Status Report of the Moose Population in Game Hunting Area 26:

Challenges and Recommendations for Sustainability

Committee for Cooperative Moose Management A Committee of the Manitoba Model Forest

June 2017

2

Executive Summary and Recommendations Moose are an important wildlife species in eastern Manitoba. They are of considerable cultural importance to indigenous communities, provide for licensed hunting opportunities and food for families and play a key role in the ecology of the boreal forest. Between the years 2006 and 2010, the moose population in Game Hunting Area (GHA) 26, located in eastern Manitoba, declined by approximately 50%. The causes of the population decline are complex and relate to a number of interrelated factors. The primary factors are believed to be wolf predation, disease and parasites associated with the presence of white-tailed deer, hunting (by indigenous peoples and licensed hunters as well as through illegal hunting activities) and a well-established network of roads and trails that facilitate higher hunter success and higher predation rates. Other, less well understood factors may include bear predation on calves, and stress, disease and/or metabolic issues associated with severe weather conditions or changing climatic patterns. And, while habitat is generally not thought to be limiting, a lack of wildfires over the last few decades means that there are few large areas of regenerating forests that provide high quality moose habitats. Beginning in 2010 the Manitoba government undertook several initiatives to understand the causes of the moose decline and concurrently implemented a number of actions to stop the decline and help the moose population recover. The Committee for Cooperative Moose Management (CCMM) has played an important collaborative and participatory role in these initiatives and actions. The CCMM is a multi-stakeholder committee of the Manitoba Model Forest, which includes community members from local First Nation and Metis communities in eastern Manitoba, representatives from regional and provincial wildlife associations, other non-government organizations such as the Manitoba Trappers Association and Manitoba Hydro as well as Manitoba Sustainable Development (MSD). The CCMM has been involved in a number of research and monitoring studies that were initiated to better understand the complex causes leading to the population decline. These have included monitoring studies on the moose and wolf populations in GHA 26 (including use of GPS collars and aerial surveys), monitoring of the prevalence of the brainworm parasite in white-tailed deer, and a study on wolf diet composition. In addition, the CCMM has recommended a number of management actions that will assist with moose population recovery. These management actions were implemented by MSD and included changes to hunting regulations (the cancellation of licensed hunting for moose in the entire GHA and a conservation closure to moose hunting by all persons, including indigenous peoples, in key areas of the GHA), liberalizing licensed deer hunting in the GHA (additional deer tags, extended seasons), temporary decommissioning of forest access roads, and working with trappers to reduce the overall wolf population temporarily (in an effort to kick start the initial steps of the moose population recovery process), as well as others. All of the collaborative efforts undertaken thus far by MSD, the CCMM and its partners have succeeded in halting the moose population decline in GHA 26. The population has not yet, however, shown any appreciable recovery in numbers from the estimate of 823 ± 124 moose obtained in the 2010 survey. While a 2013 survey suggested an initial positive response (1307 ± 189 moose), a follow-up survey in 2016 provided an estimate of only 936 ±141 moose. Throughout this same period CCMM members reported increasing observations of moose and believe that population recovery may be occurring at a greater rate than the survey results suggest. It is recognized that aerial survey estimates can be affected by annual variations in environmental conditions (e.g. snow depth) and other factors that influence observability of moose. Accordingly, subsequent surveys will be needed to identify the longer-term population

3

trend (stable, increasing or declining) and determine whether recovery is being impeded or if the 2016 survey was an anomaly. At the same time, our collaborative efforts on research, monitoring and management actions must continue. This report not only documents the recent history of the GHA 26 moose population and the efforts of the CCMM, but also includes recommendations that complement and build upon our previous work, in order to ensure a sustainable moose population into the future. In order to provide for a sustainable moose population in GHA 26, the CCMM provides the following recommendations: Moose Population Objective for GHA 26

A population objective of 1600 to 2000 moose in Game Hunting Area (GHA) 26 (based on a trend estimation) should be established

If the moose population is 1300 or more: o Additional hunting opportunities will be provided for rights-based hunters o Licensed hunting opportunities be re-introduced

If the moose population falls below 900, hunting should be severely restricted or closed entirely to licensed and rights-based hunters

Moose Population Surveys Given the importance of having a timely and accurate population estimate for

management purposes, moose population surveys in GHA26 should be conducted every 2 to 3 years

Manitoba Sustainable Development (MSD) should investigate additional methods for monitoring changes in the moose population between survey years

Partnership Mechanisms The Committee for Cooperative Moose Management (CCMM) recognizes the importance of

indigenous peoples and their rights and responsibilities. As such, First Nations and their elected officials, and Metis communities and the Manitoba Metis Federation should be part of developing recovery actions and be involved in the long-term management of the moose population in GHA 26

MSD should develop a co-management regime concerning moose. The co-management regime needs to include indigenous peoples and licensed hunters, as well as other interested partners

GHA 26, which has experienced a significant moose population decline and also has an existing cooperative moose management committee, should be a priority area for the development of a moose co-management regime

As a neutral body, the Manitoba Model Forest (MBMF) will continue to play a lead role in facilitating the development of a co-management regime in eastern Manitoba

In the recent past, Traditional Area Advisory Committees, created and supported (financially and through provision of human resources) by the MBMF, provided an effective mechanism for dialogue between First Nation communities, government and resource industries regarding natural resources in traditional areas. MSD, the communities and other partners should explore avenues to re-establish/create these important committees

MSD should provide opportunities for non-government individuals to receive training and participate in aerial wildlife surveys

4

Re-introduction of Moose Hunting to GHA26 When the government decision is made to re-open hunting for moose in GHA 26 following

the 2010 closure, MSD will provide the CCMM the opportunity to assist in determining how the moose harvest is reintroduced (e.g., seasons, on-going closures, sustainable harvest limit and number of tags for licensed hunters, draws, bulls only harvest, consideration for indigenous needs, refuges, vehicle restrictions, etc.). The CCMM also recommends that additional hunting opportunities to rights-based, and new hunting opportunities to licensed hunters be implemented concurrently. The CCMM recognizes that sustainability of the moose population is of primary importance

Patrols and Enforcement and Safety There are currently two vacancies for Conservation Officers in the Lac du Bonnet and Pine

Falls Districts, and another five vacancies in the region. As part of ensuring a long-term sustainable moose population in GHA 26, increased enforcement must be a priority for MSD and be appropriately resourced. This includes enforcement of illegal instances of hunting in GHA 26, similar to the effort that occurred in 2016

The CCMM recommends the addition of two Conservation Officer positions in Bissett, positions that existed previously

The CCMM recommends that the province establish full-time Resource Management Assistant (RMA) positions in all eastern Manitoba First Nation communities

The CCMM recommends that MSD facilitate the establishment of community-based Conservation Officers positions in First Nation communities

MSD should work closely with indigenous peoples and other partners to create and implement a policy on night hunting that protects the safety of all Manitobans, includes consideration of the sustainability of the moose population, and that is amenable to rights-based hunters

Research, Monitoring and Reporting MSD needs to monitor other ungulates (e.g., woodland caribou, white-tailed deer) and

predators (e.g., wolves, bears) in GHA 26. The frequency and methods of monitoring must be appropriate to moose management objectives.

MSD should continually investigate alternative and innovative moose survey methods, as well as assess current survey and monitoring methods to ensure that they are effective and responsive to changes in conditions (e.g., climate change)

To facilitate communication and in order to provide the public with information on the province’s wildlife, and consistent with the requirements of section 83 of The Wildlife Act, every five years MSD will report on a) the status of animals listed in Schedule A, b) wildlife management programs implemented and an assessment of their effectiveness, c) an analysis of trends in, and a forecast of demands for the use of wildlife resources in the province, and d) an evaluation of the capability of the wildlife resource in the province to meet anticipated demands. The CCMM sees this as a valuable and necessary document and tool for working towards a wildlife co-management model

Given the high costs of population-level surveys of big game animals, MSD should develop a system of wildlife monitoring and reporting utilizing the vast knowledge base and observations of partners in the region

Appropriate resources needs to be available to continue to understand the factors affecting the current decline and future recovery of the GHA 26 moose population. This could include support for research and monitoring on parasites and disease, and

5

predation (e.g., by wolves, bears). This new knowledge should be incorporated into a moose population model

With effective fire suppression and a lack of forest harvesting in the region, the long-term availability of high quality habitat for moose is in decline. A research study should be conducted to evaluate how the various habitats utilized by moose has changed over the last few decades, the current status of habitat and how habitat supply will change in the future under scenarios of fire suppression, no forest harvesting and climate change, as well as changes in habitat carrying capacity for moose

As part of a shared management strategy, and in order to gain a more accurate knowledge of the moose harvest, mandatory reporting by all hunters should be required

Land Use Policy and Practices In the absence of fire, the present provincial policy that prohibits forestry operations in

most parks is having a significant, negative long-term impact on habitat renewal for moose. The province needs to reconsider this policy.

The CCMM recommends that the province recognize the important role and benefit of fire (natural and prescribed burns) in habitat renewal for moose, and that fire management policy and actions reflect this.

Communication, Outreach and Networking Outreach and communication activities should be developed and shared to promote the

sustainable harvest of moose The curriculum supplement on moose, developed by the MBMF, be distributed and

promoted in schools throughout Manitoba On-going communication needs to continue with partners and communities, regarding the

status of the moose population, factors affecting the population, and management actions taken and their effectiveness

Given the geographically widespread decline in moose populations, MSD should work closely with neighbouring provincial and state government agencies to understand the causes of moose population declines

Financial Support of MBMF and CCMM Given the importance of the both the MBMF and its CCMM as a primary and important

mechanism to engage indigenous communities and other partners in eastern Manitoba for wildlife management, the Province of Manitoba would be well served by providing annual and on-going financial support to the MBMF and CCMM

Note: Throughout this document, the CCMM uses the term co-management and shared management interchangeably. The committee does not have an operating definition of what such management entails and how it could be structured. However, the CCMM firmly believes that management of wildlife species must take a new and shared approach, and include those with a vested interest, especially indigenous peoples, licensed hunters and others. The CCMM wishes to assist in dialogue that will define and create such a management system.

6

Acknowledgements The development of this status report and the associated recommendations was a collaborative effort of many people over the past several years. The Manitoba Model Forest thanks the members of the Committee for Cooperative Moose Management for their willingness to work together in the spirit of cooperation for the conservation of the moose population in eastern Manitoba. We also thank the staff of Manitoba Sustainable Development for the provision of data, and their contribution to the process of development and critical review of the draft versions of this document. The Status Report and associated recommendations is a positive example of how indigenous communities, wildlife associations, trappers, government representatives and other stakeholders can work together under an umbrella organization and committee to address issues related to wildlife management. The Committee for Cooperative Moose Management is a model of collaboration for others to follow.

