice:Should I use the overall region or just the moose habitat portions (excludingmountaintops, etc.)? I estimated the former area to be -800 sq.miles and the latter-500 sq. miles, which would reduce the estimate to either .69!23.7oh or I.I+28.7Vo.

4 0

When a second census is undertaken, its usefulness in identifying any population

changes since 1979 will depend critically on consistency in choosing both the area to

be censused and the area to which the results are then applied.

I was lucky to do the 1979 census in a winter when the snow was deep enough

to produce a maximum or near-maximum concentration in the lower Spatsizi.

Another census covering the same 252 sq.mile area in a mild winter could result in a

much lower estimate simply because of a lesser and/or later migration from the

upper regions. If the census area was located somewhat further upriver in a

moderate winter, the estimate could turn out lower simply because there had been a

partial migration or because fewer moose had migrated into the area (from sti l l

further upriver) than had departed downriver. Or, if the census was conducted

earlier in another deep snow winter, either in the same area or upriver, the estimate

could suggest or mask a population change simply because the migration had not yet

begun in force. Clearly these problems and many variations thereof, together with

the possibilities of applying the estimate to an inappropriate total area, can completely

confound comparisons within the same region or between regions. It is l ikely that

this has happened often in the moose literature to date.

Sumanik and Demarchi (7977) surveyed the major river valleys of northern

B.C. for moose during February-March 1967-7977, recording the numbers observed

per hour of f lying (data map sheets on fi le at BCWB and Maps B.C., Victoria). This

kind of information is not reliable for estimating densities or identifyeng population

t rends (Haber , 1987) , as the au thors themse lves emphas ize (D.Demarch i ,

pers.comm). However, together with later information it does provide some likely

examples of how radically moose distribution can change from one winter to another.

For instance, Sumanik and Demarchi (map sheets 104H,94E) reported 45-59

moose/hr. (caiculated from shorter t ime intervals) in Beaver Valley, 30-44/hr. just

upriver from there along the upper Spatsizi, and 60-89/hr. along the Chukachida

River, where in all three cases I determined there were no moose in February 1979

(there was a complete absence of tracks in recent deep powder snow). I observed

moose in all three of these areas in summer 1978 (Haber, 1979). It appeared likely

that most of the Chukachida moose were winter:ing 10-20 miles away in the Caribou

Hide area of the Stikine, and those from Beaver Valley and upper Spatsizi 20-30 miles

down the Spatsizi. Likewise, Sumanik and Demarchi (map sheets 94L,M) reported

increasing downstream moose observations along the Kechika River - 60-89/hr. from

,.3

-.1

f ' { }

i 'c

- l

{ ' o l

. \ ' l I

! , 1 , t

rrri

u l '

Sr-r

l rL:

1 t{,

, r i p

rJ

on

to

gh

z t .

I A

he

d

I A

.il1

,ed

lte

r c t

ith

ely

rat

4 1

""3-10 miles above Gataga Forks to a few miles above Moodie Creek, then 90+Ar. for*'15-50 miles downstream to the Red River, whereas the adjacent 1984 Middle Creekct't1sus suggested somewhat the reverse gradient - i.e., low density stratum from'l ' t 'r 'minus Mountain downstream for -2 miles, then high for -5 miles, then iow for* l0 mi les.

The positioning of the Kechika-Muskwa moose census areas relative to mooserrrigration routes along major river courses raises the above concerns, as to both theirtrscfulness in estimating true densities and in identifying trends. The Middle Creekc{rnsus area is located only about hal f way along the north-south distance thatitcchika-Gataga moose traverse in certain winters, although it is within the valleyscgment (Gataga Forks to Turnagain River) that frequently sees the least amount of: r r l0w accumulat ion and therefore becomes the major winter ing area (B.Groat,l . ' .Cooke, J.Rasmussen, E.and J.Johnson, T.Southwick, pers.comm; Sumanik andl)cmarchi ,7977). Moreover, s ince i t covers only one side of the val ley, i t doubt lesslnrpties migrants into the valiey bottom (and thence downstream), u,here neither theytror others passing through from the same population upstream 1vould be counted.' l 'he Rabbit River valley to the east is "deep snow country," u,hich raises the possibil i ty',f ' additional confounding moose movements from there to the Kechika valleyi 'I.Rasmussen, pers.comm), to or through the Middle Creek census area. ln wintersof' l i tt le or no migration, Middle Creek estimates should more closely reflect the trueilopuiation density. In other years quite the contrary wil l be the case, to widelylnrying degrees. Weather data are lacking, but snow depths in the Kechika-Muskwar.r'gions are often enough (e.g., up to -Z ft. in the Core census area _ Ell iot andWebster, 7982a:64) to trigger at least partial migrations, despite relatively mildconditions due to snow shadow effects and frequent chinook winds.

The Tierney Creek census area, located aiong the north side of the mid-upperllr"rskwa, is subject to the same problems. The Core census area is much larger andst.raddles both s ides of the Tuchodi and Gathto va1leys, however i t , too, coversrnid-upper watershed areas from which and through which highly variable numbersr i f ' moose migrate f rom winter- to-winter (G.Behn, R.peck, G.Vince, pers.comm;-\umanik and Demarchi, 1977 - map sheets 94F,G,J,K). "Particularly high snowfalll iclts to the west" force moose to move into [or beyond] the Core area during u,inter( l t 'Peck' pers.comm). Gien Gul iackson (pers.comm) feels that in some wintersrignificant numbers of moose migrate from Core area (and other east slope) valleys to

)rn.ed

his

ronh i

ely

rer.