Citation: this publication may be cited as Committee for Cooperative Moose Management (a Committee of the Manitoba Model Forest). 2017. Status Report of the Moose Population in Game Hunting Area 26: Challenges and Recommendations for Sustainability. 45 pp. www.manitobamodelforest.net.

7

List of Tables Table 1. Point estimates for moose, 90% lower and upper confidence intervals, PAGE overall density and population composition (± 90% confidence intervals) derived from aerial surveys conducted in Game Hunting Area 26………………………………………….. 14 Table 2. Number of wolves trapped in GHA 26 throughout the Wolf Incentive Program ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25 Table 3. Number of deer heads examined for the presence of the brainworm parasite within the brain cavity and associated sinuses in GHA 26, 34 and 36 in eastern Manitoba between 2012 and 2016 …………………………………………………………………………………………. 34 List of Figures PAGE Figure 1. Game Hunting Areas (GHAs) in eastern Manitoba ……………………………………… 13 Figure 2: Point estimates for moose (± 90% confidence interval) in Game Hunting Area 26, derived from aerial surveys using stratified random sampling methods, and unadjusted for sightability ……………………………………………………………………………….. 15 Figure 3. Fire and forest harvest disturbance in GHA 26 from 1970 through to 2009 … 22 Figure 4. Short-term road decommissioning carried out in August 2010 ……………………. 24 Figure 5. Moose Protection Zones and Moose Conservation Zones in Game Hunting Area 26 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 28 Figure 6. Happy Lake Management Trial Area in GHA 26 …………………………………………… 30 Figure 7. Moose numbers observed in the Happy Lake Management Trial Area derived from aerial strip transect surveys ………………………………………………………………… 30 Figure 8. Spatial overlap in moose, woodland caribou and wolves in the northern potion of GHA 26 from 2006-2009 …………………………………………………………………………… 32 Figure 9. Maps of GHA 26 with the grid system and locations of four potential factors affecting the presence/absence of moose: a) white-tailed deer 1(2010), b) forest fires (1980-2010), c) logged areas (1983-2010), and, d) major roads ………………………………. 33 Figure 10. Probability of encountering each predictor factor in grid units with or without moose present ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 33 Figure 11. Geographic incidence of the brainworm parasite in white-tailed deer from 2012-2014 in eastern Manitoba …………………………………………………………………………….. 35

8

Figure 12. Number (and percentage) of species identified at kill sites, scavenging sites and probable kill sites visited between February 14 and October 31 2016 for five wolf packs in GHA 26 ………………………………………………………………………………………. 37 Figure 13. GPS location data of 2 cow moose from April 1 to July 1, 2012 near Quesnel Lake and the community of Bissett (northern portion of GHA 26) ……………………………. 39 Figure 14. GPS locations of a lone wolf, originally collared near Bissett, Manitoba and ultimately trapped near Thunder Bay, Ontario 1 year later ……………………………… 40

9

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 10 1.1 COMMITTEE FOR COOPERATIVE MOOSE MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................... 10 1.2 CONTEXT FOR THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 12 1.2.1 REGIONAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................ 12 1.2.2 GHA 26 MOOSE POPULATION TRENDS ............................................................................................................ 13 1.2.3 INTERPRETING AERIAL SURVEY INFORMATION ................................................................................................ 15 1.3 COMPONENTS OF THIS REPORT ............................................................................................................................................ 17

2. FACTORS AFFECTING THE MOOSE POPULATION IN GAME HUNTING AREA 26 ............................................................................................................................................... 17

2.1 PREDATION AND ITS LINK TO MOOSE AND ALTERNATE PREY ........................................................................... 18 2.2 HUNTING ................................................................................................................................................................... 18 2.3 PARASITES AND DISEASE ........................................................................................................................................ 19 2.4 ACCESS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 20 2.5 HABITAT AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY ................................................................................................................. 20 2.6 WEATHER AND CLIMATE ........................................................................................................................................ 22 2.7 ACCIDENTS ................................................................................................................................................................................. 23

3. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TAKEN TO DATE .............................................................. 23 3.1 ACCESS MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 23 3.2 WOLF MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 24 3.3 WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................... 26 3.4 EDUCATION AND AWARENESS ................................................................................................................................ 26 3.5 CONSULTATIONS WITH AFFECTED INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES ........................................................................ 27 3.6 HUNTING CLOSURES ................................................................................................................................................ 27 3.7 OFFICER PATROLS ................................................................................................................................................................... 29

4. MONITORING AND RESEARCH UP TO MARCH 2016 ............................................ 29 4.1 THE HAPPY LAKE TRIAL: MOOSE POPULATION RESPONSE TO ACCESS CONTROL AND HUNTING CLOSURE 29 4.2 EXPLORATIONS OF WILDLIFE DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS.................................................................................... 31 4.3 BRAINWORM PARASITE: PREVALENCE MONITORING ......................................................................................... 34 4.4 WOLF STUDIES ......................................................................................................................................................................... 35 4.4.1 Wolf Diet Study: Stable Isotope Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 35 4.4.2 Wolf Kill Site Investigations ................................................................................................................................................................... 36 4.5 GPS COLLARING OF MOOSE AND WOLVES ............................................................................................................ 38 4.6 UNDERSTANDING INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY NEEDS FOR MOOSE ...................................................................... 40 4.7 MOOSE POPULATION MODELING ........................................................................................................................... 40 4.8 MONITORING THE MOOSE POPULATION RESPONSE TO ACTIONS TAKEN ................................................................ 41

5. MOOSE RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 42

6. LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................................................... 44

10

1. Introduction Moose (Alces alces) are an important wildlife species in eastern Manitoba. They are of significant cultural importance to indigenous peoples, having fed families and provided hides, bones, antlers and sinew for clothing and tools for thousands of years. Moose also provide licensed hunting opportunities and benefits for outdoor recreation pursuits such as photography, wildlife viewing and eco-tourism. Moose are an important component of the overall biodiversity found in the boreal forest, including as a food source for predators such as wolves (Canis lupus) and black bear (Ursus americanus), and are part of a complex food web that includes other ungulates such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). Moose are the largest mammal in the boreal forest and the largest member of the cervid (deer) family. Moose can weigh up to 600 kg, with bulls being larger than cows. Bulls have large, palmated antlers, which are shed each year. Cows lack antlers (as is the case for most cervid species). They have long legs, which make them well adapted to walking in deep snow or over rough terrain. Mating occurs in the fall (termed the rut) and calves are born in late spring (May or June). Cows give birth to a single calf, although twinning can occur when habitat/food conditions are favourable. Moose are a wide-ranging species in Canada and are found in all provinces and territories, except Prince Edward Island. Moose require a mixture of habitats of a variety of ages, which provide both cover and food and their habitat requirements can overlap with those of other species such as deer and caribou. Moose feed on a variety of nutritious foods such as willow, alder, dogwood and other plants. These grow best in rich soils with ample sunlight, such as riparian areas along waterways (creeks, rivers, lakes) and marshes, and in young regenerating forests following disturbances such as fire and forest (timber) harvesting. Fire, in particular, increases the diversity of forest plants, results in higher nutritional quality of plants, and purges the forest of pests and disease. During the summer, moose frequently are found feeding on aquatic plants in creeks, rivers and lakes. Moose also require mature forest areas, where such forests provide thermal cover (e.g., protection from winds) in winter, shade in the summer, protection from predators and hunters, and have lower snow depths compared to more open habitat. These forest stands include hardwood tree species such as aspen, birch and alder, and coniferous trees species such as black and white spruce, balsam fir and jack pine. The proximity of mature forest to more open habitat is also an important consideration in habitat selection for moose.

1.1 Committee for Cooperative Moose Management The Committee for Cooperative Moose Management (CCMM) was established in 1992. It is a multi-stakeholder committee of the Manitoba Model Forest. According to the committee’s Terms of Reference, the purpose of the CCMM is “to provide a forum for people with a common interest in moose conservation to share information and ideas, participate in management projects and activities, and develop cooperative recommendations to Manitoba Sustainable Development (MSD) for the conservation and management of moose in eastern Manitoba, including advice and recommendations on moose recovery strategies and action plans”. The goals of the CCMM are to promote the conservation and recovery of eastern Manitoba moose populations and achieve sustainable moose populations.

11

The CCMM operates under a set of 11 core principles: Respect and care for the community of life; Open and candid problem-solving approach; Broad and fair representation of the diverse interests in moose conservation; Recognize and maintain all values of moose – traditional, cultural, social and ecological; Recognize and respect Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Responsibilities; Recognize and respect rights-based and licensed hunting; Mutual respect among committee members; Consideration for economic stakeholders; Open and transparent communications and information sharing; Integration of western science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge and local land-based

knowledge; and Embracing of adaptive management

The CCMM is made up of a diversity of organizations as well as individuals from communities in eastern Manitoba. Over the years since its inception, membership in the CCMM has included:

Manitoba Model Forest Community members from:

o Black River First Nation o Hollow Water First Nation o Sagkeeng First Nation o Bloodvein First Nation o Brokenhead Ojibway Nation

Community of Manigotagan Community of Bissett Manitoba Trappers Association Lac du Bonnet Local Fur Council Lac du Bonnet Wildlife Association Brokenhead River Game and Fish Association Winnipeg River Bow Hunters Association Pinawa Game and Fish Association Manitoba Wildlife Federation Manitoba Metis Federation Manitoba Lodges and Outfitters Association Manitoba Wild Rice Association Manitoba Sustainable Development - several branches/sections, including Wildlife,

Aboriginal Relations, Forestry, Parks and Regional Operations Manitoba Hydro Abitibi Price/Pine Falls Paper Company/Tembec Inc.

The CCMM is always open to welcoming new members that share our common principles and vision. Over the years, the CCMM and its partners have conducted a wide variety of activities. These include participation in, and financial support of wildlife surveys (population surveys, species distribution surveys) and other research and monitoring efforts (e.g., deployment of GPS collars

12

on moose and wolves, brain worm monitoring in white-tailed deer, wolf diet analysis, experiments to test the effects of access and hunting closures on local moose populations). The CCMM has also supported the collaborative development of specific management actions such as road access decommissioning plans, bag limits and seasons for moose and other wildlife species (e.g., deer, wolves). Communications are an important mandate of the CCMM and activities include hosting of meetings and public outreach through workshops as well as development of communication tools (e.g., Moose News newsletter). The development of this report represents not only an important outcome of the committee, but also a significant contribution to the recovery and sustainability of the moose population in Game Hunting Area (GHA) 26. Indeed, the work of the committee and the recommendations found in this report are extremely relevant in all areas of the Province of Manitoba where moose populations are struggling, or even in areas where moose populations are doing well (and we want them to continue doing so).

1.2 Context for the Report and Recommendations

1.2.1 Regional Context Moose populations in south-eastern Manitoba have been declining over the last two decades. It is important to note that moose declines are not isolated to eastern Manitoba. Other areas of the province (e.g., Duck Mountain, Porcupine Mountain, Turtle Mountain) as well as adjacent jurisdictions (north-western Ontario, northern Minnesota) and numerous other areas across North America are also experiencing moose population declines. It is also important to note that the causes underlying these population declines may not be the same between regions and jurisdictions. The causes of these population declines are complex and so are the solutions. However, collaborative approaches, such as those developed and promoted by the CCMM can assist with those recovery efforts. Moose populations have been progressively disappearing in southeast Manitoba over the past 15-20 years. Precipitous moose declines were first observed in eastern Manitoba in GHAs 35 and 35A (Figure 1), resulting in the closure of licensed moose seasons in the year 2000. By the mid-2000s, licensed hunting was also closed in GHA 34 due to similar declines in moose numbers. In 2009, no moose were observed in a survey of GHA 36, and licensed moose hunting was closed in that GHA as well. As will be discussed throughout this document, the significant (50%) drop in the GHA 26 moose population over a short four-year period (2006 to 2010) instigated the need for immediate and comprehensive action to halt the decline and help recover the population to a sustainable level.

13

Figure 1. Game Hunting Areas (GHAs) in eastern Manitoba. Source: Manitoba Sustainable Development.

1.2.2 GHA 26 Moose Population Trends Aerial surveys to estimate the moose population in GHA 26 have been conducted since at least 1993. However, as methods employed prior to 2000 were not consistent with those used from 2000 onward (e.g. fixed wing aircraft prior to 2000; vs helicopter thereafter), only those surveys employing comparable methods (2000 to 2016) are reported in this document. GHA 26 surveys have been conducted at intervals ranging from 3 to 6 years since 2000, depending on factors such as survey priorities of MSD in other areas of the province and for other species, level of urgency, as well as the existence of suitable conditions for conducting the surveys (e.g., adequate snow conditions), which may not be available in a particular year for a planned survey. For example, although an urgent priority, the aerial moose survey for GHA 26 for the winters of 2011-12 and 2014-15 had to be cancelled because minimum snow depths (25 cm or greater throughout the entire GHA) were not achieved.

14

Information on moose surveys conducted for GHA 26 from 2000 to 2016 is provided in Table 1 and Figure 2. Table 1. Point estimates for moose, 90% lower and upper confidence intervals, overall density and population composition (± 90% confidence intervals) derived from aerial surveys conducted in Game Hunting Area 26. Although survey methods varied slightly (see footnotes), a stratified random sampling method (see Gasaway et al. 1985) was used in all years. Source: Manitoba Sustainable Development.

Statistic

20002 20063 20103 20133,4 20163,4

# of Moose 1 (Point Estimate)

1668 1553 823 1307 936

90% Confidence Interval

10.3% 1496-1839

moose

13.6% 1342-1765

moose

15.1% 699-947 moose

±14.4% 1118-1495

moose

±15.1% 795-1076

moose

Area Surveyed 6861.6 km² 6954.4 km² 7793.1 km² 7793.1 km² 7793.1 km² Overall Density (#moose/km2)

0.2430

0.2233

0.1056

.1677

.1201

#bulls/100 cows 67 _________5 45 60 59 #calves/100 cows

57 _________5 31 35 44

1 All point estimates are unadjusted for sightability 2 Stratified random sampling of unequal quadrats 3 Stratified random sampling of equal quadrats 4 Portions of Game Hunting Area 26 (moose protection zones) closed to all moose hunting 5 Accurate ratios are not available due to the large number of unsexed moose

15

Figure 2: Point estimates for moose (± 90% confidence interval) in Game Hunting Area 26, derived from aerial surveys using stratified random sampling methods, and unadjusted for sightability. Different colors of point estimates show years for which methods and/or the area surveyed varied slightly (see footnote on Table 1). Source: Manitoba Sustainable Development.

1.2.3 Interpreting Aerial Survey Information Point estimates obtained in surveys do not represent the actual number of number of moose in a GHA, as some moose will be missed due to various factors (e.g., moose standing in a thick conifer stand). This means that survey estimates are likely biased low. A more accurate population estimate can be obtained by applying an adjustment for observability (sightability correction factor). This is usually done during a survey by re-flying a designated percentage of the sample units in each of the different cover types in the survey area at lower altitudes and slower air speeds and comparing the two moose counts obtained. For example, immediately upon counting moose in a designated sample unit at the standard air speed of 90-100 km/hr, the sample unit will be re-surveyed at an air speed of 70-80 km/hr and another count obtained. Data from all of the re-surveyed sample units will be used to calculate sightability correction factors for each of the cover types, and arrive at an adjusted population estimate. As obtaining estimates adjusted for sightability is very costly, Manitoba has not incorporated “sightability corrections” into a GHA 26 moose survey since the year 2000 (unadjusted point estimate of 1668 moose; point estimate of 2350 when adjusted for sightability). Jurisdictions such as Minnesota that do apply sightability correction factors have reported that as many as 40% of the moose can be missed in thick conifer cover. Moose typically move into heavier cover later in the winter, therefore; survey protocols in jurisdictions across North America require that

16

moose surveys be completed no later than mid-February to improve the accuracy of population estimates. The ability to detect moose can also be affected by weather. In Manitoba, a minimum snow depth of 25 cm is required throughout a GHA prior to starting a survey; however; additional snow depths can improve observability. Temperature can also affect observability as moose are more active during cold weather than when temperatures are warm. Both of these factors (snow depth, temperature) can vary significantly from year to year and thus affect both observability of moose and accuracy of population estimates from year to year. Many jurisdictions account for annual variations in detectability by conducting surveys every 1-3 years and relying upon longer-term trend information provided by the survey estimates. The confidence intervals indicate the precision of the point estimate. A 90% confidence interval around a point estimate indicates a 90% level of confidence that the moose population is somewhere within the calculated range. For example, the 2006 estimate of 1553 ± 212 moose (Table 1) indicates a 90% level of confidence that the population estimate is within the range of 1342 to 1735 moose. A smaller range of values indicates a more precise estimate. Precision is important when comparing successive surveys and assessing moose population trends. For example, the 2013 survey estimate is considered to be higher than in 2010 or 2016 because there is no overlap in the confidence intervals (Table 1, Figure 2). The 2010 and 2016 estimates of 823 and 936 moose, respectively, are considered to be similar because their confidence intervals overlap. Since the accuracy of survey estimates is affected by factors that cannot be controlled (e.g. annual variations in weather conditions that affect the ability to detect moose), repeated surveys are required to determine population trends (i.e. is the population increasing, decreasing or stable?). Information from local communities, hunters, MSD staff and other people “on the land” within a GHA is also considered when assessing population trends over time. For example, the declining trend detected by surveys over the period 2000 to 2010 was consistent with what many people had been reporting during this same period, i.e. fewer and fewer moose observations. Both these sources of information were considered in MSD’s decision to undertake actions to prevent further declines and recover moose population numbers. Surveys conducted from 2010 to 2016 suggest that the population decline has stopped but that no appreciable recovery in moose numbers has occurred since 2010. However, many people have been reporting increasing observations of moose since 2010, and believe that recovery may be occurring at a greater rate than the survey results suggest. Additional surveys will be required to account for annual variations affecting detectability of moose, and assess the longer-term trend for the population. Other information, such as the proportion of bulls, cows and calves observed during the aerial surveys can also help to explain the changes observed in the population estimates and/or to predict the potential growth rate in a population. For example, a ratio of 40 bulls per 100 cows is generally considered sufficient to ensure that all the cows in the population are bred, and this ratio has been met or exceeded in each survey year (Table 1). A ratio of at least 30 calves per 100 cows is required to ensure that a moose population is maintained (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2013). The Calf to cow ratio was close to the lower limit in 2010 and 2013 (31 and 35 calves per 100 cows, respectively), but increased to 44 calves per 100 cows in 2016.

17

1.3 Components of this Report The development of this moose status report and recommendations was a collaborative effort of all the partners of the CCMM. It is important to note that some members of the CCMM, such as members of wildlife associations or other organizations (e.g., Lac du Bonnet Local Fur Council), provide their viewpoints and recommendations as representatives of those organizations. However, the viewpoints expressed or recommendations made by First Nation and Metis members of the CCMM do not necessarily reflect the views of their communities or governments. As indicated by these individuals, they attend and participate as community members, but do not speak for their community. Thus, while the CCMM has participation of indigenous peoples (and this report was also produced with such input), there is a separate, legal requirement under Section 35 of the Constitution Act of Canada (1982) for Manitoba to consult with affected communities where a contemplated government decision would create an infringement on treaty and aboriginal rights. First Nation and Metis participation on the CCMM should not therefore be construed or interpreted as such a consultation. Nevertheless, the participation and contributions of indigenous peoples to the CCMM are extremely valuable, necessary and appreciated. The CCMM could not function and this report would significantly lacking without their contributions. This report and its recommendations are based on 3 core principles, agreed upon by the CCMM. These are:

Putting the conservation of moose first Determining and living within a sustainable harvest level Sharing of the moose resource among all (rights-based and licensed hunters)

As mentioned, the factors responsible for the decline in the moose population in GHA 26 are complex and inter-dependent (i.e., affect one another). In addition, the moose population decline in GHA 26 is not isolated, but a trend that is occurring elsewhere in Manitoba and in neighbouring provinces and states. It is therefore clear that not only are local factors responsible for the observed decline in moose in GHA 26, but also regional or even more-widespread factors (e.g., climate change). Section 2 briefly summarizes the factors that may affect the moose population in GHA 26. Section 3 provides a summary of actions taken to address the moose population. Section 4 summarizes monitoring and research activities conducted up to March 2016, including those that pre-date the population decline, and Section 5 provides the recommendations of the CCMM for a number of aspects of moose management in GHA 26, recommendations that complement and build upon actions already taken.

2. Factors Affecting the Moose Population in Game Hunting Area 26 Moose populations increase or decrease based on changes in the balance between birth rate and death (mortality) rate. When birth rates exceed death rate, the population will increase, and when death rate exceeds birth rate, the population will decline. Stable moose populations are those were birth rate equals death rate. There are a variety of interrelated factors that can affect

18

both rates. These factors can have direct or indirect effects on a population. In addition, other factors such as habitat, climate and severe weather events can play a fundamental role in determining the capability of an area to support a sustainable moose population. The following sections provide a brief summary of the factors thought to affect the moose population in Game Hunting Area (GHA) 26. More detailed explanations, including data and information obtained from local observations, Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge and “western science” specific to GHA 26 and adjacent areas are found in Section 3.