5 9

nst

ida

t79

red

e1y

)ou

.1es

ted

om

A 4 , /

lorver elevations as far eastward as the Alaska Highway and beyond. Whether or not

the apparently major difference between the Tierney and Core densities (higher for

Tierney) can be explained by movement variations, this at least i l lustrates the

potential problem in applying census results to the wrong total area. Eliiot (1982b:41,

Table 5) gives aI9B2 estimate of 12,000 moose for the 5,405 sq.mile Muskwa region.

The derivation of this estimate is not shown, although it appears to come from an

extrapolation of the 531 sq.mile 1982 Core moose census. Obviously this extrapolation

would be highly questionable for at least the Tierney area, even though Tierney is

adjacent to Core.

It might be possible to adjust the existing Kechika-Muskwa moose estimates

for migratory variations, and to determine population areas for conversion to true

densities. If the pertinent distribution and migration obser-vations are available, they

have not been described yet.

Such problems could be avoided in the first place by delineating something of

the population's overall and winter areas of use, for example via radio collars and/or

track observations after fresh snowfalls, as a migration progresses (the latter data are

often collected easily during repeated fl ights in the region for other surveys - €.9.,

Haber, 1977). Censusing much larger areas - i.e., several or more entire, contiguous

watersheds (e.g., Gasaway et al, 1983; unpubl. ADF&G census data in Haber, 1987),

or at least one entire watershed, can eliminate many of the problems. Being lucky

and opportunistic enough to do the census in snow conditions that allow for tracing of

movements to a confined wintering area also works, as in the 1979 Spatsizi census.

(The next Spatsizi census should first determine where the moose are distributed at

that time relative to the watershed boundaries, then stratify and sample that entire"active" area and only that area, and then apply the resulting estimate to either the

-800 sq.mile watershed area or its moose habitat portions. Obviously it would be

cheaper and better to do this census in a winter [and frrst month] of comparable snow

depth).

In many reg ions , Kech ika-Muskwa probab ly among them, the bes t

alternative for identifying moose and other ungulate census areas, as well as for

following a systems research/management approach in general - including doing

wolf control if necessary (later), might be to rely heavily on the wolves themselves, via

their territories or territorial mosaics (Haber, 7977, 1987). This would require first

allowing an exploited wolf population to recover and stabil ize. Other than in

' . j

Fr'lr

,ES

ue

ey

rot

[or

he

1 1 ,

)n.

an

:On

i s

of

/ot

Ire

ob ' t

US

7 )

ky

of

rs .

at

ire

he

be

)w

4 3i

lgtt't'hernmost regions v"here migratory caribou are the only major prey, resident woifSt 'ks wil l general ly defend long-iasting terri tories delineated in a way that can be€fl i trcted to minimize summer-winter as well as longer term variat ions in prey*?rri labi l i ty (Mech, I97};Haber, Ig77;Walters et al, 1gg1).

t*),5neep

Sheep were abundant in the Kechika-Muskwa regions in the 1980s and 1940s*hrrrt Lash Callison, Wes Brorvn, Tom Mould, Johnny Rasmussen, Ron Campbell,

. F l r ,nk Cooke, Leo Rut ledge, Tud Southwick, Buster Groat . and others who I:: **l t ' rvieq'ed began ranging there. And long before that, the Indian people knew these:

& l r , r in ta ins as good sheep country (G.Behn, pers.comm; p lus in fo. to the above f romEnti ians in the 1930s-1940s). Al l of these observers consider that sheep have remainedil l rclat ively high ("good") levels over most of the period since then _ general ly through*t l trast the late 1970s. There are two notable exceptions. Byron Dalziel (pers.comm)ft 'r ' ls that sheep numbers have declined substantial ly since the mid 1960s - although?l| $'as possibly referring more to the mid-upper Turnagain than the area central tot lr is review (Kechika-lower Turnagain, Muskwa, etc). Garry Vince (pers.comm) feelsl lrrrt sheep were at a low in the upper Muskwa when he began guiding there in 1951'btrt' then steadily increased following intensive wolf control shortly thereafter, to highaurnbers over the last 10-20 years.

The consensus seems to be that, while there were some noticeable "ups and

ett 'rvl ls," these wer.e usua115' related to f ire or heavy hunting (of rams), not wolfgtt 'r ' t lat ion, even where wolves were common. Of part icular inf luence was a large f irein *1951 (mentioned earl ier regarding moose), which cleared the forested hi l ls of thel*l t 'cr Turnagain and al lor 'r 'ed a "tremendous"

increase in sheep numbers there, from* ln tos t none 10 yea rs ea r l i e r (B .Groa t , F .Cooke , J .Rasmussen , pe rs . comm) . Tom&lould and Ot to Amundson (pers.comm) fe l t that wolves had caused local sheep*lr. ' t : l ines in the Toad-Liard and Muncho Lake areas in the early-mid 1960s and iatet1l70s, respectively, but virtual ly al l others I intervierved (many of whom have blamedsc'r i lVes for other ungulate declines) considered that wolves have not inf luenced overal l4fu'r'p numbers much, even though they kill "fair

numbers" of them.Guided trophy hunting for sheep didn't begin very noticeably in the Kechika

r*g ion unt i i the 1960s, and res ident hunt ing became heavy about 10 years ago{F.(- looke, B.Groat, pers.comm). Both began IE-20 years earl ier in the more accessible

: S t

br

ng

ia'st

in