2.1 Predation and its Link to Moose and Alternate Prey The main source of predation on moose in GHA 26 is wolves. Predation by black bears also occurs, but their contribution to the overall predation rate on moose is unknown. Moose calves, in particular during the first few weeks of life are most susceptible to predation. However, the mortality rate from predation drops substantially in moose that survive their first year of life. Wolf predation can have significant effects on a moose population, especially if the moose population is already low. This is due to the fact that there is a lag between a predator’s response to a declining prey population. Wolves will continue to kill moose at the same rate as they were prior to a decline in moose, which can exacerbate the decline or keep a prey population at a low level. The density of the both predator and prey populations in a region can have direct bearing on the predation rate on moose (percentage of the moose population dying as a result of predation). As wolves will feed opportunistically, the presence of other alternative prey species in an area can also influence the overall predation rate on moose. For example, white-tailed deer, which over the last 20 years or more have expanded their geographic range into the southern boreal forest, are an important alternative prey species for wolves. The presence of white-tailed deer can help support higher wolf densities than would otherwise occur in the boreal forest if they were absent. Wolves can also prey opportunistically on boreal woodland caribou, which are also found in GHA 26. However, preliminary results from diet studies in the area suggest they account for a small portion of the wolves’ overall diet as woodland caribou occur at very low densities on the landscape. Beaver is another important prey species for wolves in GHA 26, especially from spring to fall (Dupont, unpublished data).

2.2 Hunting Uncontrolled hunting can be a significant factor affecting moose populations. The effects of hunting should also be considered along with other natural rates of mortality. When added to natural mortalities, hunting has the ability to initiate a population decline and keep a moose population low for a long period of time. As a moose population declines, the effects of hunting become more pronounced. Mortality of moose from hunting includes that attributed to licensed hunting, rights-based hunting and illegal hunting. Licensed hunting for moose is regulated (and therefore hunter success rates and the number of moose harvested) through a number of mechanisms, including the designation of hunting seasons (e.g., fall, winter), length of hunting seasons, types of firearm and archery equipment allowed (archery, rifle, etc.), bag limits (including whether bulls, cows or calves can be harvested, license systems where only one tag is available for 2 hunters), limiting

19

the number of hunters through draws, as well as, restrictions on vehicle use (e.g. designated routes). Prior to the closure of licensed hunting for moose in GHA 26 in 2010, licensed hunting was regulated primarily through seasons (winter season only), season length (2 weeks only), harvest of bulls only, bag limits (one bull), and restricting vehicle use to designated routes. Protection of cows from hunting is an important consideration, as moose cows represent the “reproductive units” of a population. Similarly, calves represent the reproductive future of a moose population, and should also be considered for protection. Prior to the moose hunting closure, bull harvests and hunter success rate in GHA 26 varied between years. Based on responses from hunter questionnaires and roadside check stops, an average of approximately 40 bulls were harvested by licensed hunters each year, and hunter success rates were 13%, 5% and 10% in 2007, 2008 and 2009, respectively. It is evident from this data and the roadside checks that the effect of licensed hunting in any one year on the GHA 26 moose population was minor. Indigenous peoples have a constitutionally protected right to hunt for food or traditional ceremonial purposes, although there are differences in how Manitoba recognizes the hunting rights of First Nation and Metis people. First Nation hunting rights apply across the province, whereas Manitoba currently recognizes Metis harvesting rights only in certain areas of Manitoba, and as of 2016 these areas do not include lands north of the Winnipeg River in eastern Manitoba (e.g., GHA 26). The historic and current number of moose harvested by indigenous people each year in GHA 26 is unknown. Manitoba Sustainable Development (MSD) is currently working with First Nation communities and the Manitoba Metis Federation in eastern Manitoba to understand the historic and current moose harvesting levels in GHA 26. This information is needed to establish a sustainable moose harvest level for GHA 26. The illegal harvest of moose is an on-going concern, not just in GHA 26 but elsewhere in the province. Illegal hunting can take many forms: hunting out of season, hunting without a license, exceeding bag limits, harvest of cows and calves that are protected under regulation, hunting at night by licensed hunters, hunting in conservation closure areas, and selling, buying and serving of wild meat. The exact number of moose lost to illegal hunting on an annual basis in GHA 26 is not known. Conservation efforts that include hunter education and communications, undertaken by MSD, local communities, as well as many local and provincial wildlife associations help to reduce the incidence of illegal hunting. Increased patrols and enforcement by MSD (see Section 3) have also helped curtail illegal hunting activities more recently. The elimination of illegal hunting of moose in GHA 26 is a necessary component of maintaining a sustainable moose population.

2.3 Parasites and Disease Parasites and disease may directly cause mortality in moose, or may affect an individual’s overall health predisposing it to other mortality factors. For example, parasites and disease can cause severe decline in health and weaken moose so that they are more susceptible to predation, hunting, severe weather or accidents. Meningeal worm (Parelaphostrongylus tenuis) is a nematode parasite that is common in white-tailed deer. The “worm” is harmless to white-tailed deer but causes a fatal disease called brainworm when present in other cervid species (moose, elk, woodland caribou). The worm has a life cycle that includes certain gastropod species (snails or slugs) acting as an intermediate host.

20

Adult worms reside in the meningeal tissues of the central nervous system in deer. The adult worms lay eggs, which are then dislodged and pass to the lungs. The eggs hatch and the larvae are coughed up by the deer, swallowed and pass through the gastrointestinal tract, eventually being defecated from the deer. Gastropods become infected with larvae by feeding on the mucus covering the deer feces or by larvae penetrating the foot of gastropods while travelling over the feces, thereby becoming the intermediate host. The gastropods in turn, are accidentally consumed by moose as they graze on moist vegetation. The parasite can therefore be easily transferred from deer to moose living in the same geographic area, providing that an intermediate host is present. The brainworm parasite is not as prevalent in south-western Manitoba due to a dry climate which restricts the geographic distribution of the intermediate host. The prevalence of the brainworm is, however, common in south-eastern Manitoba, northern Minnesota and north-western Ontario. The brainworm parasite does not harm white-tailed deer, but can have devastating effects on moose, eventually causing death. The parasites will burrow their way into the spinal column and brain tissue of moose, causing severe damage to the brain and nervous system. The moose begin to lose strength in their hind legs, become blind, disoriented, and eventually weaken to a point where they are no longer able to move and feed. Such animals will die of starvation or become easy targets for predators. As will be discussed in Section 3, there is a high occurrence of the brainworm parasite in white-tailed deer in GHA 26, and this is likely having a negative effect on the moose population in areas where the ranges of these two cervid species overlap. Other parasites such as liver flukes, winter ticks and tapeworms can also infect moose. While liver flukes do occur in GHA 26, their impact on moose at the population level is not well known. Winter ticks, which can be a significant source of mortality in moose in western Manitoba, are thought to be present at low levels in GHA 26 and thus not considered a significant source of mortality.

2.4 Access Access created through resource development (e.g., forestry or mining roads) and recreational trails (e.g., ATVs, snowmobile) can have a dramatic effect on moose populations by increasing death rates from both natural and human-induced sources of mortality. Roads and trails (particularly new ones into formerly remote areas) can provide hunters with easy access to local moose populations, increase hunting pressure in affected areas, and elevate moose harvests to unsustainable levels. These same road and trails also provide travel routes for wolves and improve their hunting efficiency. This is particularly true during the winter, as evidenced by a study in Riding Mountain National Park documenting that wolf kill rates on ungulates can be 2.5 times greater near packed vehicle/snowmobile trails than in areas without motorized winter access (MSD, personal communication). The cleared sides (shoulders, ditches) of resource roads can also attract “edge” species such as white-tailed deer, providing a pathway into moose habitats for white-tailed deer and their harmful parasites.

2.5 Habitat Availability and Quality Moose require a variety of habitats to fulfil their needs. Shallow water bodies (rivers, creeks, lakes, marshes) provide nutritious food during the summer and a respite from the hordes of

21

biting insects of the boreal forest, while young regenerating forests provide summer cover and food year-round. Mature coniferous, deciduous and mixed-wood forests are also important, as they provide shelter (shade in summer, thermal cover from winds in winter) and escape cover from predators. Periodic habitat renewal in the boreal forest is required to provide a sustainable mixture of habitat ages and types. This renewal occurs through natural mechanisms such as fire, but also through management activities such as logging. Both disturbance regimes provide for the creation of young habitat for moose. From a nutrition perspective, young habitats and those in and adjacent to shallow water bodies provide for better quality than older, mature forests. When high quality habitat is readily available, moose can respond reproductively by producing more twin calves. Under less than favourable habitat conditions, the rate of twinning in moose ranges from 1-4%, however, when favourable habitat is readily available, the rate of twinning can be as high as 8-9% (MSD, unpublished data). This has been observed in the Duck Mountains of western Manitoba. There is concern among members of the Committee for Cooperative Moose Management (CCMM) and others in the region that the supply (amount) of high quality young habitat for moose is declining. This concern is based on 2 factors: the efficacy of fire suppression over the past several decades in GHA 26 and the loss of forestry from the region in 2010 as a result of the closure of the newsprint mill in Pine Falls, as well as a provincial policy that now bans logging in provincial parks (Nopiming Provincial Park is located in GHA 26). Although fire has not been entirely eliminated from the area (there have been forest fires in the last decade), more recent fires have been smaller due to effective fire control and therefore the amount of younger habitat is declining as the forest ages. Large fires do not completely burn an area. There are many “fire skips” within a fire boundary and this creates a mosaic of young, regenerating forest mixed with older habitat (i.e., forest patches untouched by the fires). Indeed, many of the older (i.e., pre-1950) fires created large patches of what is now older forest, some of which is crucial to species such as woodland caribou. Figure 3 shows the geographic distribution of fire and forest harvesting in GHA 26 between 1970 and 2009. Due to the presence of both moose and caribou, GHA 26 presents an interesting challenge in managing a landscape for species that require, at least partially, different habitat types and ages. There are two important components to habitat use that need to be considered. We first need to determine the specific types of habitat used at different times of the year by moose in GHA 26. This can be done using GPS collar data to build a robust resource selection function (currently planned). Secondly, a moose habitat supply analysis, including future projections under scenarios of no forest harvest and a minimal/no fire regime would need to be conducted (not currently done). Without this information, it is difficult to determine how the habitat carrying capacity of GHA 26 will change over time. It is worthwhile to note that the Province of Ontario conducts landscape habitat analysis modeling periodically to estimate habitat carrying capacity for moose in all of its Wildlife Management Units. This modeling exercise considers the variety of habitats used by moose, including availability of dormant season (early and late winter) browse, growing season forage (browse and aquatic feeding areas) and both dormant and growing season cover. The results of this modeling are then used to set a moose population management objective that reflects the natural ecological conditions of the management unit.

22

Figure 3. Fire and forest harvest disturbance in GHA 26 from 1970 through to 2009. Source: Manitoba Sustainable Development.

2.6 Weather and Climate Moose are well adapted to living in the boreal forest, including its extremes in weather and climate. Some adaptations include long legs for wading in water, walking through deep snow and over rugged terrain (fallen trees, boulders), dense hollow hairs that insulate against the cold and short tails to prevent heat loss. Despite these adaptations, extreme weather events can have direct effects on moose mortality. Calves in particular, can die from hypothermia during late spring blizzards and cold weather. Prolonged periods of unfavourable weather and/or snow conditions can also cause moose to expend more energy trying to acquire food than the energy

23

they take in. Under these conditions, the physical health of the moose may deteriorate over time, leading to secondary health problems (e.g., infections) or increased risk of predation. Climate change can both present a risk and opportunity for moose in GHA 26. However, predicting the net effect on moose (or any species) is very difficult due to 1) uncertainty in climate models, particularly with respect to precipitation variables and the occurrence of extreme events, and 2) our limited understanding of the complex interactions between species, especially under a changing climate. Fire in particular, may play a greater role in altering the forest in the future under a climate of increased temperature, however this would be greatly influenced by changes in precipitation (which are not well understood and incorporated into climate change models).

2.7 Accidents Accidental deaths of moose can occur from several causes. Collisions with vehicles can occur, especially during the rutting period in the fall, when moose are on the move seeking potential mates. Most vehicle collisions with moose occur during the hours surrounding dawn and dusk. The majority (more than 60%) of the 11,000 vehicle collisions annually with wildlife in Manitoba involve deer (Manitoba Public Insurance, 2017). Collisions with moose, elk and bear make up most of the remainder. Compared to other causes of mortality, the incidence of vehicle collisions with moose in GHA 26 are rare events. Moose have also been known to drown in icy waters in rivers and lakes during winters with thin ice conditions, or from accidental falls.

3. Management Actions Taken to Date Over the years, and especially since the 2010 aerial survey which indicated a significant drop in the moose population in GHA 26, the Committee for Cooperative Moose Management (CCMM) and its partners have led or been involved in a number of efforts and activities related to moose conservation. Many of these activities fall within the mandate and responsibilities of the Government of Manitoba as the managers of wildlife in the province, but through the partnerships established in the CCMM, these efforts are done cooperatively and collaboratively. In most cases, the management actions described below were in response to the moose population decline, however it is important to note that many efforts have been on-going since the formation of the CCMM in 1992 (Section 4 - Monitoring and Research up to March 2016). Of particular recent importance has been the closure to licensed hunting for moose in the entire GHA 26 since 2010 as well as the closure to right-based hunting for moose in certain moose protection zones since 2012. Both are temporary measures. The closure to right-based hunting for moose occurred only after the implementation of other measures. 3.1 Access Management There are a significant number of access roads and trails in GHA 26. Even prior to the results of the 2010 aerial survey for moose being known, discussions were already occurring within the CCMM about access management, and MSD had been having similar discussions with local communities. Immediately following the 2010 survey, MSD initiated discussions with local First Nation communities concerning options for protecting the moose population, including actions to

24

temporarily decommission resource roads in important moose habitats. These discussions led to MSD hiring contractors from 3 First Nation communities (Hollow Water, Black River and Sagkeeng), to carry out short-term decommissioning work on nine key resource roads (Figure 4). The decommissioning activities occurred in August 2010 and were intended to restrict truck travel, reduce ATV traffic and reduce hunting pressure on moose during the upcoming fall rutting (mating) period, while additional recovery options were being developed. Decommissioning activities included removal of culverts and bridges, digging of trenches (i.e., ripping up sections of the road) and building of berms at strategic locations on roads, as well as placing barricades on roads at river crossings. Figure 4. Short-term road decommissioning carried out in August 2010. Source: Manitoba Sustainable Development 3.2 Wolf Management Wolves are an integral part of the boreal forest ecosystem and the presence of such top-level carnivores are indicative of a healthy ecosystem. While the effects of wolf predation on the moose population were unknown, it was recognized that the effects of predation become more important when a moose population is in decline. Accordingly, actions were taken to reduce the number of moose mortalities attributable to wolf predation. Several initiatives were undertaken

25

with respect to wolves. One initiative included an incentive program for local trappers to increase their harvest of wolves, with the goal of temporarily reducing, but not eliminating, the wolf population in GHA 26. Incentives to trappers included training at wolf trapping workshops, limited provision of traps and financial incentives. The financial incentive helped to offset the high costs associated with trapping wolves (in particular, the costs associated with the need to visit trap lines frequently). Trapping of wolves is an involved process, requiring detailed knowledge of wolf behaviour and a significant amount of a trapper’s time. Prior to the design and implementation of an incentive program for trappers, a series of wolf trapping workshops were held throughout the province, including in Pine Falls, and were designed to provide the knowledge and skills needed to successfully trap wolves. The workshops were sponsored by MBMF, MSD, the Manitoba Trappers Association and Manitoba Cattle Producers Association. A well known Canadian wolf expert and trapper from Alberta led the training workshops. As will be discussed in Section 4.41, the wolf trapper incentive program was not only used to try to temporarily reduce predation pressure on moose, but also used to provide valuable data on wolf diet, in order to test assumptions about what prey species wolves were eating. As such, trappers were required to provide samples of bone (either the entire lower jar or upper premolar tooth), muscle tissue and hide from each wolf trapped. These samples were then analyzed by a graduate student at the University of Manitoba (see Section 4.41 below). The wolf trapping incentive program was implemented in the 2010-11 trapping season and concluded at the end of January 2016. The first year was administered by the MBMF in GHA 26. The program subsequently expanded to other areas of Manitoba (e.g., Duck Mountain, Porcupine Mountain, Swan Pelican area) and administered by MSD from 2011 to 2016. Over the six years of the program in GHA 26, 253 wolves were trapped (Table 2). The number of wolves trapped varied by year, reflecting the ability of trappers to get out to their trap lines due to changes in weather (temperature and snow conditions), trapper priorities and difficulty in trapping wolves. Table 2. Number of wolves trapped in GHA 26 throughout the wolf incentive program.

Year

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Number of trapped wolves

14 57 34 33 65 50

Based on the number of wolves trapped through the incentive program, information from wolf aerial surveys flown during this same period, track studies, and other sources of information, the wolf population in GHA 26 was estimated to be approximately 120. The wolf population estimate of approximately 120 individuals (range of 106 to 141) for GHA 26 represents a density of 15 to 20 wolves per 1,000 km2, which is within a normal range of density with the prey biomass in GHA 26. On an annual basis, the proportion of wolves harvested under the trapper incentive program varied from approximately 10% to 50%. Estimates from other provincial and state jurisdictions suggest that in order for the impact of wolf predation on ungulates to be effectively managed, at least 60% of a wolf population needs to be removed annually on an on-going basis. This high rate and sustained control was never the intention of the GHA 26 trapper incentive program. Rather,

26

the purpose of the incentive program was to temporarily reduce predation pressure by wolves in order to facilitate the initial stages of the moose population recovery. Finally, in addition to the wolf incentive program, MSD also increased the harvest limit from 1 to 2 wolves for resident and non-resident licensed big game hunters in certain GHAs, including GHA 26 (certain additional restrictions also apply). This was instituted in 2010 in GHA 26 and continues to the present. 3.3 White-tailed Deer Management In an effort to reduce the number of white-tailed deer in GHA 26, MSD adjusted hunting regulations, beginning in 2010, to provide more opportunities for deer hunting in GHA 26. The adjusted regulations include the addition of a 3rd tag for an antlerless deer (which is in addition to the first tag available for one antlered or antlerless deer and a second tag available for one antlerless deer) as well as extending the length of the fall deer hunting season (historically from the end of November now to mid December). It is difficult to determine if there have been more white-tailed deer harvested in GHA 26 due to the implementation of the 3rd tag or extended hunting season. The purchase of 3rd deer tags has dropped steadily from 218 in 2010 to only 108 in 2015 (Manitoba Hunting Guides, 2011-2016). However, it should be noted that 3rd deer tags are available not only for GHA 26, but for other GHAs as well. It is not possible to determine what proportion of sales of 3rd deer tags were attributed to GHA 26 over this period. In addition, the total sales figure represent the number of 3rd deer tag licenses sold, not the number of deer harvested. It does appear however, that the deer population in GHA 26 has declined over the last few years. May deer hunters have noted this. This has also been the case in many other GHAs, and likely reflects mortality of deer due to recent harsh winter conditions (and possibly predation) rather than hunter success. Indeed, the number of GHAs with available 2nd and 3rd deer tags has been reduced dramatically in recent years by MSD in response to declining deer populations in parts of the province. Second and 3rd deer tags still remained available in 2016 for GHA 26 though, in the continued effort to reduce the deer population (and by extension, to reduce ability of the wolf population to sustain itself at high numbers).

3.4 Education and Awareness The CCMM and its partners have placed significant emphasis on communicating information and results widely. This occurs through a number of mechanisms, including meetings of the CCMM, workshops jointly sponsored by the CCMM, MSD and others, meetings and discussions between MSD and communities in the region, articles published in regional newspapers, as well as publication and distribution of “Moose News”, a newsletter of the CCMM. Most of this information, including copies of CCMM meeting minutes are found on the MBMF website (www.manitobamodelforest.net) under their Publications page. All of these communication methods were important in getting information out to people on the status of the GHA 26 moose population, factors contributing to the population decline, and actions being taken and/or needed to halt the decline and promote population recovery.

27

3.5 Consultations With Affected Indigenous Communities While the Government of Manitoba has always strived to maintain open dialogue with local indigenous communities regarding natural resource management issues, formal consultations (i.e., those fulfilling the duty to consult as required under Section 35 of the Constitution Act of Canada) began in earnest in 2010, following the results of the 2010 aerial survey. At these consultations the government discussed not only the current status of the moose populations in the region, but also possible causes for the moose population decline in GHA 26 and sought collaborative solutions between Manitoba and the First Nation and Metis communities in and surrounding GHA 26, as well as the Manitoba Metis Federation. Manitoba initially proposed a temporary moose hunting closure to all people, including treaty and aboriginal rights holders, throughout the entire GHA. However, the consultations resulted in a decision by Manitoba to establish a Moose Protection Zone within a portion of the GHA in which moose hunting would be temporarily closed to all people (discussed in Section 3.6 in more detail). As mentioned previously, a number of other management actions to address the moose population decline were initiated prior to infringing on treaty rights to hunt moose. The consultation process continues to this day, including discussions of when and under what conditions to re-open hunting in GHA 26. 3.6 Hunting Closures The moose hunting closure in GHA 26 was implemented in 2 phases, over a relatively short period of time. Immediately following the 2010 moose survey, the entire area of GHA 26 was closed to licensed hunting. Hunting by indigenous people continued throughout GHA 26 as the formal government-to-government consultations occurred. Manitoba accommodated the concerns heard during the consultations by establishing a Zone within a portion of the GHA where moose would be protected from hunting (i.e. the Moose Protection Zone) (Figure 5). The intent of the Moose Protection Zone was to prohibit all moose hunting in strategic areas of the GHA where moose reproductive potential was greatest, while reducing the extent of infringement on rights and allowing some continued opportunity for hunting by indigenous peoples.

28

Figure 5. Moose Protection Zones (closure to hunting by all people) and Moose Conservation Zones (closure to licensed hunting only) in Game Hunting Area 26. Source: Manitoba Sustainable Development. A Moose Conservation Closure was enacted in January 2012 within the Moose Protection Zone of GHA 26. The area affected by the Conservation Closure represents approximately 15% of GHA 26. The Moose Protection Zones represented areas in the GHA that still contained higher moose densities, younger regenerating forests (that provide high value habitat for moose) or areas where access roads make moose particularly vulnerable to hunting (e.g., major roads). The remaining 85% of the GHA 26 (Moose Conservation Zone) (Figure 5) is open to indigenous peoples expressing their treaty and aboriginal rights to hunt moose. While indigenous people are permitted to harvest moose in the Moose Conservation Zone, many have chosen not to, allowing

29

the moose population to potentially recover even more quickly. This conservation ethic is to be applauded and demonstrates the value of such collaborative efforts towards the conservation of moose in our region. 3.7 Officer Patrols Concurrently with the closure of licensed moose hunting in GHA 26, MSD increased patrols and enforcement activities. Since 2010, patrols in GHA 26 by Conservation Officers (COs) have indicated a high level of compliance, with very few moose having been harvested in the Moose Protection Zones (i.e., the zones closed to hunting for all peoples) and few moose harvested illegally by non-indigenous hunters in the remainder of the GHA. Overall, compliance with the hunting closures in GHA 26 has been very good, further assisting recovery of the moose population.

4. MONITORING AND RESEARCH UP TO MARCH 2016 4.1 The Happy Lake Trial: Moose Population Response to Access Control and Hunting Closure Fifteen years prior to the 2010 aerial survey that indicated a significant decline in the GHA 26 moose population, the CCMM was already discussing the effects of access and hunting on the moose population. In 1995, a landscape-level experiment was developed in 3 areas of GHA 26 and 17A in which trials with different access and/or hunting restrictions were put in place and the effects on the moose population were monitored. One of the trial locations was the Happy Lake area in GHA 26, an area where forest harvesting had begun in 1994 and was planned to continue until about 1997. Experience elsewhere in Manitoba had shown that while logging can create favourable habitat for moose, benefits to moose will be negated if the roads created for forest harvesting provide new vehicular access for hunting in previously remote, regenerating forests. The CCMM hypothesized that, with improved habitat conditions created through logging, the moose population in the Happy Lake area would increase if vehicular access and hunting were temporarily closed. The Happy Lake trial area is located at the end of the Happy Lake road, a 30 km all-season resource road on which public vehicular travel had already been prohibited by a regulation under the Crown Lands Act (Figure 5). The regulatory road closure was augmented by a locked gate, where the Happy Lake road began at its junction with the Translicence Road. In 1997 a moose hunting closure was enacted throughout the Happy Lake trial area. Forest harvesting was completed in 2002, and in 2003 the resource roads in the trial area were decommissioned and a bridge crossing the Moose River at the entrance to the trial area was removed. Additionally, barricades and millstones were placed at several locations further south along the Happy Lake road. It should be noted that the vehicular access and hunting closures also applied to indigenous peoples. Local First Nations were contacted with information on the proposed measures and while discussions occurred with their representatives these consultations were not at the level which they would be expected to occur today.

30

Figure 6. Happy Lake Management Trial Area in GHA 26. The area planned for forest harvesting and monitoring of moose (approximately 62 km²) is depicted in green. The Happy Lake experiment demonstrated the combined effects of a hunting closure and access control on a local moose population. A strong increasing population trend was evident from 1996 (one year pre-access control/hunting closure) through to 2005 (one year after the hunting closure was lifted and access controls were relaxed). Minimum moose counts increased from 28 to 117 moose from 1996 to 2005 (Figure 7) during this period, representing an increase in density from 0.5 moose per km² to 1.9 moose per km².

Figure 7. Moose numbers observed in the Happy Lake Management Trial Area derived from aerial strip transect surveys. Numbers represent minimum counts of moose in the trial area in each survey year. Surveys were not flown in all years. Arrows illustrate periods of various management applications. 1Most of the physical barriers were removed in 2004, but the gate remained closed and the regulatory closure continued to be enforced. By 2006 the regulatory closure no longer applied to indigenous peoples, and the gate was rarely locked.

The hunting closure was lifted in 2004. The barricades and millstones along the Happy Lake road were removed that same year to provide logging access for a new forest harvesting area to the west of the Happy Lake trial area, but the gate remained in place and public vehicular travel on

Access Control, Hunting Closure 2

Forest Harvesting

Access Controls Relaxed 1

Hunting Closure Lifted

31

the road continued to be prohibited by regulation. In 2006, MSD advised local First Nations that the gate would remain in place for safety purposes (due to hazards associations with heavy logging traffic), but that indigenous peoples were no longer subject to the regulatory vehicular prohibitions. After 2006, the gate was rarely locked. By 2007, local people were reporting that they were observing fewer moose in both the Trial Area and the overall GHA. Some of these people also expressed concerns about unsustainable moose harvests occurring in the Trial Area, and in other parts of the GHA where moose densities were known to be higher. A follow-up survey of the Trial Area in 2008 (Figure 7) provided a minimum count of 65 moose, which represented a 44% decrease in moose observations from that observed (117) in 2005. The Happy Lake Trial was limited to a small (62 km²) forest harvest area where two variables affecting moose mortality (hunting and access) were controlled, but no actions were undertaken to manage or limit other sources of moose mortality (e.g. predation, parasites and disease). Therefore, the Happy Lake Trial was not designed to manipulate any factors other than human access and hunting. The Trial provided several lessons:

1. Forest harvesting can create habitat conditions favourable to moose population growth; however; forestry operations must be coupled with motorized access controls and hunting closures for a sustained increasing population trend.

2. Any positive population effects associated with forest harvesting will rapidly be reversed when access controls are relaxed and former hunting regimes resume.

3. Indigenous peoples and others with an interest in moose conservation must be active participants in identifying issues, planning management approaches and implementing conservation actions.

It is recognized that direct human-induced mortality is only one component of the inter-related suite of factors influencing moose populations. Nonetheless, the lessons learned from the Happy Lake experience are valuable considerations for managing the GHA 26 moose population today and into the future:

1. Indigenous peoples and others with an interest in moose conservation must be active participants in identifying issues, planning management approaches and implementing conservation actions.

2. The re-introduction of hunting to a formerly closed area (such as the current situation in GHA 26), must be carefully planned, be agreed upon and respected by all interested parties, must be properly resourced and implemented, the outcomes carefully monitored and the process adaptively managed.

4.2 Explorations of Wildlife Distribution Patterns During the 15-year period up to 2010, numerous monitoring activities had been occurring to study the occurrence, distribution and/or abundance of moose, white-tailed deer, woodland caribou and wolves in GHA 26. Several of these activities provide data appropriate to examining the spatial (geographic) distribution of moose relative to other ungulates (white-tailed deer, woodland caribou) and wolves. These activities included: a) aerial multispecies surveys, to map the distribution of wolves and ungulate species in woodland caribou wintering areas, b) GPS collaring of woodland caribou, to provide data on caribou movements and habitat use, and c) aerial moose surveys, which provide distribution information on moose and white-tailed deer.

32

Data from these monitoring activities were made available for student projects examining aspects of species’ distribution overlap in GHA 26. In one project, a University of Manitoba graduate student placed very high frequency (VHF) and global position system (GPS) collars on wolves for the purpose of investigating wolf use of natural and anthropogenic features in the northern area of GHA 26 (Davis, 2012). This study involved the first use of radio collars on wolves in Manitoba. One component of the project used the wolf collar data in conjunction with caribou GPS locations and aerial survey data to examine the relative density distributions of wolves, moose and woodland caribou. Davis’ study demonstrated a strong spatial overlap between higher wolf densities and higher moose densities, whereas higher caribou densities were associated with lower moose and wolf densities (Figure 8). The analyses suggest that wolves are selecting areas where moose densities are higher. The analyses also illustrate how woodland caribou selectively use the landscape to separate themselves from moose (and thus reduce their risk of encounters with wolves). Figure 8. Spatial overlap in moose (blue shading), woodland caribou (green lines) and wolves (red lines) in the northern potion of GHA 26 from 2006-2009. Darker shading and lines indicate higher density of each wildlife species. (Davis, 2012). In another project, an undergraduate student at the University of Manitoba examined potential factors affecting the presence/absence of moose in GHA 26 (Shura and Roth 2013). The student examined four potential factors: the presence of white-tailed deer, the presence of major all-weather roads, recent fires (1980-2010) and recent logged areas (1983 -2010). The presence of white-tailed deer, forest fires, logged areas and roads were mapped and overlaid with a system of 397 grid units (Figure 9).

33

Figure 9. Maps of GHA 26 with the grid system and locations of four potential factors affecting the presence/absence of moose: a) white-tailed deer 1(2010), b) forest fires (1980-2010), c) logged areas (1983-2010), and, d) major roads (from Shura and Roth 2013). 1 White-tailed deer presence was mapped using observations of deer and deer beds, tracks and cratering recorded during the stratification component of the 2010 aerial moose survey of GHA 26. Locations of moose and moose tracks observed during the 2010 moose survey were produced on a fifth map and overlain with the grid system. Each of the 397 grid units were examined for the presence of moose and each of the four potential factors. Analyses were then performed to see which of the potential factors best predicted moose presence. The best predictors of moose presence were logged areas and recently burned areas; i.e. there was a higher probability of these factors being present in units where moose were present than where moose were absent (Figure 10). The best predictor of moose absence was the presence of deer; i.e. there was a higher probability of encountering deer in units where moose were absent. There was no relation between moose presence or absence and roads; i.e. the probability of roads being present was similar in units where moose were present and moose were absent. Shura and Roth concluded that disturbances created by both fire and logging generate habitat conditions favourable to moose, and that controlled burns and forest harvesting should be considered as management options to help increase the GHA moose population. Figure 10. Probability of encountering each predictor factor in grid units with or without moose present (from Shura and Roth 2013).

34

The study determined that deer presence was the most important of all factors examined in predicting the absence of moose. The absence of moose where deer are present was expected and provides support for the view that deer are impacting the moose population. While Shura and Roth acknowledged that brainworm is highly implicated in affecting moose populations, they suggested that other parasites and deer-moose competition for other resources (food, cover) may also be contributing factors.

4.3 Brainworm Parasite: Prevalence Monitoring Brainworm is thought to be a contributing cause of moose population decline in eastern Manitoba, northern Minnesota and north-western Ontario. MSD began a brainworm monitoring study in GHA 26 (and adjacent GHAs) in 2012 in an effort to document the geographic occurrence of the brainworm parasite and prevalence of infection of white-tailed deer. To study parasite prevalence, MSD asked hunters to submit deer heads for examination. Deer heads were also submitted from other sources (e.g., vehicle accidents, etc.). Over the 5 years of monitoring conducted to date, more than 83% of deer heads examined were infected with the brainworm parasite (Table 3), with an average of 2.19 nematode worms found per infected individual. Examining deer heads collected in eastern Manitoba in 1989 and 1990, Wasel et al (2003) found a parasite prevalence of between 53 and 67%. The current study suggests an increase in brainworm prevalence in eastern Manitoba. Table 3. Number of deer heads examined for the presence of the brainworm parasite within the brain cavity and associated sinuses in GHA 26, 34 and 36 in eastern Manitoba between 2012 and 2016. White-tailed deer identified as positive had one or more nematodes present within their head. No nematodes were found in white-tailed deer identified as negative. Infection intensity is presented as an average of the total number of nematodes observed within each deer head. Source: Manitoba Sustainable Development.

Statistic

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Positive 26 61 19 24 20 150 Negative 4 12 5 6 2 29

Total 30 73 24 30 22 179 Prevalence 86.7% 83.6% 79.2% 80.0% 90.9% 83.8% Infection Intensity

2.23 2.18 2.55 1.56 2.45 2.19

Figure 11 shows the geographic distribution of the incidence of brainworm infection in white-tailed deer based on deer heads submitted to and analyzed by MSD. The samples submitted span several game hunting areas in eastern Manitoba. The prevalence of brainworm in white-tailed deer appears to be widespread.

35

Figure 11. Geographic incidence of the brainworm parasite in white-tailed deer from 2012-2014 in eastern Manitoba. Source: Manitoba Sustainable Development.

4.4 Wolf Studies

4.4.1 Wolf Diet Study: Stable Isotope Analysis As mentioned previously, one of the objectives of the wolf trapping incentive program was to provide information on what prey species make up the wolf diet in GHA 26. In order to participate in the incentive program, trappers were required to submit samples of bone, muscle tissue, hair and teeth from the wolves they trapped. Similar samples were also obtained for potential prey species, such as moose, deer, woodland caribou, beaver and snowshoe hare, from a variety of sources and activities (e.g., hunting, trapping, accidents with vehicles and opportunistic discovery of animal carcasses). Therefore, samples were submitted from both the predator (wolf) and potential prey species. Using stable isotope analysis, we can determine an estimated proportion of various prey species in the wolf diet. However, this technique does have limitations as it does not provide information on prey demographics (i.e., sex and age), condition of prey and specific time and location of predation event. Stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen atoms are present in all life forms at different ratios (e.g., stable isotope signature for moose will be different than caribou), and by

36

comparing the stable isotope signatures from different prey species in various tissues, an understanding of the approximate proportion of each prey species in a predator’s diet can be obtained. The main premise of the stable isotope technique is based on the idea “you are what you eat”, meaning that the stable isotope ratios of each prey species get incorporated in the predator’s tissues. In addition, by examining various tissues which have different turnover rates (cells from different tissues will be replaced at a different rate), one can discern both short-term (e.g., the last few months) proportions of various prey species in the diet of wolves, as well as a lifetime average proportion (i.e., for example, the average proportion of deer in a particular wolf’s diet over its entire lifespan). As an alternative method, wolf scat can also be examined to determine what recent prey species have been consumed. However, this technique only provides a short-term view of what species was consumed and does not indicate what proportion of the diet each prey species represents. Working closely with Dr. Roth, a specialist in stable isotope analysis at the University of Manitoba, MSD and the CCMM are getting a general picture of wolf diet in GHA 26. Although there appears to be significant annual variation in both winter and summer diet of wolves in GHA 26, the dominant prey species in winter were deer and moose, whereas the dominant species in summer were beaver and moose (Fox and Roth 2016). In addition, the proportion of deer in the wolf diet is much higher in wolves trapped in the southern portion of the GHA, which is consistent with the high densities of deer occurring in this portion of the GHA relative to the northern portion. However, stable isotope analysis indicates that deer is also present in the diet of wolves that were trapped in the northern portion of the GHA. This could be explained by the ability of wolves to travel great distances in their territories in search of food (in the southern half) or wolves selecting for deer in the northern half despite their relatively low densities in that portion of the GHA.

4.4.2 Wolf Kill Site Investigations Another method of determining what wolves are preying upon in GHA 26 is by directly visiting prey kill sites. As will be discussed in Section 4.5, wolves in GHA 26 have been fitted with real-time GPS collars. These collars track the movements of individual wolves (and packs that are associated with the collared wolves) on a bi-hourly basis. When movement rates of the collared wolves decline significantly, or the wolves stop moving all together for a period of time, forming a cluster of locations, this can indicate a kill has been made and that the wolves are feeding. The cessation of movement by wolves can also be attributed to other factors (e.g., resting, denning, etc.). Location data from the collars are received by MSD on a daily basis, allowing Daniel Dupont, wildlife staff and PhD student at Memorial University of Newfoundland to locate and investigate a potential kill site as soon as possible. Kill site investigations began in 2014 and more than 600 sites have been investigated to date, a subset of which are summarized in Figure 12.

37

Figure 12. Number (and percentage) of species identified at kill site, scavenging site and probable kill site visited between February 14 and October 31 2016 for five wolf packs in GHA 26. Source: Manitoba Sustainable Development Beaver and moose were found at over 80% of kill, probable kill and scavenging sites (Figure 12). Although there were more beaver kills found than any other species, the biomass consumed at beaver kills is less relative to a moose or white-tailed deer. There were significantly more locations where wolves spent a few hours (characteristic of beaver kills) as opposed to several hours or days (characteristic of moose kills). A much smaller proportion of smaller clusters of location were examined relative to larger clusters of locations meaning the results are biased towards larger prey. Biomass needs to be taken into account when analysing results (moose has a greater biomass than beaver) as does the proportion of visited clusters of locations in order to estimate the true number of each prey killed. The higher proportion of moose vs white-tailed deer at kill sites likely reflects the deployment of GPS collars on wolves mostly in the northern portion of GHA 26 (where white-tailed deer densities are significantly lower relative to the southern half). Plans are underway to deploy more GPS collars on wolves in the southern portion of GHA 26 in February 2018. Kill site investigations not only provide information as to the species preyed upon, but can also provide other valuable information such as the condition, age, and sex of the prey, the time of the predation event and any local environmental factors having potentially influenced the predation event. Prey remains are examined for parasites and injuries, which can affect overall health. A bone marrow sample (from leg bones or jaw of moose) can provide information on the overall health of the animal prior to its death. The fat content in bone marrow is the last fat reserves utilised by an ungulate. Although bone marrow with fat does not automatically equate good overall heath as the prey could have depleted all other fat reserves, low to no bone marrow fat does mean the prey was in very poor overall heath.

62 - 29%

110 - 52%

17 - 8%

3 - 1%

15 - 7%

1 - <1%

2 - 1%

1 - <1%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Moose

Beaver

Deer

Snowshoe hare

Fish

Bear

Bird

Garbage

Number of sites

Sp

eci

es

Probable kills

Scavenging sites

Kill site

38

4.5 GPS collaring of Moose and Wolves The advances in GPS collar technology and capabilities have allowed researchers to study, in detail, seasonal habitat use, movements, home ranges and other attributes of animal behaviour (e.g., predation) of various wildlife species. This has provided data that would otherwise be difficult to obtain through traditional field studies. In February 2012, the CCMM and MSD deployed real time GPS collars on 2 cow moose, the first ever use of GPS collars on moose in Manitoba. A total of 18 moose collars have been deployed since 2012. As part of a predator-prey study in eastern Manitoba, an additional 38 moose will be fitted with GPS collars during the winter of 2017-18. When the GPS moose location data is combined with other spatial data (e.g., land cover, roads and trails, water bodies, industrial activities such as forestry and mining), it can provide a powerful tool to understand how moose travel and use various landscapes and habitat and respond to human activities. This type of analysis will be conducted. Figure 13 shows the movements of 2 collared cow moose over a 3-month period in the northern portion of GHA 26. The figure illustrates the use of recent forest harvest areas by moose.

39

Figure 13. GPS location data of 2 cow moose from April 1 to July 1, 2012 near Quesnel Lake and the community of Bissett (northern portion of GHA 26). Source: Manitoba Sustainable Development. In the past 5 years 26 wolves have been fitted with GPS collars in GHA 26. There are currently 8 wolves fitted with GPS collars in three different packs. An additional 14 wolves (in 5 packs) in both the southern and northern portion of GHA 26 will be collared in February 2018. This will provide a much larger dataset on wolf movements as well as more locations for kill site investigations. Wolf packs continually travel throughout their territories in search of food and their territory size can be relatively small (30-50 km2) if prey is readily available, or much larger if prey is scarce. Lone wolves (i.e., wolves not associated with a pack) in particular, can travel great distances as they search for an area to establish a territory. Figure 14 shows the travel of a lone wolf that was fitted with a GPS collar near the community of Bissett in March 2008. Over a period of 3 months, the lone wolf traveled from eastern Manitoba, to northern Minnesota and finally to north-western Ontario (near Thunder Bay), where the animal was ultimately trapped approximately 1 year after initiating its journey from Manitoba. The wolf travelled more than 3,100 km over this time period, with the majority of the distance being covered during the first 3 months.

40

Figure 14. GPS locations of a lone wolf, originally collared near Bissett, Manitoba and ultimately trapped near Thunder Bay, Ontario 1 year later (Davis, 2012)

4.6 Understanding Indigenous Community Needs for Moose While MSD can track the number of moose harvested by licensed hunters, there is at present no method to assess the level of moose harvest by indigenous hunters. To fully understand all sources of mortality of moose, and thus to be better able to manage the moose population in GHA 26, information on community harvests is critical. This information will help address current deficiencies in our understanding of the recent total harvest of moose in the region, and contribute to more accurate information used for population modeling (see next section).

4.7 Moose Population Modeling A population model is a computer-based tool that biologists use to predict how a population of animals will respond to different situations (scenarios). Models are commonly used to estimate the outcome for an ungulate population under managed harvest and no-harvest scenarios. A moose population model requires the input of demographic information on the “starting” population; i.e. numbers of animals and age/sex composition of the population. The model then requires age-specific and gender-specific inputs on variables affecting birth and death rates, such as fecundity (reproduction), hunting, predation, disease and accidents. For example, fecundity is related to both gender and age, as reproductive rates are different for yearling vs. 3-year old vs.

41

mature cows. Similarly, death rates from wolf predation, bear predation, hunting and parasites will vary according to age and/or gender. Once all the inputs are made, the model tracks births, aging and deaths in the population over time. If the objective is to predict what the population will look like under different hunting scenarios (e.g. no harvest vs. bulls only vs. any moose), then the estimated numbers of deaths of calves, cows and bulls for each of these different scenarios are entered into the model, one scenario at a time. The model then produces a projected population outcome for each scenario. The purpose of modeling is to predict the direction and level of the population trend (e.g. stable vs. gradual increase vs. steep decline) under different management regimes. The predictive strength of a model can be gauged by comparing projected trends with how the population actually responds to a specific management regime. Models are not, however, appropriate tools for predicting point estimates of populations over time. All model inputs are estimated values, and the reliability of the model outputs (predictions) will be related to the quality of the inputs. The strength of model predictions will improve when current, local, information on a moose population is available. The projects currently underway or planned in eastern Manitoba (GPS collaring of wolves and moose, aerial wolf and moose surveys) will provide area-specific data needed for modeling the GHA 26 moose population. As new knowledge is acquired through these research and monitoring projects, the predictive strength of the model should improve. Modeling will help inform CCMM discussions on when and how to revise the moose hunting closures in GHA 26. Different outcomes are expected under different hunting regimes, e.g. general season vs. limited draws, selective harvests vs. any moose. The model outputs will provide visual comparisons of the population trends predicted under various hunting scenarios, as well as, the hunting scenario required to achieve a desired population trend (stable, gradually increasing, strongly increasing). Modeling therefore provides a valuable tool for estimating the projected outcomes of management decisions before those decisions are made.

4.8 Monitoring the Moose Population Response to Actions Taken It is evident from the discussions throughout this document that many research, monitoring and management actions have been underway for many years to understand the moose population in GHA 26, to determine the causes of the recent decline in the moose population and to not only halt that declining trend, but to reverse it. Credit must be given to the wide diversity of partners of the CCMM, who have worked tirelessly to ensure a sustainable moose population in GHA 26 and beyond. As discussed previously and illustrated in Figure 2, aerial surveys conducted up to the winter of 2016/17 suggest that the moose decline has halted, but that there has been no demonstrated recovery in moose numbers from the low first detected in 2010. As was also discussed, these types of surveys are best suited for monitoring population trends rather than representing accurate variations in moose counts between survey years. Accordingly, additional surveys will be needed to track longer-term trends, and to determine whether the population is increasing or recovery is being impeded.

42

5. Moose Recovery and Management Recommendations Population Objective A population objective of 1600 to 2000 moose in Game Hunting Area (GHA) 26 (based on a trend estimation) should be established If the moose population is 1300 or more:

Additional hunting opportunities will be provided for rights-based hunters Licensed hunting opportunities be re-introduced

If the moose population falls below 900, hunting should be severely restricted or closed entirely to licensed and rights-based hunters Moose Population Surveys Given the importance of having a timely and accurate population estimate for management purposes, moose population surveys in GHA 26 should be conducted every 2 to 3 years Manitoba Sustainable Development (MSD) should investigate additional methods for monitoring changes in the moose population between survey years Partnership Mechanisms The Committee for Cooperative Moose Management (CCMM) recognizes the importance of indigenous peoples and their rights and responsibilities. As such, First Nations and their elected officials, and Metis communities and the Manitoba Metis Federation should be part of developing recovery actions and be involved in the long-term management of the moose population in GHA 26 MSD should develop a co-management regime concerning moose. The co-management regime needs to include indigenous peoples and licensed hunters, as well as other interested partners GHA 26, which has experienced a significant moose population decline and also has an existing cooperative moose management committee, should be a priority area for the development of a moose co-management regime As a neutral body, the Manitoba Model Forest (MBMF) will continue to play a lead role in facilitating the development of a co-management regime in eastern Manitoba In the recent past, Traditional Area Advisory Committees, created and supported (financially and through provision of human resources) by the MBMF, provided an effective mechanism for dialogue between First Nation communities, government and resource industries regarding natural resources in traditional areas. MSD, the communities and other partners should explore avenues to re-establish/create these important committees MSD should provide opportunities for non-government individuals to receive training and participate in aerial wildlife surveys Re-introduction of Moose Hunting to GHA 26 When the government decision is made to re-open hunting for moose in GHA 26 following the 2010 closure, MSD will provide the CCMM the opportunity to assist in determining how the moose harvest is reintroduced (e.g., seasons, on-going closures, sustainable harvest limit and number of tags for licensed hunters, draws, bulls only harvest, consideration for indigenous needs, refuges, vehicle restrictions, e.g.). The CCMM also recommends that additional hunting opportunities to rights-based, and new hunting opportunities to licensed hunters be implemented concurrently. The CCMM recognizes that sustainability of the moose population is of primary importance

43

Patrols and Enforcement and Safety There are currently two vacancies for Conservation Officers in the Lac du Bonnet and Pine Falls Districts, and another five vacancies in the region. As part of ensuring a long-term sustainable moose population in GHA 26, increased enforcement must be a priority for MSD and be appropriately resourced. This includes enforcement of illegal instances of hunting in GHA 26, similar to the effort that occurred in 2016 The CCMM recommends the addition of two Conservation Officer positions in Bissett, positions that existed previously The CCMM recommends that the province establish full-time Resource Management Assistant (RMA) positions in all eastern Manitoba First Nation communities The CCMM recommends that MSD facilitate the establishment of community-based Conservation Officers positions in First Nation communities MSD should work closely with indigenous peoples and other partners to create and implement a policy on night hunting that protects the safety of all Manitobans, includes consideration of the sustainability of the moose population, and that is amenable to rights-based hunters Research, Monitoring and Reporting MSD needs to monitor other ungulates (e.g., woodland caribou, white-tailed deer) and predators (e.g., wolves, bears) in GHA 26. The frequency and methods of monitoring must be appropriate to moose management objectives. MSD should continually investigate alternative and innovative moose survey methods, as well as assess current survey and monitoring methods to ensure that they are effective and responsive to changes in conditions (e.g., climate change) To facilitate communication and in order to provide the public with information on the province’s wildlife, and consistent with the requirements of section 83 of The Wildlife Act, every five years MSD will report on a) the status of animals listed in Schedule A, b) wildlife management programs implemented and an assessment of their effectiveness, c) an analysis of trends in, and a forecast of demands for the use of wildlife resources in the province, and d) an evaluation of the capability of the wildlife resource in the province to meet anticipated demands. The CCMM sees this as a valuable and necessary document and tool for working towards a wildlife co-management model Given the high costs of population-level surveys of big game animals, MSD should develop a system of wildlife monitoring and reporting utilizing the vast knowledge base and observations of partners in the region Appropriate resources needs to be available to continue to understand the factors affecting the current decline and future recovery of the GHA 26 moose population. This could include support for research and monitoring on parasites and disease, and predation (e.g., by wolves, bears). This new knowledge should be incorporated into a moose population model With effective fire suppression and a lack of forest harvesting in the region, the long-term availability of high quality habitat for moose is in decline. A research study should be conducted to evaluate how the various habitats utilized by moose has changed over the last few decades, the current status of habitat and how habitat supply will change in the future under scenarios of fire suppression, no forest harvesting and climate change, as well as changes in habitat carrying capacity for moose As part of a shared management strategy, and in order to gain a more accurate knowledge of the moose harvest, mandatory reporting by all hunters should be required

44

Lands Use Policy and Practices In the absence of fire, the present provincial policy that prohibits forestry operations in most parks is having a significant, negative long-term impact on habitat renewal for moose. The province needs to reconsider this policy. The CCMM recommends that the province recognize the important role and benefit of fire (natural and prescribed burns) in habitat renewal for moose, and that fire management policy and actions reflect this. Communications, Outreach and Networking Outreach and communication activities should be developed and shared to promote the sustainable harvest of moose The curriculum supplement on moose, developed by the MBMF, be distributed and promoted in schools throughout Manitoba On-going communication needs to continue with partners and communities, regarding the status of the moose population, factors affecting the population, and management actions taken and their effectiveness Given the geographically widespread decline in moose populations, MSD should work closely with neighbouring provincial and state government agencies to understand the causes of moose population declines Financial Support of MBMF and CCMM Given the importance of the both the MBMF and its CCMM as a primary and important mechanism to engage indigenous communities and other partners in eastern Manitoba for wildlife management, the Province of Manitoba would be well served by providing annual and on-going financial support to the MBMF and CCMM Note: Throughout this document, the CCMM uses the term co-management and shared management interchangeably. The committee does not have an operating definition of what such management entails and how it could be structured. However, the CCMM firmly believes that management of wildlife species must take a new and shared approach, and include those with a vested interest, especially indigenous peoples, licensed hunters and others. The CCMM wishes to assist in dialogue that will define and create such a management system.

6. Literature Cited Davis, T.J. 2012. The role of anthropogenic corridors in the interactions between wolves (Canus lupis), caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) and moose (Alces alces) in eastern Manitoba. University of Manitoba thesis. 120 pp. Fox, D.M. and J.D. Roth, 2016. Diet reconstruction of wolves in areas of moose decline in southern Manitoba. Project report to Manitoba Sustainable Development. 19 pp. Gasaway, W.C., S.D. Dubois and S.J. Harbo. 1985. Biases in aerial transect surveys for moose during May and June. Journal of Wildlife Management. 49: 777-784.

45

Manitoba Hunting Guides. 2010-2017. www.gov.mb.ca/wildlife/hunting/pdfs/huntingguide2017_web.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2017. Manitoba Public Insurance. 2017. www.mpi.mb.ca. Accessed June 8, 2017. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2013. Moose Resource Report: Wildlife Management Unit 6. www.ontario.ca/moose. Accessed October 2, 2016. Shura, C.K. and J.D. Roth, 2013. Impacts on declining moose populations in southeastern Manitoba. Proceedings of the University of Manitoba’s Undergraduate Science and Engineering Research 1:20-26.